Control of House by Democrats Portends More DHS Oversight, Tightening Homeland Security

    Printable Version

By Matthew E. Berger, CQ Daily

November 08, 2006

Democratic victories in the House of Representatives Tuesday means that the party will be controlling the Homeland Security Committee for the first time since its inception, and leaders have vowed to increase oversight of the Department of Homeland Security.

“I envision that a Democratic-led Congress will utilize responsible oversight to assure that we do the legislative job America expects of us,” Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the current ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement Tuesday night.

Democrats captured at least 28 additional seats Nov. 7, placing them in the majority in the House for the first time since 1994.

Thompson is expected to become the next House Homeland Security Committee chairman.

In the Senate Democrats picked up five seats — bringing the total for Democrats up to 50 — but full control of the chamber has not yet been determined awaiting an anticipated recount in Virginia.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, of Connecticut, was re-elected as an independent, but a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., stated Lieberman will continue to serve as the ranking Democrat for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Democratic control of both chambers would likely improve the chances of passing legislation that officially authorizes programs at DHS. And Democratic leadership in the House could lead to greater rail and mass transit security, as well as tightening provisions in the fiscal 2007 DHS appropriations bill improving security around chemical facilities.

And there will be a swath of new faces. Several key lawmakers who were influential on homeland security matters were defeated Tuesday, including Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., an advocate for public safety groups, and Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., who pushed for homeland security funds for his home state.

Democratic control of the House also means the party will grab more committee seats, bringing new players into the mix.

As the minority party, Democrats have not had the money or authority to conduct extensive investigations into DHS’s operations, said Scott Bates, a former Democratic senior policy adviser on the House Homeland Security Committee. Republicans have been less willing to fully look into issues that could put the Bush administration in a negative light.

But with Democrats in charge, there is likely to be more reports, more oversight hearings and more investigations.

“Effective oversight and legislating are not mutually exclusive,” Thompson said Tuesday night. “It is no coincidence that this Congress, which has been in session fewer days and passed less legislation than almost any other, has been called out for its lack of oversight. That absolutely has to change.”

As the minority party, Democrats on the committee have regularly issued reports critical of DHS, ranging from its administrative vacancies to its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Democrats are also likely to seek more funding for many of their top priorities, such as increasing staff for border security and customs inspections. It remains unclear who will lead the Democrats on the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, replacing Rep. Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn., who is the ranking Democrat but is retiring.

It is unlikely Democrats would call for wholesale structural changes at DHS because doing so could bring instability to the department, according to Bates.

Instead, there is likely to be a greater emphasis on getting the first departmental authorization act approved. Efforts in the House the past two years have been bipartisan, but Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, including Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, have been resistant. The House passed an authorization bill in 2005 and marked up a symbolic one last summer. But the Senate did not consider either.

“That was a missed opportunity for the Congress,” said Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. An authorization bill would help the fledgling committees cement jurisdiction over DHS and its related agencies, he noted.

If Democrats take control of the Senate, Lieberman is likely to support an authorization bill for DHS.

In the Senate, the partnerships that Lieberman and Collins have crafted will likely continue regardless of who is in charge, analysts said, so there may be less noticeable difference in homeland security policy from that chamber.

The Senate is likely to focus on implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency overhaul required in the fiscal 2007 appropriations bill for DHS. Both lawmakers support that overhaul.

Increased oversight and authorizing legislation could lead to confrontations between DHS and Congress. Bates said congressional Democrats will need to tread carefully and not be seen as piling onto widespread criticism of the relatively new department.

“Democrats will need to approach it from, ‘We’re here to make things work better,’ ” he said.

There are few big-ticket items that remain completely unaddressed now that port security legislation has been passed. The next Congress is likely to work on smaller projects instead, or tweak those that already have been started.

Some areas likely to get increased attention under Democrats are rail and mass transit security, and implementation of the Sept. 11 commission’s recommendations.

Democrats have been vocal on both issues. Thompson said in June that DHS had failed to create a comprehensive strategy for preventing an attack on the nation’s mass transit system, and he called for systems to submit security plans and vulnerability assessments. He is likely to seek to codify those ideas.

House Homeland Security Democrats also unveiled a 33-page report in July highlighting the need for congressional action on many of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations.

Democrats are likely to be tough on President Bush’s DHS nominees as well. They are in the midst of arguing with the White House over job requirements for the next Federal Emergency Management Agency director. The requirements — including five years of executive experience and an emergency management background — were added to the fiscal 2007 Homeland Security spending bill (HR 5441), but Bush said in his signing statement that he would not comply.

Some analysts have suggested the committee could revisit chemical security as well, despite a streamlined program that was part of the spending bill Congress cleared last month.

“They are going to try to bring some of the facilities that have been excluded back into the regulatory scheme,” said P.J. Crowley, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Those include wastewater and maritime facilities. But Democrats would likely face jurisdictional challenges from other committee leaders and the threat of filibusters or holds on bills.

Crowley said Democrats also might seek to place requirements for “inherently safer technology” into the permanent chemical security plan; the one Congress cleared will only last three years. But others suggested that chemical security is off the table because the interim regulations are just now being implemented.

Analysts also say Democrats will try to foster a view of homeland security that is more interconnected with national security.

Exit polls Nov. 7 showed that terrorism was a major issue for more than 70 percent of voters, according to the Associated Press. However, those who were concerned about terrorism split their vote between Democratic and Republican candidates.

###