Order Code IB93026
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Executive Branch Reorganization
and Management Initiatives
Updated October 16, 2002
Harold C. Relyea
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Reinventing Government
A New Administration
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
CHRONOLOGY
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports

---

IB93026
10-16-02
Executive Branch Reorganization and Management Initiatives
SUMMARY
When President George W. Bush came
Administration and congressional rein-
into office in January 2001, he arrived from a
vention efforts resulted in mostly modest
campaign in which he had emphasized effi-
accomplishments during the 105th Congress.
ciency in government, particularly through the
Major exceptions were the overhaul of the
use of information technology, but had not
structure and operations of the Internal Reve-
revealed any plans for reorganizing the execu-
nue Service and the consolidation of the
tive branch.
foreign policy agencies, both of which were
realized as a result of cooperation between the
The departing Clinton Administration
Clinton Administration and Republican con-
had conducted, during most of its eight-year
gressional leaders. During the 106th Congress,
tenure, an active effort at “reinventing
executive reorganization and reinvention were
government,” spearheaded by a National
neither major nor high-priority items.
Performance Review (NPR). Announced
shortly after the 1993 inauguration, the NPR
Shortly after his 2001 inauguration,
sought to find ways to make the federal gov-
President Bush announced plans to address a
ernment more efficient, economical, and
number of management problems in the fed-
effective. The result was a series of reports
eral government, offering specific solutions to
proposing various organizational and opera-
address them. Then, in the aftermath of the
tional reforms.
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the
Several major NPR recommendations
organization of the federal government for
were awaiting implementation when the No-
maintaining homeland security and combating
vember 1994 congressional elections resulted
terrorism became an important consideration
in Republican majority party control of both
for both the President and the 107th Congress.
houses of the 104th Congress. Republican
Establishment of the Office of Homeland
congressional leaders had unveiled a Contract
Security in October 2001 as a coordinating
With America reform plan in late September
entity was an important first step, followed by
1994. Its core principles regarded the federal
the President’s June 6, 2002, call for the
government as being too big, spending too
creation of a Department of Homeland Secu-
much, being unresponsive to the citizenry, and
rity.
perpetrating burdensome regulations.
Consequently, at least two distinct agendas for
This issue brief views reorganization and
reforming and restructuring the federal gov-
management as involving the alteration of the
ernment were before the 104th Congress. At
program administrative structure and opera-
its conclusion, both the President and Republi-
tions of the executive branch for reasons of
can congressional leaders could claim some
efficiency, economy, and direction. The
victories in downsizing government. How-
underlying issue is who reorganizes or sets
ever, no department was eliminated, and only
management policy—Congress or the Presi-
a few small agencies were abolished.
dent—and by what authority and, also, for
what purpose? Some electronic government
developments are tracked as well.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB93026
10-16-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Senate debate on legislation (H.R. 5005) to establish a Department of Homeland
Security became stalled at the end of September over personnel flexibilities sought by the
President and the continuation of civil service protections and collective bargaining rights
in the substitute proposal (S.Amdt. 4471) offered by Senator Joseph Lieberman. Compromise
proposals were offered by Senator Phil Gramm (S.Amdt. 4738) and Senator Ben Nelson
(S.Amdt. 4740). Consideration of the legislation began on September 3. Due to the deadlock
and failed attempts to reach cloture, the Senate turned to other urgent business in
October—providing continuing funding for the federal government and authorizing the use
of military force against Iraq having high priority—before recessing prior to the November
election. Expectations currently are that the Senate will return to the Department of
Homeland Security proposals just before recessing. Arrangements for possible post-
election meetings of the 107th Congress are under discussion.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
For well over a century, the structure and program responsibilities of the federal
executive branch, including all of the departments and agencies, were determined by
Congress. In the aftermath of World War I, however, with the rise of the new public
administration profession and growing sentiment for attaining efficiency and economy in
government, came efforts to strengthen the President’s management ability. In 1932, the
Chief Executive was statutorily authorized to issue executive orders proposing reorganization
within the executive branch for purposes of reducing expenditures and increasing efficiency
in government. A reorganization order became effective after 60 days unless either House
of Congress adopted a resolution of disapproval. When President Herbert Hoover submitted
11 different reorganization orders, all were disapproved by the House of Representatives on
the grounds that his newly elected successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, might have different
reorganization ideas.
President Roosevelt did submit a number of reorganization orders pursuant to a revised
and extended version of the 1932 statute, which expired automatically in 1935. Some major
actions taken in these orders included creating procurement and disbursement divisions in
the Treasury Department, establishing an enlarged National Park Service in the Interior
Department, and making the Farm Credit Administration an independent agency.
Congress subsequently mandated a similar arrangement in a 1939 statute. Once again,
the objective was to achieve efficiency and economy in administration. A presidential
reorganization plan, submitted to Congress, became effective after 60 days unless both
houses of Congress adopted a concurrent resolution of disapproval. In his initial
reorganization plan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Executive Office of the
President.
Such reorganization authority, renewed periodically a dozen times between 1945 and
1984, with slight variation, remained available to the President for nearly half a century. At
different junctures, qualifications were placed upon its exercise. For example, reorganization
plans could not abolish or create an entire department, or deal with more than one logically
CRS-1

