 |
| (US Capitol, Washington DC. Courtesy photo by Andrew Bossi. From Wikimedia Commons) |
The
DHS was established amidst strong challenges and oppositions from union
leaders, political activists, and civil
libertarians and from members of Congress
themselves. The monetary costs of establishing the DHS became a big issue.
Oppositions said that that Bush Administration has created a “big government”
that added burden to the tax-paying public for the big expenditures. Also, the fear that DHS would infringe the
civil liberties of the citizens were sounded-off by the civil libertarians.
There were trade-offs on the costs and benefits of establishing the DHS, but in the end, the benefits of security to the nation had outweighed the
cost in monetary obligations.
The
Bush Administration’s original plan was to have different personnel systems in
the DHS. The plan will allow the Homeland Security Secretary to regulate the
pay schedule, performance measures and termination policies. The American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGA) opposed this as the proposal
accordingly would diminish the rights of the federal employees to form and join
unions.
However,
the Senior Executive Association (SEA) supported the President on the ground
that “the organizational challenges inherent in creating this new Department
and the importance of its mission to all Americans necessitate maintaining
current Presidential authority related to national security exclusions from
collective bargaining.” Because of the controversy on the civil service issue
the legislative proposal has created and the fear that the legislative proposal
would be stranded in the Senate, the Republican House leaders Dick Armey and
Rep. Rob Portman modified the H.R. 5005 to include the traditional rights of
the employees.
The
American Civil Liberties Union was very vocal against the establishment of DHS
because of the fear that it would operate in secrecy and with no public
accountability. On their press release on June 25, 2002, ACLU legislative counsel Timothy Edgar said, “If you like the
idea of a government agency that is 100 percent secret and 0 percent
accountable, you'll love the new Homeland Security Department . . . The
Administration's plan exempts the new agency from a host of laws designed to
keep the government open and accountable
and to protect whistleblowers."
One
of the oppositions to H.R. 5005 is
Congressman Ron Paul, who said, “Congress
was led to believe that the legislation would be a simple reorganization aimed
at increasing efficiency, not an attempt to expand federal power. Fiscally
conservative members of Congress were even told that the bill would be budget
neutral! Yet, when the House of Representatives initially considered creating a
Department of Homeland Security, the legislative vehicle almost overnight grew
from 32 pages to 282 pages- and the cost had ballooned to at least $3 billion.”
Moreover, some Democratic Party
leaders like Senator Tom Daschle opposed certain provisions of the bill. He was against giving the pharmaceutical
companies who make vaccines the protection from liability. He did not like the creation of a research
center in the Texas A&M University for Homeland Security programs. He also
contested the holding of secret meetings by the advisory committee that will
favor the corporate lobbyists and the protection from liability of the
companies who make anti-terror technologies or products. The Democrats
found a supporter in Senator John McCain (R). The opponents to the provisions
contend that the Bush administration had politicized the establishment of the
DHS by catering to the interests of the special groups.
The
consolidation of other government agencies into the Homeland Security was not
met favorably by congressmen in charge of the committees that supervise the affected
offices. The agency-transfer would mean losing oversight, influence, and
budgetary control. Because the Congress
has the control on the budget of Homeland
Security, it was not surprising that the establishment of DHS fell to the whims and caprices of congressmen who
worried more about losing their clout over their committees than the threats
the terrorists posed to the nation.
The
process of identifying the costs of establishing the DHS and the benefits
coming from its existence were debated passionately throughout the
deliberations in Congress and in the
public hearings by the committee. The positive
angles, as well as the negative sides of establishing a central domestic
anti-terror agency outside the FBI, was seriously studied. In the end, the benefits DHS will provide to
the nation outweighed the monetary costs and complexities of consolidating
other federal agencies into one organization.
H.R.
5005, which had 118 co-sponsors, was passed in the House of Representatives by
a YES vote of 295 and a NO vote of 132.
H.R. 5005 was received in the Senate on July 30, 2002, and was passed with an amendment
by a YES vote of 90 to a No vote of 9 on November 19, 2002. The H.R. 5005 was
subjected to 409 amendments in the House and the Senate floors, and finally on
November 25, 2002, H.R. 5005 was signed by President Bush. H.R. 5005, otherwise
known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, had paved the way for the largest
reorganization of the federal government since the passage of the 1947 National
Security Act that created the Department of Defense, the National Security
Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency.
