**Homeland Security - Too Much; Yet Not Enough**

By Congressman Jerry Moran

December 17, 2002

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 proved that this nation has
serious shortcomings in its defenses and that change is needed in the
way we handle and process terrorist-related information. An agency is
needed to coordinate the protection of our citizens and to prevent such
attacks in the future. While the recently-passed Homeland Security bill
will make sweeping changes in the way many of our government agencies
operate, it does not address the agencies that needed change most of
all.

After the attacks, FBI agents testified to Congress about terrorist
information that was not being analyzed, and the CIA admitted to seeing
signs of increased terrorist activity. All the while, the Department of
Defense continued its routine work on the next year\'s budget and
procurement schedule. The lack of communication between these agencies,
which are primarily responsible for defending this country, may have
cost thousands of American lives.

Unfortunately, in an effort to address the challenge of homeland
security, Congress decided to reorganize every agency it could find,
*except* the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. We have fallen
short, leaving out the three agencies whose operations we should be
addressing.

I did not go to Washington, D.C. to create a bigger government. The size
of this new agency will be daunting, with close to 200,000 employees and
a budget of over \$35 billion. But an enormous agency does not mean that
our safety will be improved. This new agency will take years to set up
and no doubt will be overflowing with miscommunication and
inefficiencies. Regrettably, inefficiencies and errors are often
permitted in a government bureaucracy, but when dealing with issues of
the safety of our country, our borders and our citizens, another
bureaucracy prone to error and too big to communicate cannot be
tolerated.

The legislation to create this department was one of the final acts of
the 107^th^ Congress. The debate on this bill was limited in the
interest of getting things done quickly. Input from the public was
nonexistent, and no traditional conference committee met to work out
differences between the Senate and House versions. As a result, a number
of questionable provisions were thrown in, while some basic personal
freedoms may have been thrown out. Congress must be exceptionally
careful not to impair our Constitutional rights in the rush to claim
greater safety.

There is no doubt that changes are needed in the way we protect our
country. However, hastily creating the largest bureaucracy in U.S.
history, while failing to address problems in communication among law
enforcement, intelligence and defense agencies, is not enough. With
these concerns, I decided to vote in opposition to forming a new
department of Homeland Security. However, now that this new bureaucracy
is a reality, I am committed to doing all I can to help it become an
effective means of securing and protecting our country. In a democracy,
the right to vote against legislation is followed by the duty to work to
improve and support the law or, in this case, the agency that has been
created. The challenge that now faces us is to make certain this
agency - and any other measures put into place for the purpose of
homeland security - protect the personal freedoms we enjoy while
shielding us from physical harm. This is a challenge I am anxious to
meet.

\###