---

IB93026
10-16-02
consistent subject matter. Also, the President was prohibited from submitting more than one
plan within a 30-day period and was required to include a clear statement on the projected
economic savings expected to result from a reorganization.
Modification of the President’s reorganization plan authority was made necessary in
1983 when the Supreme Court, in the Chadha case (462 U.S. 919), effectively invalidated
continued congressional reliance upon a concurrent resolution to disapprove a proposed plan.
Under the Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, which were signed by President Ronald
Reagan on November 8, several significant changes were made in the reorganization plan
law. Any time during the period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of Congress
following the submission of a reorganization plan, the President might make amendments
or modifications to it. Within 90 calendar days of continuous session of Congress following
the submission of a reorganization plan, both houses must adopt a joint resolution (which,
unlike a concurrent resolution, becomes law with the President’s signature — a central issue
in the Chadha case) for a plan to be approved. This amendment, however, continued the
President’s reorganization plan authority only to the end of 1984, when it automatically
expired (see 5 U.S.C. 901-912 (1988)). Neither President Reagan nor President George H.
W. Bush requested its reauthorization. President William Clinton did not seek its renewal,
although his National Performance Review (see below) recommended this course of action
in September 1993. Likewise, President George W. Bush has not sought such authority. The
National Strategy for Homeland Security, released by President Bush on July 16,
recommends the restoration of reorganization plan authority to allow reconfiguring portions
of the executive branch to better combat terrorism and maintain homeland security.
Currently, in the absence of reorganization plan authority, the President may propose
executive branch reorganizations to be realized through the normal legislative process. The
Departments of Energy, Education, and Veterans Affairs were established in this manner.
This approach, however, is devoid of the action time frame and required final vote of the
reorganization plan arrangement that expedites reorganization. The President might attempt
a minor reorganization, such as establishing a small, temporary entity within the Executive
Office of the President, by issuing a directive, such as an executive order. Attempting more
ambitious reorganizations through a presidential directive may, if not ultimately found to be
illegal, incur congressional displeasure and subsequent legislative and fiscal reaction. As a
result of the absence of reorganization plan authority, more recent reform efforts to improve
the efficiency and economy of government operations have emphasized management
improvements of both a governmentwide and specific program variety, including
applications of information technology that have resulted in so-called electronic government.
Reinventing Government
An ambitious effort at realizing executive branch reorganization and management
reform was launched by President Clinton at the outset of his administration when, on March
3, 1993, he initiated a National Performance Review (NPR) to be conducted under the
leadership of Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. Six months later, on September 7, the initial
NPR report, From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs
Less, was delivered to the President. Various accompanying supplemental reports on both
specific agencies and functional areas of government were subsequently published during
1994. The bulk of the report’s almost 380 major recommendations (broken into over 1,230
CRS-2

---

IB93026
10-16-02
action items) were directed to management reforms; several proposals addressed executive
reorganization, including one for congressional restoration of presidential reorganization plan
authority.
During the 12 months after the NPR report was issued, its recommendations were
implemented by 22 presidential directives, several enacted bills, and various agency actions.
Anniversary reports, marking progress in implementing NPR recommendations, were issued
in September of 1994, 1995, and 1996. The last of these indicated that 43% of the NPR’s
initial 833 agency action items were completed and 42% were in progress, and that 38% of
its initial 430 management systems action items were completed and 49% were in progress.
Of an additional 187 agency recommendations, 19% were completed and 62% were in
progress. As of January 1996, the executive workforce had been reduced by nearly 240,000.
In addition, almost 2,000 obsolete field offices had been closed and approximately 200
programs and agencies—such as the Tea-Tasters Board, Bureau of Mines, and wool and
mohair subsidies—had been eliminated. As of September 1996, said the report, “savings of
about $97.4 billion have been ensured through legislative or administrative action.” Of the
original $108 billion in savings projected in 1993, about $73.4 billion had been realized.
The Clinton Administration renewed its reinventing government effort in mid-January
1995 with Phase 2 of the NPR, which was detailed in the President’s FY1996 budget.
Shortly thereafter, in late February, the President announced new regulatory reform
proposals, including page-by-page review of federal regulations to determine those that were
obsolete, replaceable by private sector alternatives, or better administered by state and local
government. He also proposed to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and
reconstitute the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control services as a wholly
owned government corporation. The elimination of the ICC was subsequently realized in
December 1995. Certain functions of the Commission were transferred to the Surface
Transportation Board, newly established within the Department of Transportation by the
termination statute (109 Stat. 803).
With the convening of the 105th Congress, the reinvention effort entered yet another
new phase, emphasizing improved service delivery; use of partnerships and
community-based strategies to solve problems, not big government; and techniques for
improving performance in a time of diminishing resources, including the use of
performance-based organizations (PBOs). As a reflection of this third revamping, the NPR,
known heretofore as the National Performance Review, became the National Partnership for
Reinventing Government in January 1998.
Support for the performance of selected governmental functions through PBOs was
reiterated in the President’s FY1998 budget. The PBO innovation involved rechartering
certain federal executive agencies to permit them to negotiate alternative approaches to
procurement and personnel rules and to increase their accountability for financial and
program results. The anticipated increased efficiency would allow the agencies to downsize
their workforce or use their cost savings to improve services. Legislation to convert the
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) of the Department of Commerce into a PBO was
proposed by the Clinton Administration in 1995, but it received little attention during the
104th Congress; similar legislation remained on the Senate legislative calendar when the
105th Congress adjourned. When the agency was restructured by the American Inventors
CRS-3

