Jun 13, 2002 3 min read

When it comes to creating a Cabinet-level department to handle homeland security, Congress must go slow and get it right the first time. Not because President Bush’s proposal is a bad idea. It’s just the opposite. The nation must be better able to respond to the threat that terrorism poses, and coordinating security within the homeland would go a long way toward doing that.

However, the scope of what President Bush has proposed requires careful study and cooperation because, as The Washington Post noted, the president’s plan would create the third-largest unit of the federal government. Only the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs would be larger.

Nothing on this scale has been tried since the formation of the Defense Department in 1947.

That was a huge task back then, and creating a department of homeland security today would more than match it. The Cabinet officer who is in charge of homeland security will have almost 170,000 men and women and more than $37 billion at his or her command.

To do this, the president has proposed stripping agencies from other departments – the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and many others – and consolidating them into one Cabinet department.

That’s going to be tough because these agencies have patrons and supporters inside and outside of government who have a vested interest in the status quo.

Getting them to give up their turf is going to be a challenge, even if it would be for the greater good of the nation.

Just look at the battles that still take place among the three services at the Pentagon. The Army, Navy and Air Force are very protective of their turfs, even though they’ve been part of a unified Defense Department for half a century. At times, getting them to cooperate is as difficult as herding cats.

The president and leaders of both parties in Congress must not allow subcommittee turf wars to undermine the push to consolidate homeland security.

That doesn’t mean the plan should sail through Congress without a close examination of its details. After all, the plan was hatched in great secrecy and only a few people were involved in its development.

For the overall good of the plan and the nation, it needs to be scrutinized, questioned and doubted.

But it must not be weakened to the point that it will be ineffective in fighting terrorism.