| Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 12, 2002; Noon EDT President Bush has announced plans to create a Department of Homeland Security, consolidating 22 agencies with nearly 170,000 federal employees. What will this reorganization mean for federal employees? What are the chances that the Bush administration will be able to streamline the management structure of these agencies? Will employees lose civil service or union job protections? Paul C. Light, an expert on government reform and public administration, will join The Post's Stephen Barr, who writes the Federal Diary column, to answer your questions and take your comments at noon June 12 on Federal Diary Live. Light is the director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution and serves as an advisor to the National Commission on the Public Service, which will offer recommendations later this year on reforms for the civil service system. Light recently testified on Capitol Hill on the creation of a homeland security department and has written several books on the government and public service, including "The True Size of Government" and "The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work." Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. The transcript follows. Stephen Barr: Thanks to all of you who are taking time to participate in this discussion, and a special thanks to today's guest, Paul Light of the Brookings Institution. Paul, to get the ball rolling today, would you start by giving us a sense of where the president's proposed Department of Homeland Security fits in the scheme of past, big reorganization projects? Any insights from previous reorganizations? Again, Paul, thanks for taking time from your busy schedule to join us. Paul C. Light: This is hardly the first time in history that we've reorganized to meet a national threat. DoD was created in part to deal with the Cold War, NASA in response to Sputnik, Energy in response to what Jimmy Carter declared to be the moral equivalent of war during the energy crisis. I could argue that EPA was a response to Earth Day pressure, and HUD to the urban riots in the 1965, too. There's a long tradition in this country of using reorganization to refocus national and bureaucratic attention on a particular issue.
I wish I could say that all of these reorganizations have worked. In fact, several have been less than the sum of their parts. Energy continues to have difficulties communicating both among its many agencies and with other departments -- hence, the congressional reorganization two years ago that created the National Nuclear Security Administration. And DoD has needed repairs over the years. We had a massive reorganization of the agency in 1985 with the Goldwater/Nichols bill. In short, merely putting boxes together on the same organization chart is no guarantee of success.
The general rule of thumb, and I emphasize rule of thumb, is that these kinds of "merger and acquisition" reorganizations work best (EPA being the prime example) when the agencies involved share at least 50% of the mission. The homeland security proposal involves several agencies that would not meet this test and leaves out one or two (State's consular affairs) that some might argue should have been left in. I was surprised, for example, that the Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service was put in here. It spends very little of its time on these issues.
In short, I believe this is not just the biggest reorganization in recent memory (in people, not budget authority), but one of the most difficult. Whoever gets the job of secretary has one tough task ahead.
Washington, D.C.: In view of the size and perceived needs of the Department of Defense and the proposed Homeland Security Department, it would seem that they will consume a substantial portion of the federal budget. What will this mean for other federal entities? Paul C. Light: Actually, this is a very labor intensive department that has a fairly small budget ($37-40 billion). Measured in budget authority, the president's proposal wouldn't make the top ten list in size. Education was bigger, so was the decision to remove Social Security from HHS in the mid 1990s. So was DOT, HUD, HEW. You get my point.
The real question is what it will do to the mission of the agencies that move. It's been over 50 years since we last combed through government to see what fits with what (the Hoover Commission). I suspect that Congress will be tempted to break off pieces of some of these agencies and move only the parts that fit with homeland security. That's what I'd do with APHIS, for example.
I'm also quite concerned about moving the Transportation Security Administration at this point in time. It's like a sapling that has just put down its first roots at DOT. Moving it could set back the timetable for airport and marine/land security by a year or more. I'd leave it right where it is until it matures a bit.
Bethesda, Md.: My agency is one of the 22 affected by the restructuring of the government to create the Department of Homeland Security. Our entire agency will not be absorbed, just bits and pieces. Although I may not be directly affected by the changes, my concern is that the removal of parts of our agency may cause a surplus in personnel, i.e., support people. Could the restructuring cause a RIF in some agencies? Paul C. Light: I haven't heard anything about RIFS, but they are possible. The Office of Personnel Management is working closely with Ridge, I'm told, on how to build the personnel system for the new department. I have a lot of confidence in Director James and Deputy Director Blair on this, but would urge Congress to adopt a personnel and revenue neutral approach to this. The president said that this wouldn't cost any more money (which I would dispute a bit). It most certainly won't save money. The greater worry is that we'll end up with two gigantic priorities in the federal government: the war on terrorism at Defense, and homeland security on the domestic side. There's a lot more to homeland security in my mind than border control. There's also clean air, reducing disease, education, etc. In other words, a health society is as important to homeland security as tight borders. My hope is that the Bush administration will make sure all of our priorities are appropriately funded. We need everyone focusing on their missions right now, even if their missions aren't on the front page.