---

IB93026
10-16-02
Protection Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1537-564), the reconstituted PTO insisted it was a PBO,
but that characterization was doubtful in the view of many analysts.
Overhauling the structure and operations of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was a
major accomplishment of the 105th Congress. Although some competition developed
between the White House and congressional leaders to seize the IRS reform initiative, the
Clinton Administration subsequently abandoned its opposition to a congressional plan for
a wide-ranging overhaul of the IRS. President Clinton signed the reform bill into law (112
Stat. 685) on July 22, 1998.
In early 1997, the Clinton Administration revisited the long-discussed and contentious
matter of the reconfiguration and consolidation of the foreign policy agencies. Prolonged
and heated debate over such a reorganization during the 104th Congress had resulted in a
presidential veto. In mid-April, the President approved a broad reorganization proposal
calling for the folding of two independent agencies—the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency and the United States Information Agency—into the Department of State. In
addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development remained a separate entity, but its
director would report to the Secretary of State rather than to the President, as current law
prescribed. The plan eventually was included in the provisions of the State Department
authorization bills, but conferees on the legislation later deadlocked on a House provision
barring aid for family planning groups that use their own money to finance overseas
abortions. The Clinton Administration revived the conference discussions early in 1998.
Subsequently, the reorganization proposal, without the objectionable abortion restriction
rider, was included in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999, signed into law by President Clinton on October 21 (112 Stat.
2681-761).
In the aftermath of the May 25, 1999, release of the final report of the House Select
(Cox) Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the
People’s Republic of China, discussing security lapses that had apparently allowed the
Chinese to acquire U.S. nuclear weapons and related technology, a special investigative
(Rudman) panel of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) released
a June 15 report concerning these and other Department of Energy (DOE) managerial failures
and called for “radical” restructuring of DOE. Although Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson
opposed creating an independent nuclear security agency, he later accepted the idea of a
semiautonomous agency within DOE to manage the national labs. Conferees on the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 provided for the establishment of a new National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as a semiautonomous entity within the department
and a related under secretary position. Although Secretary Richardson expressed
reservations about the NNSA, both chambers approved the conference committee report in
September.
Signing the legislation into law on October 5 (113 Stat. 512), President Clinton, in a
surprise move, indicated his displeasure with provisions creating the NNSA, and announced
that he would withhold appointing the new under secretary for information security until
Congress addressed certain “deficiencies” in the organizational arrangements. Secretary
Richardson was directed by the President to perform the duties of the new under secretary
and to assign department officers and employees to a concurrent office within the NNSA as
deemed necessary. The President’s action stunned many legislators closely associated with
CRS-4

