Defending the homeland

0 Comments | Insight on the News, July 1, 2002 | by Jennifer G. Hickey

With unusually blissful bipartisanship the joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee closed-door hearings to examine the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 were officially launched. Agreeing to cast the reach of 20/20 hindsight as far back as 1986, the panel hoped to nip turf wars and rear-covering exploits in the bud.

Hopes and wishes aside, the intelligence and law-enforcement agencies continued to be sieves, leaking stories of missed opportunities and the bureaucratic incompetency of their bosses or rivals to various media outlets. The administration of President George W. Bush grew increasingly frustrated with the attention being paid to what has happened, rather than focusing on preventing what might happen.

In the wake of FBI Director Robert Mueller's new reorganization plan, the administration announced its acquiescence to calls for creating a Cabinet-level agency to handle the task of defending the homeland. As the hour of FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley's congressional appearance neared--which some on Capitol Hill believe spurred the announcement of the new Cabinet pest--administration officials approached the major TV networks to request prime-time coverage of Bush's address on the formation of the Department of Homeland Defense.

Speaking to reporters on the morning of June 6, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the move was "the most significant transformation of the U.S. government in over a half-century by largely transforming and realigning the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department."

Because it will draw both personnel and $37 billion in funding from existing agencies, Fleischer stated the establishment of a new agency did not mark an expansion of the federal government. Expansion, however, is sure to come as various congressional committees and interests become involved.

Responding to the announcement, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) welcomed the decision but forecast future battles ahead. "This is a very needed step," he said. "I'm very happy that they have done this.... It will be controversial. You're going to have agencies pulled together that just never did that before. Change is hard. Change is difficult. These are always turf battles to some extent that go on within the government."

Less warmly received by interest groups was Attorney General John Ashcroft's announcement of a program to fingerprint visa applicants and foreign visitors, as well as extend to local law enforcement the authority to verify immigration status. While not opposing the fingerprinting measures, Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) says "law-abiding citizens could be harassed, their cars stopped ... [if] local law enforcement is given the inherent authority to enforce civil violations of immigration law." Munoz, NCLR's vice president for policy who has attended seven meetings with White House and Justice Department officials, says the administration is "aware of our concerns and sympathetic" but went ahead nonetheless. She expects other organizations to seek remedy in court.

The Bush administration, however, is not the only sponsor of initiatives to toughen enforcement of immigration law. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a number of states already have moved to tighten the process for driver's license applications. For instance, the Michigan Legislature is considering a bill to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining a driver's license and to require that all applicants be in the United States lawfully. New Jersey also would bar granting licenses to illegal aliens. But for legal visa holders, the expiration date for their driver's license would correspond to the expiration of their visa. Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington state, New York and Vermont have varying legislative initiatives under consideration to tighten the eligibility requirements for a driver's license. Moving in the opposite direction are Colorado and Georgia, two states mulling legislation permitting illegal immigrants to apply.

Questions of just how stringently to enforce other laws also were addressed this week as the Department of Labor (DOL) took another step in shedding light on the finances of labor unions and enforcement of federal labor laws. As the Federal Election Commission (FEC) remained focused on how to interpret the language of newly signed campaign-finance law, DOL for the first time posted labor union financial-disclosure filings on its Website. The financial filings for unions such as the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters, as well as their state affiliates, provide an interesting glimpse into the largely unknown financial world of many unions.

For instance, the AFL-CIO has highlighted the salaries of company heads in the "Executive Paywatch" section of its Website but would not readily provide details of the $225,000 salary that AFL-CIO president John Sweeney earned in 2000. Disbursements bumped Sweeney's salary up to $279,826. Richard Trumka, the union's secretary-treasurer, collected $211,614 (with disbursements), and Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson was paid $220,984 (with disbursements). As interesting as the disclosures are, particularly since union leaders hypocritically decry their corporate peers, department officials are as concerned with the vagueness of the designations on the LM-2 financial-disclosure forms.