Senate plan to reshape Governmental Affairs panel gets mixed reception

A plan to add homeland security oversight to the duties of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee drew mixed reviews Thursday as senators debated the proposal.

Under the plan, introduced by Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. and Harry Reid, D-Nev., the Governmental Affairs Committee would gain responsibility for oversight of most components of the Homeland Security Department, with the exception of the Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and Customs revenue functions. To reflect the new jurisdiction, the committee's name would change to the "Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs."

The chairwoman and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs panel refrained from commenting on the reorganization plan Thursday afternoon, as senators continued to discuss the specifics of the proposal.

But outside observers noted that the plan runs the risk of allowing homeland security to eclipse the committee's broader responsibility for overseeing executive branch management and the civil service system.

The Governmental Affairs Committee has a "very broad mandate," said Paul Light, director of the Center for Public Service at the Brookings Institution and a former staff member of the committee. If the panel begins to focus too heavily on a single department, it may lose sight of its "core agenda" of governmentwide management reform issues, he said.

"I think the committee has to be very careful about not ceding jurisdiction on the broad [area] of government performance," Light said. "Nothing should be done to send a signal that government performance somehow comes second."

With the exception of a few small agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget, the Governmental Affairs Committee currently lacks jurisdiction over any single federal entity, Light said. "Once you give it line responsibility over a department, you dilute its credibility."

A name change for Governmental Affairs might be "politically interesting," said Carl DeMaio, president of the Performance Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank. But "oversight of the Homeland Security Department can and should be done by Governmental Affairs under its current name."

"The governmentwide oversight and reform responsibilities of the Governmental Affairs Committee are important and shouldn't be made to seem less important than the oversight of just the Department of Homeland Security," DeMaio said.

If Senate leaders would like to see greater Governmental Affairs involvement in homeland security issues, they would be better off creating a subcommittee, Light argued. "You can do lots with subcommittees," he said. "One of the things that I think needs to be recognized here is that merely renaming a single committee of the Senate is not a substitute for meaningful reorganization."

Governmental Affairs Committee members are "enormously experienced" on reform issues and are well-positioned to provide thoughtful oversight of homeland security, said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes the value of government service.

"To the extent that [the Senate is] collecting oversight into a single committee, that's good," Stier said, adding that he, too, hopes homeland security will not draw attention away from broader civil service and government management issues.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, was still reviewing the McConnell-Reid plan Thursday afternoon, said Elissa Davidson, her spokeswoman.

The committee's ranking Democrat, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, is "honored that the [Senate] leaders have expressed faith in the Governmental Affairs Committee," said spokeswoman Leslie Phillips.