---

IB93026
10-16-02
the NNSA structuring. After seeking to assure Members of Congress that the administration
was in agreement with the spirit of the legislation, but felt that the NNSA provisions
constituted “a serious problem,” Richardson developed and, on January 7, transmitted the
NNSA implementation plan. The new agency began operations on March 1. President
Clinton later nominated General John A. Gordon, who was serving as the deputy director of
the Central Intelligence Agency, to be the DOE’s new under secretary for nuclear security
and the director of the NNSA. He was subsequently confirmed by the Senate on June 14,
2000, as the head of NNSA.
Testifying at a May 4, 2000, hearing conducted by a subcommittee of the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, Donald F. Kettl, a University of Wisconsin professor
who had conducted extensive research on the NPR reforms, gave the effort an overall grade
of “B,” saying there was “room for improvement.” Brookings Institution scholar Paul C.
Light added that the NPR program had created “unnecessary politicization of government
reform.” Two other analysts were also critical of the NPR effort. A few months later, in
September, a GAO report (GAO/GGD-00-145) concluded that the NPR reinvention effort
had been largely successful, with more than 90% of key Clinton Administration
recommendations having been fully or partly implemented. The report was based upon a
review of 72 NPR recommendations by 10 federal agencies, which found that 33 of them
were fully implemented and another 30 were partly implemented.
A New Administration
During his campaign for the presidency, Texas Governor George W. Bush emphasized
efficiency in government, particularly through the use of information technology, but
revealed no plans for reorganizing the executive branch. The terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, however, would prompt various structural modifications. Of chief concern was
the prospect of restructuring the government for more efficient, economical, and effective
homeland security. Reinstatement of the President’s reorganization plan authority was
proposed to allow the Chief Executive to create the structure he deems appropriate, and
legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security was introduced (S. 1534) and later
upgraded (S. 2452 and H.R. 4660). On February 14, 2002, the leadership of the House and
Senate intelligence committees announced a bipartisan investigation of the operations and
activities of the intelligence community pertaining to the September 11 attacks, which may
result in legislation reorganizing the intelligence agencies. Press revelations that perpetrators
of the terrorist attacks had been cleared by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
to stay in the United States have prompted renewed calls for the overhaul of the INS,
including its division into separate administrative and enforcement entities. On March 21,
leaders of the House Committee on the Judiciary reached agreement on a bipartisan proposal
to split the existing INS and provide each component its own budget. In a surprise move, the
White House, on April 24, gave qualified support to the proposal. The endorsement came
on the eve of the bill (H.R. 3231) being considered on the House floor for final action.
Introduced on November 6, 2001, by Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., the
measure garnered 46 cosponsors. Revised in a April 10 markup, the legislation was ordered
to be reported from committee on a 32-2 vote. A report on the bill (H.Rept. 107-413) was
filed on April 19, and the measure was adopted by the House on a 405-9 vote on April 25.
(See CRS Report RL30257 and CRS Report RS20279.)
CRS-5

---

IB93026
10-16-02
Another long-standing reorganization matter concerns border security administration.
For many years prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, proposals have been made from
time to time to consolidate various aspects of border security within a single entity or
minimum number of federal agencies. (See CRS Report 97-974.) Such proposals have
attracted greater interest since the attacks as part of counterterrorism efforts to more
efficiently and effectively secure the nation’s northern and southern borders. In late
December, Office of Homeland Security staff reportedly produced a tempest within the Bush
Administration when they unveiled a broad proposal to create an agency that would
consolidate border security management. Opponents represented a wide range of agencies,
including five Cabinet departments.
This proposal, however, was used by presidential assistants to formulate the Department
of Homeland Security plan unveiled by President Bush on June 6. His surprise
announcement was viewed not only as an attempt to regain the initiative in the nation’s
efforts at combating terrorism, but also to move beyond the coordination efforts of the Office
of Homeland Security to a strong administrative structure for managing consolidated
programs concerned with border security and effective response to domestic terrorism
incidents. On June 18, the President transmitted to the House of Representatives proposed
legislation to established a Department of Homeland Security. This legislation was
subsequently introduced by request (H.R. 5005) on June 24. According to a legislative
strategy announced by Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt,
standing committees of jurisdiction began reviewing the proposal and, as the second week
of July drew to a close, provided recommendations for modifying the legislation. A few
panels urged maintaining some agencies—e.g., the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and the Secret Service—in their current status and not transferring
them to the new department. On July 15, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security
began its consideration of the bill. That same day, the Brookings Institution released the first
comprehensive critique of the President’s proposal, suggesting, among other considerations,
that it “merges too many different activities into a single department,” should leave science
and technology research and development responsibilities for later deliberation, and begs a
rethinking of congressional committee arrangements. The following day, the President
released the National Strategy for Homeland Security, which offered a definition of
homeland security of potential usefulness for determining the program composition of the
new department. On July 19, the House select committee marked up and order reported
(H.Rept. 107-609) the House version of the Department of Homeland Security legislation.
Meeting during July 24-25, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs authorized
Chairman Joseph Lieberman to withdraw the version of his Department of National
Homeland Security bill (S. 2452) that had been amended and ordered favorably reported on
May 22, modified his offered amendment in the nature of a substitute to the text of the bill,
and approved the amendment as modified. Floor action on the measure, however, was
postponed until the Senate returns in early September from an August recess. During July
25-26, the House of Representatives began floor debate and amendment of its counterpart
department bill (H.R. 5005) and then approved the legislation, as amended, on a 295-132
vote. The resulting House and Senate bills will be reconciled in conference.
Senate consideration of the House-passed bill began on September 3, 2002, when
Senator Lieberman submitted an amendment (No. 4471) containing the language of his
modified department bill as a substitute for the text of the House-passed legislation. Initial
amendments to the Lieberman substitute, adopted on September 5, prohibited the Secretary
CRS-6

