Homeland Security Office: Issues and Options (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (29 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
May 20, 2002 |
| Report Number |
RL31421 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Rensselaer Lee, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
President George W. Bush created the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) within the Executive
Office of the President after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a federal focal point for
coordinating domestic efforts against terrorism. Former Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, a
close friend and political ally of the President, was appointed to head the OHS. Such a high-level
unit, it was hoped, could bring direction and coherence to federal homeland security-related activities
that were spread among more than 40 different departments and agencies. Yet OHS has been
controversial almost since its inception. Despite some high-profile results such as highlighting
priorities in the President's FY2003 budget and negotiating a border security accord with Canada,
OHS remains very much an organizational work in progress--one seeking to carve out a unique
identity and mission. Critics have focused on the Office's informal structure and special relationship
with the White House, its lack of statutory authority, the essentially domestic focus of its activities,
its alleged duplication of coordination mechanisms already in place, and its inability to exert direct
control over federal programs and budgets. Proposals have been introduced in Congress, in the
Administration and in various think tanks for reorganizing OHS, reshaping its mandate, or replacing
it with an entirely new federal agency. Whether the Office will continue to exist in its present form
is by no means assured; ultimately, its future character may well be influenced less by its ability to
coordinate the federal terrorism response than by its ability to create a new dialogue on anti-terrorism
coordination between federal authorities and their state and local counterparts.
