Congressional oversight of homeland security: help or hinderance?

Abstract

Congressional oversight of homeland security constantly receives harsh criticism from scholars and the media for being disjointed and overbearing. Critics often cite the numerous committees and members of Congress that have jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. They allege that this disparate oversight leads to conflicting direction, inefficiency, and wasted resources. While there is room for improvement, congressional oversight is not as fragmented and ineffective as critics make it appear. This thesis conducts a historical case study analysis to demonstrate that congressional oversight of homeland security is rigorous, systematic, and effective. Congressional oversight of intelligence is presented as an example for failure, followed by defense oversight, which is presented as an example for success. Careful evaluation shows that homeland security oversight more closely resembles the path of defense oversight. This research suggests that the aggressive, and at times even overbearing, oversight of homeland security policy leads to better results than weak and timid oversight.