Washington, D.C.: What's your take on the coming culture clash inside this new department? Isn't this really the challenge that Bush faces? And do you think OMB and OPM are up to the job when it comes to setting up this department and explaining why Congress should accept the administration's ideas? Paul C. Light: I think the culture clash is serious and tough. Several of the agencies at the core of the reorganization have long traditions of quasi-independence. Several are more used to saluting the skull and crossbones than their departmental flags, I suppose. I think the secretary needs to recognize the strengths in these long traditions, while forming a common bond around the very real threats to security.
Congress is not just a rubber stamp in all this. There is not much detail legislatively yet, and reorganization is not easy to do in statute. I worked on the 1988 elevation of the VA to cabinet status, which you'd think was an easy bill, but it was very complicated. Reconciling past statutes will take 100 pages or more on this one. I'd guess that Congres will accept 75 percent of the proposal. And I hope that Congress adds its own ideas to the mix here, including the kind of performance oriented provisions that Fred Thompson helped add to the Transportation Security bill last fall.
Washington, D.C.: About the Transportation Security Administration and Homeland Security being a labor intensive department: is there any chance that TSA will meet its deadline for a federalized screener workforce? And will Congress recognize that 30,000 to 40,000 people are not enough and let TSA hire as many as it takes to secure checkpoints, baggage, etc.? Thank you. Paul C. Light: Yes and yes. I'm impressed with the team at TSA. They are working very hard to get the agency established and are knee-deep in the hiring process. I was surprised that the Bush administration said that TSA would be just 41,000 employees or so. It is likely to end up closer to 75,000. The only way to meet the congressional deadlines is to give the agency the resources, budgetary and personnel, to succeed. Congress will just have to swallow hard and allow this agency to grow as much as necessary. I don't think there's a single body in the organization right now that isn't doing the work of two. It really is an impressive group.
Washington, D.C.: I currently work for the Coast Guard in HR. To me, it makes great sense that there would be an effort made to consolidate all of the disparate support functions (such as HR, contracting, procurement, etc) under the umbrella of the new department...keep the core/essential program and oversight functions, but contract out what can be done operationally in those areas. What do you think is the likely approach to be followed by the new Department in setting up it's support functions, something like the above or to let every fiefdom continue to do its own thing? Paul C. Light: You're making the classic economies of scale argument, which is dead on target. The balance here is between speed and efficiency. The easiest thing to do is just move the agencies into the new department on paper--let them stay in their current locations (as I think the Bush administration wants) and erect a super-structure someplace to provide policy guidance. I suspect that's the only way to do this in the short term, which means that all the traditional "overhead" or "support" units will stay. Its going to be hard to integrate on policy, let alone create a central administrative core. This is not to say that there won't be an assistant secretary or under secretary for administration, however. But that unit is more likely to be a policy making unit for the rest of the 22 units. I could be wrong on this, though. I don't know very much about what the Bush people want. There's not much detail out there.
Zip Code 20005: How will they hash out the differences in duty between Customs agents and Border Patrol agents? How will they merge the convoluted pay systems? Will this cause an exodus of eligible retirees and if so, how will they compensate for the loss of institutional knowledge and is there a mechanism in place to bring in new blood if needed? How will they do it without "growing the government?" Paul C. Light: I don't think this can be done without growing government a bit. If the past is prologue, the new department will probably cost 10-25 percent more than its parts. One wonders, for example, whether we can get the Customs and Immigration people to wear the same uniform. That's not a trivial issue at the border. I am very supportive of any proposals to create an alternative personnel system for the new department that would become a model for the future. There has to be a better way to hire, discipline, reward, and train the workforce than the one we're using now. Again, I think the Office of Personnel Management is trying hard to think outside the traditional box. If we could get a "headcount neutral" agreement as part of the legislation, as well as pay reform, I suspect the federal employee unions might be ready to bargain. But we can't allow the kind of job-hopping that we're seeing these days to continue.
Long Beach, Calif.: Our president appears to be calling some draconian shots in regards to detaining people without charges for who knows how long. I no longer support our "War" as a result. Will he be running the new Homeland Security Department in the same fashion, with very broad powers, or will legal minds prevail? Paul C. Light: Ah, the Federalist Papers. I think the founders would support the notion of having just this kind of department. They worried greatly about protecting our borders at the time. But Madison might also worry about concentrating too much power in a single department. There's a delicate balance between having a homeland security department that can tighten the borders and having one that drifts too far toward a national police agency. That's why it's a good thing to leave the FBI out of this.
Arlington, Va.: I think that the most logical way to set up a Homeland Security Department is to move functions, rather than organizations, into the new entity. It might be acceptable to a Federal Protective Unit that includes all of the Federal Protective Service and the body-guarding functions and staff from the Secret Service and, then as time went on, dissolve the temporary service and place the functions more appropriately in the new Department. I think that when we operate with organizations as the building blocks, we end up with a rigid hierarchical and probably non-functional stovepipe organization. Paul C. Light: You may well be right. We are paying the price now for decades of neglect regarding the basic structure of government. Presidents always come into office promising to reorganize, but rarely succeed. We end up with the kind of random sorting of functions more by accident than intent. While I agree that it might be better to move functions than organizations, we also face intense time pressure to act. That leads us inevitably to this kind of merger/acquisition model. My hope is that Congress will consider a new Hoover commission as an amendment to this bill. Every fifty years or so, we ought to ask whether we've got the right structure for the current mission. Congress should consider reorganizing, too. One shudders to think that the new secretary could spend every hour of his or her day preparing to testify before the 88 committees and subcommittees that will oversee the new department.
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Light, any chance you can get Paul Volcker to weigh in with the president and start needed civil service reforms at the creation of this new department? Paul C. Light: I'm positive that Paul Volcker and the Commission would be delighted to help. The president and Congress need only ask. The Volcker Commission is discussing several issues of concern here, including the personnel system, and is building on the work of commissions past. Speaking again from my own experience in the 1980s, the homeland security bill presents a perfect opportunity to consider long needed reforms. Pieces of Sen. Voinovich's bill on entry hiring ought to be considered for this bill, so should some of the Governmental Affairs Committee's thinking about performance measurement and presidential appointments reform.
Washington, D.C.: What are the odds that Congress will punt and leave it to the new Cabinet secretary to decide all the personnel and procurement rules, systems, and so forth? Paul C. Light: I think the odds on leaving this to the new secretary are slim. At least I hope they are. Congress has a long tradition of care in these things, and is much more aware of the problems in the personnel and management of government today than it was even a decade ago. All that work over the years by members such as Rep. Stephen Horn, Voinovich, Thompson, Akaka, Lieberman, Durbin, etc., should find a place here. Congress cannot afford to punt. Unless I'm missing something here, it is the administration that is punting on the details. It used to be that OMB would have weighed in with a very detailed reorganization plan. But OMB just doesn't have the capacity anymore to write a bill like this--the old administrative directorate is long gone.
Arlington, Va.: Isn't it possible that this effort to consolidate a lot of little functions into one big agency is simply a distraction from the massive intelligence failures of FBI/CIA, which are basically unaffected? Paul C. Light: Good question. Answer is yes and no. I don't think the new department is somehow going to distract Congress for long from the needed investigation of what went wrong. At the same time, I think there is a legitimate need for reorganization here. I might not agree with all the specifics, and do believe this reorganization is too broad, but Tom Ridge is right to argue that there has to be someone in charge at the end of the day. Senator Graham and I have written a bit on this, and came to the conclusion early on that there's no substitute for a statutory base as a lever for action.
Washington, D.C.: Mr. Light, as I recall from previous discussions with Stephen, you believe that the government should reduce management layers. But there's no way this department can operate without at least five or six added layers, right? Don't law enforcement agencies just love lots of layers? Paul C. Light: I'm worried about the layering that might result here, and would urge Congress to put tight limits on the number of senior executives, both political and career, that work in the headquarters. The most interesting thing about FBI Agent Rowley's testimony was her concern about layering in headquarters. It really matters to the front-line employees. I'm not sure whether law enforcement agencies love layers--it seems to me that the layering occurs just about everywhere, sometimes to compensate for pay freezes, other times because of ego. I know that Ridge recognizes the problem, as does the Bush administration. And I hear that there have been some successes here and there in the administration's flattening initiative.
Southwest DC: First, I would like to thank Stephen Barr for bringing up in his column the issue of the weakening of Federal worker rights that the Homeland Security proposal could bring. A question for Mr. Light: I agree that the inclusion of APHIS does not seem to make much sense. I was also curious why they didn't include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the mix. It would seem that they would have responsibilities in managing nuclear waste that could be used for a dirty bomb, or just dealing with the potential for an attack against a nuclear facility. Was the NRC just overlooked or was there some sort of regulatory/political reason not to include them? Paul C. Light: Who knows? Part of the problem with the penchant for secrecy in this administration is that we end up wondering what happened for what reason. Was it politics? Was it an old campaign commitment? I haven't a clue why some things are in and others out. I suspect that the team did its best to understand the history and mission of these agencies and pulled it together as best they could. APHIS is in, I suspect, because it is a border control agency of a a kind. But I just don't know.
Washington, D.C.: There are very few political appointees in federal law enforcement agencies. So I guess pragmatism is better than ideology. Paul C. Light: Several of the agencies are career oriented by tradition. Coast Guard has no political appointees, Customs just a handful. I think that's fine. The new secretary does deserve the flexibility to build a team, but I'd like to believe that the senior leadership of this new department will be picked for their subject matter expertise. I suspect he White House Office of Presidential Personnel is already working on a slate of potential nominees, which makes perfect sense. Perhaps we can get the White House and Senate to make a compact here to move these nominees through with minimal hassle. It'd be a nice compact for all appointees for that matter.
Washington, D.C.: Any thoughts on how an IG should police this new department? Or will all this work be classified? Paul C. Light: There will certainly be an IG. Some of the OIG reports will have to be classified, as some are now at DoD, Energy, and elsewhere. The big challenge is to invent a methodology for testing the department's effectiveness. I think the Transportation IG has done a good job helping the Transportation Security Administration test its effectiveness, and has been part of the ongoing conversation at DOT for several years now on metrics for measuring performance. We don't need a "gotcha" IG in the new department, but, luckily, the vast majority of IGs no longer think that way.
Alexandria, Va.: This is a little off point, Mr. Light, but I hope you will tackle this. President Bush signed an executive order that says air traffic control is no longer an "inherently governmental function." It really surprises me. What's the reasoning behind the order? Paul C. Light: This one has been around for years, largely because of lobbying from the Air Transport Association, which believes that system modernization would be easier if the ATC were privatized. s I understand it, the Canadian air traffic control is privatized, but paid for by the government, and continues to work pretty well. But this is an odd time to put air traffic control up for competition. Many federal employees tell us that they are worried about their jobs, distracted by the administration's competitive sourcing initiative.
St. Louis, Mo.: Creating a Homeland Security Department may be necessary, etc., but considering the "enemy," we are obviously painting a bullseye. An obvious question: What is the estimated cost of providing 24-7 security to all employees of the new agency? Will they be located in one building for ease of protection? Paul C. Light: They won't be in a single building for the time being, though I have already noted my concerns about leaving them all where they are. We are already providing 24-7 security to all department secretaries, but I don't think we'll be providing body guards for every last employee of homeland security.
Vienna, Va.: Why didn't he just do all of this with an Executive Order rather than take it to Congress? Paul C. Light: Can't be done through an order. The only way to create a cabinet department or agency is through legislation. The Constitution is pretty clear on that point. Congress, not the president, is responsible for creating the agencies and offices of government. Presidents are free to create agencies within the White House to their heart's content, and they can confer cabinet status on just about anyone (including me or Steve Barr, for that matter),but they have to go up Pennsylvania if they want the real deal.
Oklahoma City, Okla.: In a somewhat related area, we keep hearing (and reading) about Civil Service reform. To do a good job while employed by our country is very noble and good and is considered a very important position, be it a computer operator or a ditchdigger. However noble this is considered, the bottom line is monetary sustenance for your family. What gravely needs to be "Reformed" is the implementation of the 1990 pay reform act, as written, with back pay for civil servants deprived of full cost of living raises. The accumulative effect of the abuse of this law combined with the pittance of COLA governed by the CPI for retirees is shameful! Thanks for your time. Paul C. Light: I agree. You get what you pay for in a democracy. Pay your judges, members of Congress, executives, and front-line employees below the market for too long, and you degrade the willingness to serve. We've absolutely got to do something about the current pay process. It's clearly not working, as the president's personnel office just reported. But we're far from an agreement on how to fix it. It's a big issue for the Volcker Commission.
Washington, D.C.: Re: neutral headcounts and extra budget money. Doesn't this put small government conservatives in a bind? Won't House Republicans try to shrink the Bush plan? I mean, these are some of the same people who wanted to kill off Commerce, HUD and Education before Bush came to town. Paul C. Light: Well, there's some irony in watching President Bush declare this reorganization to be the biggest since 1947. It wouldn't have been so big, incidentally, if he had gotten his way on using private contractors instead of federal employees as passenger and baggage handlers. Every once in while, conservatives discover that there is a need for government after all. I know that President Bush cares deeply about the public service--he's the son of a great public servant himself. I also know that he believes strongly in the need for this reorganization. I say give him the benefit of the doubt on this--much as folks argue that the announcement was designed to bump the FBI investigation off the front-page, I really believe that reorganization is the answer to at least some of the problems here. It certainly got the attention of the agencies involved, right?
Stephen Barr: That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion. © Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