---

IB93026
10-16-02
of Homeland Security from contracting with any corporate expatriate and improved flight
and cabin security on passenger aircraft. On September 17, after extended debate, a third
amendment was adopted, striking Title II of the Lieberman substitute, which would have
established a National Office for Combating Terrorism, and Title III, which would have
mandated a National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.
Amendments approved the following day created an Office of National Capital Region
Coordination within the new department; clarified the transfer of certain agricultural
inspection functions of the Department of Agriculture; enhanced the management and
promotion of electronic government services and processes by establishing an Office of
Electronic Government within the Office of Management and Budget, along with a broad
framework of measures that require using Internet-based information technology to enhance
citizen access to government information and services; identified certain sites as key
resources for protection by the Directorate of Critical Infrastructure Protection; amended
various laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to take into account the
assumption by the Secretary of Homeland Security of jurisdiction of the Coast Guard; and
improved the protection of Department of Defense storage depots for lethal chemical agents
and munitions through strengthened temporary flight restrictions. An amendment approved
on September 19 strengthened criminal laws and provided greater flexibilities to prevent and
protect against cyber attacks.
Amendments adopted on September 24 mandated the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States to conduct a comprehensive investigation of the events of
September 11, and established an Office for State and Local Government Coordination
within the office of the Secretary for Homeland Security. An amendment (S.Amdt. 4644)
offered by Senator Robert Byrd defining “homeland security” and otherwise establishing an
incremental arrangement for determining the composition of the new department was
defeated on a 28-70 vote.
The following day, Senator Phil Gramm submitted an amendment (S.Amdt. 4738)
structuring the department and creating management arrangements very similar to the
President’s original proposal, but otherwise containing many other portions identical to those
of the Lieberman substitute. Another amendment (S.Amdt. 4740), offered by Senator Ben
Nelson, sought to modify certain personnel provisions to effect a compromise between the
flexibilities in human resources management sought by the President and the continued civil
service protections and collective bargaining rights contained in the Lieberman substitute.
By this time, the President, in his September 21 radio address to the nation and in September
23 remarks at an Army National Guard aviation support facility in Trenton, NJ, was
demanding Senate approval of his position on human resources management. He indicated
that he could accept the Gramm-Miller proposal, adding that “anything less than that is a bill
I cannot accept.”
On September 27, attempts to invoke cloture on further Senate debate on homeland
security legislation failed for the third and fourth times, leaving the outcome on the matter
in doubt. Due to the deadlock and failed attempts to reach cloture, the Senate turned to other
urgent business in October—providing continuing funding for the federal government and
authorizing the use of military force against Iraq having high priority—before recessing prior
to the November election. Expectations currently are that the Senate will return to the
CRS-7

---

IB93026
10-16-02
Department of Homeland Security proposals just before recessing. Arrangements for
possible post-election meetings of the 107th Congress are under discussion.
While the primary issue for Congress and the President is determining the program
composition and administrative organization of the new department, various issue subsets
have emerged as the House and the Senate have developed their separate proposals. At
present, the House-passed bill and the Lieberman substitute exhibit some basic similarities.
The Lieberman substitute, for example, would move largely the same agencies and programs
to the new department as would be transferred by the House-adopted bill. Exceptions are the
inclusion of the Computer Security Division of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology and the National Bioweapons Defense Analysis Center of the Department of
Defense, which the House bill did not include. By contrast, the House bill would transfer the
Environmental Measurements Laboratory of the Department of Energy, portions of the
Advanced Scientific Computing Research Program of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, portions of the Chemical Biological Defense Program of the Department of
Defense, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center of the Department of Agriculture, and the
Domestic Emergency Support Teams of the Department of Justice, which the Lieberman
substitute does not include in the Department of Homeland Security. Also, the House bill
would transfer the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center of the Department of the
Treasury to the Attorney General, while the Lieberman substitute would placed it in the new
department.
The House-adopted bill would establish four major directorates within the new
department, while the Lieberman substitute would create six major directorates. Most of the
transferred agencies and programs would be located in these directorates. The two proposals
would also mandate the same types of senior officials, such as a Chief Financial Officer,
Chief Information Officer, General Counsel, and Privacy Officer. The House-adopted bill,
however, would create twice the number of Assistant Secretary positions as would the
Lieberman substitute, with upwards of eight of them being appointed by the President
without Senate confirmation. Under the bill adopted by the House, the Secretary of
Homeland Security may have as many as 15 senior officials of the department reporting
directly to him or her (or more if the Assistant Secretaries have this relationship). Under the
Lieberman substitute, the Secretary may have as many as 17 senior officials reporting directly
to him or her.
Neither the House-passed bill nor the Lieberman substitute contains a definition of the
concept of “homeland security,” which has resulted in the new department having no
standard for determining which agencies, functions, and programs might be appropriately
transferred to it. Consequently, some critics have suggested that adequate consideration was
not given to the prospect of transferring or restructuring Federal Bureau of Investigation and
federal intelligence community counterterrorism responsibilities. Others have questioned
why such entities as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were not transferred to the new
department. The Lieberman substitute gives the Secretary of Homeland Security and the
director of a new National Office for Combating Terrorism, in consultation with affected
department and agency heads, upwards of 270 days after the enactment of the Department
of Homeland Security legislation to develop definitions of “combating terrorism” and
“homeland security” and “shall consider such definitions in determining the mission of the
Department and Office.”
CRS-8

---

IB93026
10-16-02
Also, some have observed that the transfer of whole agencies to the new department
results in it being responsible for the administration of programs having nothing to do with
homeland security, which, consequently, might not receive adequate resources for their
execution. These include the marine safety responsibilities of the Coast Guard, the drug and
child pornography interdiction efforts of the U.S. Customs Service, the counterfeiting
detection and investigation program of the Secret Service and the research and non-native
plant and pest eradication efforts of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Sorting
out these programs for continued administration by their parent departments would have been
made easier by having a definition of “homeland security,” but may have resulted in greater
expense for the reorganization effort as administrative structures and operating expenses are
adjusted. The House-approved bill largely transfers whole agencies to the new department
with little sorting out of non-homeland security programs. The Lieberman substitute also
largely transfers whole agencies to the new department, but requires an annual report, for the
five years following the transfer, to the Secretary, the Comptroller General, and appropriate
committees of Congress concerning mission performance, with particular emphasis on the
continued level of performance of non-homeland security missions.
Among the most contentious issues surrounding the Department of Homeland Security
legislation are those concerning civil service protections and collective bargaining rights,
intelligence analysis, and replacement of the Office of Homeland Security. Regarding the
first of these, the President’s original proposal for the new department called for authorizing
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in regulations prescribed jointly with the director of the
Office of Personnel Management, to establish and, from time to time, adjust a human
resources management system for some or all of the organizational units of the department,
“which shall be flexible, contemporary, and grounded in public employment principles of
merit and fitness.” This arrangement is prescribed in the House-adopted bill. In addition to
placing union rights in question, it has raised various issues concerning staffing
requirements, such as adequate numbers of personnel and planning for the replacement of
retiring staff; hiring, particularly direct hiring which would not be merit-based and free of
political influence and otherwise devoid of preference for veterans; and pay, particularly pay
parity or equity for employees who are performing similar jobs. The Lieberman substitute
preserves the civil service protections and collective bargaining rights of workers transferred
to the new department.
Finally, the Lieberman substitute would have established a new National Office for
Combating Terrorism within the Executive Office of the President, which would seemingly
replace the Office of Homeland Security created by the President with E.O. 13228 of October
8, 2001. The new office would have been headed by a director appointed by the President
with Senate confirmation, who would, among other duties, share responsibility with the
Secretary of Homeland Security for developing, maintaining, and implementing the National
Strategy for Homeland Security, and for coordinating the development of a comprehensive
annual budget for the programs and activities under the Strategy. Amendments to the
Lieberman substitute striking titles mandating the National Office and the Strategy were
adopted on September 17. This modification of the Lieberman substitute seemingly would
allow the continued operation of the Office of Homeland Security and the dual director-
presidential adviser role of the head of that entity.
CRS-9

---

IB93026
10-16-02
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Homeland Security. Homeland Security Act
of 2002. H.Rept. 107-609, Part 1, 107th Congress, 2nd session. Washington: U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 2002. 225 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Government at the Brink.
Committee print, 107th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
2001. 2 v.
—— Has Government Been “Reinvented”?. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session, May 4,
2000. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2000. 83 p.
—— National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002. S.Rept. 107-175,
107th Congress, 2nd session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002. 38 p.
____ President Bush’s Proposal to Create a Department of Homeland Security. Hearing,
107th Congress, 2nd session, June 20, 2002. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2002.
218 p.
—— Report of Senator Fred Thompson on Major Management Challenges Facing Federal
Departments and Agencies. Committee print, 106th Congress, 2nd session.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2000. 55 p.
—— Report of Senator Fred Thompson on Management Challenges Facing the New
Administration. Committee print, 106th Congress, 2nd session. Washington, U.S.
Govt. Print. Off., 2000. 51 p.
CHRONOLOGY
07/26/02 —
The House approved, on a 295-132 vote, legislation (H.R. 5005), as
amended, establishing a Department of Homeland Security.
06/06/02 —
President George W. Bush called for the creation of a Department of
Homeland Security by Congress and provided a plan for the structure and
programs of the new entity.
08/25/01 —
President George W. Bush, in his radio address to the nation, announced the
release of The President’s Management Agenda, a report identifying 14
management problems in the federal government and offering specific
solutions to address them.
07/18/01 —
OMB Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., on behalf of President Bush, apprised
executive department and agency heads of administration efforts to develop
an electronic government action plan using an interagency task force to be
headed by OMB Associate Director for Information Technology and E-
Government Mark Forman.
CRS-10

---

IB93026
10-16-02
01/01/98 —
The National Performance Review became the National Partnership for
Reinventing Government.
01/11/97 —
At a Blair House meeting of the new Cabinet, Vice President Gore presented
a brief set of papers, which he dubbed “reinvention marching orders,”
emphasizing three themes: improved service delivery; use of partnerships
and community-based strategies to solve problems, not big government; and
techniques for improving performance in a time of diminishing resources,
including the use of performance-based organizations. The issuance of the
Blair House papers marked the beginning of a new stage of the NPR.
09/09/96 —
The National Performance Review marked its third-year anniversary,
reporting that 43% of its initial 833 agency action items were completed and
42% were in progress, and 49% of its initial 430 management systems action
items were completed and 49% were in progress; of an additional 187
recommendations, 19% were completed and 62% were in progress; “savings
of about $97.4 billion have been ensured through legislative or administrative
action” and an “additional $5.2 billion in savings is contained in legislation
pending before Congress;” and, as of January 1996, an executive workforce
reduction of nearly 240,000 employees had been realized.
09/11/95 —
The National Performance Review marked its second year anniversary,
reporting that 32% of its initial agency action items were completed and 61%
were in progress, and 27% of its initial 417 management systems action items
were completed and 63% were in progress; more than 180 additional
recommendations had been made; and “about $57.7 billion of [approximately
$108 billion] projected savings have been achieved” and an “additional $4.3
billion in savings are currently pending before Congress.”
01/12/95 —
Vice President Gore, OMB Director Alice Rivlin, and other officials formally
launch Phase 2 of the National Performance Review.
09/27/94 —
Republican leaders of the House of Representatives unveiled a “Contract
With America” reform plan with core principles that regard the federal
government as being too big, spending too much, unresponsive to the
citizenry, and the perpetrator of burdensome regulations.
09/14/94 —
The National Performance Review marked its one-year anniversary, reporting
that over 90% of its recommendations “are under way,” implementation
occurring through 22 presidential directives, several enacted bills, and a
variety of agency actions, with the result that “$46.9 billion of NPR’s $108
billion in proposed savings are already enacted” and another “$16 billion in
savings is pending before Congress.”
09/07/93 —
The National Performance Review provided its first report to President
Clinton, offering some 380 major recommendations for government reform.
The bulk of these proposals concerned management improvement, but several
were directed at agency reorganization, consolidation, and field structure
overhaul.
CRS-11

---

IB93026
10-16-02
03/03/93 —
President Clinton announced he was initiating a National Performance
Review, to be headed by Vice President Gore, to evaluate the efficiency,
economy, and effectiveness of every federal program and service, and make
recommendations for “reinventing government,” including proposals for
executive branch reorganization.
LEGISLATION
H.R. 1158 (Thornberry)
National Homeland Security Agency Act. Establishes a National Homeland Security Agency
as an independent agency with a director appointed by the President and subject to Senate
confirmation. Introduced Mar. 21, 2001, and referred to the Committee on Government
Reform; referred to the Subcommittee on National Security Apr. 23; subcommittee hearing
held Apr. 29.
H.R. 5005 (Armey) (by request)
Homeland Security Act of 2002. Establishes a Department of Homeland Security.
Introduced June 24, 2002, and referred to the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and,
in addition, to the Committees on Agriculture, Appropriations, Armed Services, Energy and
Commerce, Financial Services, Government Reform, Intelligence, International Relations,
the Judiciary, Science, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means.
Recommendations of the standing committees provided to the select committee, which began
consideration of the bill on July 15; marked up and ordered reported (H.Rept. 107-609), as
amended, by the select committee on July 19; House floor debate and amendment begun July
25; House floor debate and amendment completed and bill, as amended, adopted on a 295-
132 vote on July 26. Senate floor debate begun September 3.
S. 1149 (Graham)
Establishes a National Office for Combating Terrorism within the Executive Office of the
President, with a director appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation.
Introduced Sept. 21, 2001, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs; hearing
held Oct. 12.
S. 1534 (Lieberman)
Establishes a Department of National Homeland Security. Introduced Oct. 12, 2001, and
referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs; hearing held Oct. 12.
S. 2452 (Lieberman)/H.R. 4660 (Thornberry)
Establishes a Department of National Homeland Security and a National Office for
Combating Terrorism within the Executive Office of the President. Introduced May 2, 2002,
and referred in the Senate to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, and in the House to
the Committee on Government Reform. Ordered to be reported (S.Rept. 107-175) on a 7-3
CRS-12

---

IB93026
10-16-02
vote in the Senate on May 22; reconsidered and markup of an amendment in the nature of
a substitute begun on July 24; markup completed and modified amendment approved on July
25. Text of modified bill submitted as an amendment (S.Amdt. 4471) to H.R. 5005 on
September 3.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Carter, Ashton B. “The Architecture of Government in the Face of Terrorism.” International
Security, vol. 26, winter 2001/02: 5-23.
Daalder, Ivo H., and I. M. Destler. “Advisors, Czars and Councils: Organizing for
Homeland Security.” National Interest, no. 68, summer 2002: 66-78.
Daalder, Ivo H., et al. Assessing the Department of Homeland Security. Washington,
Brookings Institution, 2002. 63 p.
Gazell, James A., ed. “The National Performance Review and Public Administration.”
Special issue. International Journal of Public Administration, v. 20, no. 1, 1997:
1-247.
Kettl, Donald F. Reinventing Government: A Fifth-Year Report Card. Washington,
Brookings Institution, 1998. 71 p.
—— and John J. DiIulio, Jr., eds. Inside the Reinvention Machine: Appraising
Governmental Reform. Washington, Brookings Institution, 1995. 198 p.
National Performance Review. Most literature may be reviewed and downloaded by
consulting the NPR web site “library” at
[http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/default.html].
Office of the Vice President. Common Sense Government Works Better & Costs Less.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., September 1995. 158 p.
—— From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less.
Report of the National Performance Review. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
September 1993. 168 p.
—— From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better & Costs Less:
Status Report, September 1994. Report of the National Performance Review.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., September 1994. 127 p.
—— The Best Kept Secrets In Government. A Report to President Bill Clinton. National
Performance Review. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., September 1996. 245 p.
U.S. General Accounting Office. Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related
Recommendations. GAO-01-822. [Washington] September 2001. 203 p.
CRS-13

---

IB93026
10-16-02
—— Reinventing Government: Status of NPR Recommendations at 10 Federal Agencies.
GAO/GGD-00-145. [Washington] September 2000. 80 p.
White House. The Department of Homeland Security. [Washington] June 2002. 24 p.
Wise, Charles R. “Organizing for Homeland Security.” Public Administration Review, vol.
62, March-April 2002: 131-144.
CRS Reports
CRS Report RS21251, Analysis of President’s Proposal Concerning the Office of Inspector
General for the Proposed Department of Homeland Security, by Diane T. Duffy.
CRS Report RL31520, Collective Bargaining and Homeland Security, by Jon O.
Shimabukuro.
CRS Report RL31497, Creation of Executive Departments: Highlights from the Legislative
History of Modern Precedents, by Thomas P. Carr.
CRS Report RL31472, Departmental Organization, 1947-2001, by Sharon Gressle.
CRS Report RL31514, Department of Homeland Security: Appropriations Transfer
Authority, by Robert Keith.
CRS Report RL30745. Electronic Government: A Conceptual Overview, by Harold C.
Relyea.
CRS Report RL30914. Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO): Opportunities and
Challenges, by Jeffrey W. Seifert.
CRS Report RL31024. The Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act and Circular A-76, by
L. Elaine Halchin.
CRS Report RS21295, Homeland Security and the Davis-Bacon Act, by Jon O.
Shimabukuro.
CRS Report RS21268, Homeland Security: Data on Employees and Unions Potentially
Affected, by Gail McCallion.
CRS Report RL31504, Homeland Security: Departmentalization — Public Administration
Principles and Selected Past Experiences, by Harold C. Relyea.
CRS Report RL31493. Homeland Security: Department Organization and Management, by
Harold C. Relyea.
CRS Report RL31548, Homeland Security Department Proposals: Scope of Personnel
Flexibilities, by Tom Nicola.
CRS-14

---

IB93026
10-16-02
CRS Report RL31500, Homeland Security: Human Resources Management, by Barbara L.
Schwemle.
CRS Report RL31492, Homeland Security: Management Positions in the Proposed
Department, by Henry B. Hogue.
CRS Report RL31148. Homeland Security: The Presidential Coordination Office, by
Harold C. Relyea.
CRS Report RL31513, Homeland Security: Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R. 5005 and S.
2452, 107th Congress, by the CRS Homeland Security Team.
CRS Report RS21260, Information Technology (IT) Management: The Clinger-Cohen Act
and Homeland Security Proposals, by Jeffrey W. Seifert.
CRS Report RL30596. The National Performance Review and Other Government Reform
Initiatives: An Overview, 1993-1999, by Harold C. Relyea, Maricele J. Cornejo
Riemann, and Henry B. Hogue.
CRS Report RL31057. A Primer on E-Government: Sectors, Stages, Opportunities, and
Challenges of Online Governance, by Jeffrey W. Seifert.
CRS-15

---