Grassley Urges Good Oversight, Fiscal Management of New Security Agency


? Sen. Chuck Grassley, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, today offered comments and concerns about the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security. He urged strong internal oversight provisions, whistleblower protections, and cost-efficient, non-duplicative operations.

Grassley, a long-time advocate of aggressive government oversight and a key author of successful legislation protecting whistleblowers, wrote a letter to Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security. The text of his letter follows.

June 19, 2002

The Honorable Tom Ridge

Director, Office of Homeland Security

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20502

Dear Director Ridge:

The creation of a Cabinet-level department to oversee homeland security is a tremendous undertaking for the White House. Multiple challenges include overcoming established agencies' drive for self-preservation and long-standing interagency turf battles. Regardless of these difficulties, we have no choice but to strengthen national security, and I appreciate the President's commitment to doing so. I would like to do everything I can to enhance the effectiveness of this new department.

After an initial review of the proposed outline of legislation creating the new department, I have some questions and some concerns in the following areas:

Whistleblowers:

(1) Whistleblowers are key to exposing a dysfunctional bureaucracy. They understand the culture that produces wrongful behavior, and their knowledge leads to institutional reform. FBI agent Coleen Rowley is the most recent in a series of whistleblowers who have revealed the bureaucratic inefficiencies of a federal agency.

Since September 11, government agencies have placed a greater emphasis on secrecy and restricted information for security reasons, understandably so, in some cases. But, with these restrictions come a greater danger of stopping the legitimate disclosure of wrongdoing and mismanagement, especially about public safety and security. Bureaucracies have an instinct to cover up their misdeeds and mistakes, and that temptation is even greater when they can use a potential security issue as an excuse. This is why it is critical to give adequate whistleblower protections to each and every employee of the new homeland security department, with no exceptions. Will the Administration guarantee the full application of the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act to employees?

Agency Oversight:

(1) Each federal agency must have appropriate oversight. An aggressive, completely independent inspector general ensures that agencies perform their mandated duties in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.

A skilled, independent inspector general will be critical to both the establishment and continued operation of the new department. Some components from existing agencies that will come under the new department have not been performing at an optimal level. For example, the root causes of the ineffectiveness of the Immigration and Naturalization Service will not be rectified by merely moving it underneath the umbrella of homeland security. A pro-active inspector general needs to examine any pre-existing faulty business practices and make recommendations for improvements throughout the new department. In plain words, we can't build a new house with bad bricks. After the transition is complete and the department is in place, the inspector general regularly should conduct audits, and monitor adherence to performance measures and compliance with strategic planning initiatives, among other internal quality control functions.

The Administration's draft bill language states that the "secretary may prohibit the Inspector General from carrying out or completing any audit or investigation." The draft language describing the circumstances under which the secretary will use this power is broad. Please elaborate on how often and the circumstances under which the secretary will exercise this power.

(2) In general, how will the Administration ensure aggressive, impartial oversight of a tremendously far-reaching department with control over billions of tax dollars ? a department that news reports say will become the government's third-largest in terms of the number of employees?

Good Government and Fiscal Responsibility:

(1) I hope the Administration will keep its word that this new department will not expand the size of the federal government. In fact, this proposal should shrink government in the long run by reducing duplicative administrative jobs. The focus has to be on homeland security, not job security. I am going to watch that agencies losing staff or funds do not try to replicate what they give to homeland security just to keep their turf. In the name of good government and fiscal responsibility, has the Administration identified any redundancies in the bureaucracies of the agencies that are to be redirected to the new department? If so, what are they?

(2) With agencies or groups, either coming over in whole or in part, from existing bureaus and departments, to what extent does the Administration foresee the realization of cost efficiencies?

(3) I am sure that this plan to create the new department considers that there will be a multitude of procurement practices, hiring and retention plans, health and safety programs, pay plans and personnel procedures, and management and organizational methods, among many other differences, that will be brought up for consideration. Has the Administration identified the best and most effective of these diverse, and sometimes competing, business methods?

Intelligence Gathering, Sharing and Analysis:

(1) The necessary compilation, sharing and analysis of intelligence data obtained is critical to our nation in this war against terrorism, both internally and developed from and about our enemies outside our borders. However, interagency fighting and turf battles can hinder the war on terrorism. Just this week, The Washington Post reported that interagency battles have hurt the administration's efforts to find and forfeit Al Qaeda assets. Likewise, protectionism is a problem that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is fighting as it re-organizes. These are the very types of problems that the government's new approach to homeland security must address. In general, how do you expect to deal with these turf issues, both between agencies that will be subsumed by the new department, and between the new department and the FBI and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)?

(2) Specifically on the sharing and analysis of intelligence information, please explain exactly how the FBI, CIA, and other U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies will interact with the new department. Other entities, such as the Justice Department's Terrorism Tracking Task Force (to track illegal aliens), and the Treasury Department's Operation Green Quest (which monitors financial transactions), and FinCen do just what I am talking about. How will the new department interact with them? Have we gone far enough in this reorganization plan? Should these organizations also be integrated into the Department of Homeland Security?

(3) Sharing this information is important, but what exactly happens to it once it is received is critical. I'm referring to technology: data mining and link analysis, in addition to human intelligence. The application of commercially available software, let alone some proprietary confidential technology, will surely improve our ability to identify trends, patterns of behavior, and the precursors of an imminent attack. The proper handling and appropriate accountability thereof will prevent the mistakes previously made by our intelligence community. What new techniques does the department propose to employ that will ensure that intelligence information is handled and analyzed correctly?

Cyber Security and Information Sharing:

(1) The Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Division within the new Department will combine such entities as part of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) from the FBI, the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) from Commerce, and the Federal Computer Incident Response Center from the General Services Administration (GSA), among others. How does the Administration perceive this division working with the other federal infrastructure protection concerns not brought under the jurisdiction of the new department?

(2) What role will the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board (CIPB), the office headed by Richard Clarke, play in this new division?

(3) Will the current full-time employees dedicated to these organizations be moved to the new department, i.e,. the 795 FBI employees, the 27 Commerce employees, and the 23 GSA employees, in addition to the numerous detailees?

(4) We must ensure a smooth and complete transition of organizational effectiveness that can be built upon by the new department. We cannot afford to have the Department of Homeland Security reinventing the wheel at this critical point. We cannot allow agencies that are turning over parts of their domain to be parochial in their approach to the new department. What provisions have been made to guarantee the critical transfer of institutional knowledge, in addition to employees, hardware, and open cases?

I look forward to continuing to work with you to help ensure the success of the new Department of Homeland Security. Please respond to these questions by Friday, July 19, 2002.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate