This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/11/us/coronavirus-pandemics-homeland-security.html

The article has changed 30 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 27 Version 28
Does a Dept. of Pandemics Sound Odd? Homeland Security Once Did, Too Does a Dept. of Pandemics Sound Odd? Homeland Security Once Did, Too
(1 day later)
WASHINGTON — Exactly one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, two senior senators proposed the creation of an entirely new government department that would pull together the diverse, often competitive federal agencies whose lack of communication and coordination left the nation exposed to deadly terrorism on American soil. It became the Department of Homeland Security.WASHINGTON — Exactly one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, two senior senators proposed the creation of an entirely new government department that would pull together the diverse, often competitive federal agencies whose lack of communication and coordination left the nation exposed to deadly terrorism on American soil. It became the Department of Homeland Security.
After a bungled response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was reorganized and elevated to cabinet-level under President Bill Clinton to give it more standing and influence. After World War II in 1945, President Harry S. Truman proposed the formation of the Defense Department to eliminate infighting, waste and duplication in military operations.After a bungled response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was reorganized and elevated to cabinet-level under President Bill Clinton to give it more standing and influence. After World War II in 1945, President Harry S. Truman proposed the formation of the Defense Department to eliminate infighting, waste and duplication in military operations.
The United States has historically responded to major crises by closely examining how the government performed to identify any failures or weaknesses that were exposed, and then instituting substantial changes to try to repair them — or at least to insulate itself from systemic breakdowns in the future.The United States has historically responded to major crises by closely examining how the government performed to identify any failures or weaknesses that were exposed, and then instituting substantial changes to try to repair them — or at least to insulate itself from systemic breakdowns in the future.
The coronavirus pandemic ravaging the nation and the world is likely to be no exception.The coronavirus pandemic ravaging the nation and the world is likely to be no exception.
Lawmakers, government officials and other experts are already pondering what could have been done differently to hasten the reaction to the arrival of the virus, guard against the shortages in medical equipment and dysfunction in testing that hampered the response, improve the halting and disjointed effort to corral the disease, and spare the mammoth expense of averting a total economic collapse.Lawmakers, government officials and other experts are already pondering what could have been done differently to hasten the reaction to the arrival of the virus, guard against the shortages in medical equipment and dysfunction in testing that hampered the response, improve the halting and disjointed effort to corral the disease, and spare the mammoth expense of averting a total economic collapse.
“I don’t think there is any doubt that there will be a massive effort to reorganize government in the aftermath of Covid-19,” said Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota and majority leader during the Sept. 11 attacks and their immediate aftermath.“I don’t think there is any doubt that there will be a massive effort to reorganize government in the aftermath of Covid-19,” said Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota and majority leader during the Sept. 11 attacks and their immediate aftermath.
“This has had a far greater impact than 9/11 had,” said Mr. Daschle, who is also a member of the independent Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense. “But like 9/11, we were not prepared.”“This has had a far greater impact than 9/11 had,” said Mr. Daschle, who is also a member of the independent Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense. “But like 9/11, we were not prepared.”
How any changes unfold — and whether the impetus will come from Congress, the White House or even outside forces — remains to be seen. House Democrats are already pushing legislation to create a commission similar to one established after Sept. 11 that would review government actions, outline lessons learned and make recommendations on any overhaul.How any changes unfold — and whether the impetus will come from Congress, the White House or even outside forces — remains to be seen. House Democrats are already pushing legislation to create a commission similar to one established after Sept. 11 that would review government actions, outline lessons learned and make recommendations on any overhaul.
The fate of such changes is likely to depend in large part on who is in power after November. Party leaders would no doubt approach the question differently based on their own views of the role of government and its level of responsibility.The fate of such changes is likely to depend in large part on who is in power after November. Party leaders would no doubt approach the question differently based on their own views of the role of government and its level of responsibility.
The Trump administration, like the George W. Bush administration in 2001, could resist calls for a significant transformation, viewing them as tacit criticism of its handling of the crisis rather than an attempt to better prepare for a recurrence. Already, President Trump has slammed Democrats’ plans to form a select committee that would monitor his administration’s response to the novel coronavirus, dismissing it as a partisan “witch hunt.”The Trump administration, like the George W. Bush administration in 2001, could resist calls for a significant transformation, viewing them as tacit criticism of its handling of the crisis rather than an attempt to better prepare for a recurrence. Already, President Trump has slammed Democrats’ plans to form a select committee that would monitor his administration’s response to the novel coronavirus, dismissing it as a partisan “witch hunt.”
But it is hard to imagine any situation in the coming months in which congressional and executive branch personnel would take a deep look at the government response to the pandemic and decide that nothing needs to change. No one believes the nation could withstand another such blow to public health and the economy.But it is hard to imagine any situation in the coming months in which congressional and executive branch personnel would take a deep look at the government response to the pandemic and decide that nothing needs to change. No one believes the nation could withstand another such blow to public health and the economy.
“Once this is under control, we have to think about this, and not just put it off and say it is a once-in-every-100-years event,” said Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, who was one of the early chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee after it was created in response to the rise of terrorism risks. “Let’s face it: It has happened, and indications are it could happen again soon with the way the world is, the way travel is.”“Once this is under control, we have to think about this, and not just put it off and say it is a once-in-every-100-years event,” said Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, who was one of the early chairmen of the House Homeland Security Committee after it was created in response to the rise of terrorism risks. “Let’s face it: It has happened, and indications are it could happen again soon with the way the world is, the way travel is.”
