Questions abound on homeland security

One of the boldest strokes in recent U.S. history was President Bush's June 6 speech to a national television audience announcing his proposed new Department of Homeland Security.

The new department would inherit 169,000 employees and $37.4 billion in budgets from the agencies it would absorb, including the Secret Service, the Coast Guard and the embattled immigration and custom services, among others.

This week, homeland security director Tom Ridge took the proposed legislation to Capitol Hill for formal presentation to Congress, whose committees are holding hearings on the subject.

Many questions remain.

What about the FBI and the CIA? Would they remain independent agencies, with the FBI under the Department of Justice? Or would these agencies, or some of their functions, be transferred to the new department?

What about the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? ATF, which is the agency primarily responsible for tracking guns and bombs, was left out of the plan as well. White House officials contend that ATF's primary mission didn't fit the definition of homeland security.

Lawmakers will give these and other questions a thorough going-over, as they should.

The president hopes to have the new department in place by Jan. 1. This would require approval before Congress adjourns this fall. House minority leader Dick Gephardt even went so far as to urge passage of the plan by Sept. 11, the anniversary of the attacks. That is an extremely ambitious and challenging schedule and unlikely to be achieved.

Among the most alarming facts that has come to light is that there are currently no fewer than 88 House and Senate committees and subcommittees with some oversight function over the various agencies that would roll into the new department. This fact isn't, by itself, an argument for the exact specifics of the president's proposal. But it is an argument for some essential streamlining of these functions in our vast and far-flung federal bureaucracy.

Imagine the absurdity of all the relevant executive-branch officials charged with various aspects of homeland security having to spend so much time answering to so many members of Congress and the Senate, not to mention their various staffs.

Finally, a word about a likely director for the mammoth new agency. If ace Washington reporter Robert Novak can be believed, the star of former Ridge, a former governor, is in eclipse, making him unlikely to be selected, as is that of former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is thought to be devoted to an autocratic leadership style, rather than the team player needed in this role.

Who will be the president's pick to head up this enormous new agency, assuming congressional approval, is anyone's guess.

"America is leading the world in a titanic struggle against terror," said the president. "Freedom and fear are at war. And freedom is winning." The vast majority of Americans will endorse some version of the president's proposal for the new department. It is up to Congress to deliberate on the largest reform of the federal government since the Truman administration, and pass some workable version of it into law.