Changes of the magnitude that might be coming are never easy, as the bitter fight over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security illustrated. Washington agencies are aggressive fiefs that notoriously protect their own turf, and that parochialism extends to the cabinet agencies and congressional committees that oversee and derive their clout from them. Critics are all but certain to denounce an unnecessary growth of government.Changes of the magnitude that might be coming are never easy, as the bitter fight over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security illustrated. Washington agencies are aggressive fiefs that notoriously protect their own turf, and that parochialism extends to the cabinet agencies and congressional committees that oversee and derive their clout from them. Critics are all but certain to denounce an unnecessary growth of government.
Still, top lawmakers say some review and rethinking is essential.Still, top lawmakers say some review and rethinking is essential.
“I would think some structural changes would come out of this,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who led what was then known as the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee when homeland security oversight was added to its portfolio after the Sept. 11 attacks. “We need some sort of coordinating structure.”“I would think some structural changes would come out of this,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who led what was then known as the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee when homeland security oversight was added to its portfolio after the Sept. 11 attacks. “We need some sort of coordinating structure.”
But what shape does that take? Does it amount to some iteration of a new Department of Pandemic Prevention and Response in a major consolidation of responsibility? Or are less drastic changes in store, such as a clearer delineation of responsibilities among agencies to identify who is in charge of pinpointing a looming public health threat and empowered to ensure that the country is prepared, including with sufficient equipment and medical personnel?But what shape does that take? Does it amount to some iteration of a new Department of Pandemic Prevention and Response in a major consolidation of responsibility? Or are less drastic changes in store, such as a clearer delineation of responsibilities among agencies to identify who is in charge of pinpointing a looming public health threat and empowered to ensure that the country is prepared, including with sufficient equipment and medical personnel?
What is the future role of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has been pushed somewhat into the background in the coronavirus crisis, while a White House task force has been placed in command? Where does the intelligence community fit in? Why did some states perform better than others in the early days of the spread? Should FEMA, usually a responder to natural disasters, be the dominant force?What is the future role of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has been pushed somewhat into the background in the coronavirus crisis, while a White House task force has been placed in command? Where does the intelligence community fit in? Why did some states perform better than others in the early days of the spread? Should FEMA, usually a responder to natural disasters, be the dominant force?
Updated August 24, 2020 Updated August 27, 2020
Rahm Emanuel, the former top White House official, congressman and Chicago mayor, is calling for a multipronged approach that includes a sophisticated early-warning system to detect possible threats, establishment of a new way to organize a ready medical force and an aggressive stockpiling of medical supplies.Rahm Emanuel, the former top White House official, congressman and Chicago mayor, is calling for a multipronged approach that includes a sophisticated early-warning system to detect possible threats, establishment of a new way to organize a ready medical force and an aggressive stockpiling of medical supplies.
“Clearly, you can’t have a diffusion of responsibilities,” Mr. Emanuel said. “There has to be one place for all accountability.”“Clearly, you can’t have a diffusion of responsibilities,” Mr. Emanuel said. “There has to be one place for all accountability.”
The bioterrorism commission on which Mr. Daschle sits — along with Joseph I. Lieberman, who spearheaded the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security, and Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the agency — has made more than 30 recommendations for readying the nation for such an event. Proposals like those, which include developing a national biodefense strategy, may now be only a starting point.The bioterrorism commission on which Mr. Daschle sits — along with Joseph I. Lieberman, who spearheaded the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security, and Tom Ridge, the first secretary of the agency — has made more than 30 recommendations for readying the nation for such an event. Proposals like those, which include developing a national biodefense strategy, may now be only a starting point.
“My guess is that there will be an interest in going well beyond what we have recommended to date,” he said. “One of the laments often articulated in the biodefense community is that we spend less than one half of one aircraft carrier on all forms of biodefense annually — a paltry sum. That, too, will change.”“My guess is that there will be an interest in going well beyond what we have recommended to date,” he said. “One of the laments often articulated in the biodefense community is that we spend less than one half of one aircraft carrier on all forms of biodefense annually — a paltry sum. That, too, will change.”
The change is likely to be messy. When Mr. Lieberman and Arlen Specter, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, first proposed the creation of a homeland security agency on Oct. 11, 2001, the response was mixed. Many congressional Republicans saw it as an unnecessary expansion of government bureaucracy, and the existing intelligence agencies fiercely fought giving up their autonomy. It stalled.The change is likely to be messy. When Mr. Lieberman and Arlen Specter, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, first proposed the creation of a homeland security agency on Oct. 11, 2001, the response was mixed. Many congressional Republicans saw it as an unnecessary expansion of government bureaucracy, and the existing intelligence agencies fiercely fought giving up their autonomy. It stalled.
By the next year, the Bush White House was pushing the reorganization, and accusing Democrats of standing in the way and placing demands for labor protections for agency workers above national security. It became a central issue in the 2002 elections and helped Republicans win the Senate. Disagreement over the changes continues to this day.By the next year, the Bush White House was pushing the reorganization, and accusing Democrats of standing in the way and placing demands for labor protections for agency workers above national security. It became a central issue in the 2002 elections and helped Republicans win the Senate. Disagreement over the changes continues to this day.
But another overhaul is almost certain given the effect of the coronavirus.But another overhaul is almost certain given the effect of the coronavirus.
“Americans will need answers on how our government can work better to prevent a similar crisis from happening again,” said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, who leads the House Homeland Security Committee.“Americans will need answers on how our government can work better to prevent a similar crisis from happening again,” said Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, who leads the House Homeland Security Committee.