Midterm elections could settle homeland security debate
Next week's midterm elections could put an end to the long-running debate over labor rights for workers in the Homeland Security Department.
If Republicans gain control of the Senate, they have signaled that passing President Bush's homeland security proposal-which does not guarantee union rights for workers-will be a top priority. Democrats currently enjoy a one-vote majority provided by Vermont Independent James Jeffords, so the outcome of a few key races could easily give Republicans control of the chamber.
"If the Republicans win control of the Senate and keep control of the House, than they have an easier time pushing through what the president wants on homeland security," said Donald Kettl, a professor of public management at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Federal employee unions acknowledge that a change in Senate leadership could sink their efforts to guarantee civil service protections for workers in the new department. "I think it will be really tough sledding for us if we lose the Senate and don't get the House back," said one union official, who asked not to be named.
The American Federation of Government Employees, the nation's largest federal union, is backing Democratic Senate candidates in Arkansas, South Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire and Minnesota, all of which have close races.
Conversely, if Democrats regain control of the House, they will ensure that federal workers have civil service protections in the proposed department, according to Rep. James Moran, D-Va. "The White House would have to drop their insistence on a different civil service code for employees," he said.
The midterm elections could affect other federal management issues, including the Bush administration's drive to put work done in government up for competition with private firms. A Republican takeover in the Senate "would make it more difficult to get any legislation through to block competitive sourcing," said William Eggers, director of public sector research for Deloitte Research, an arm of the Washington-based firm Deloitte Consulting.
But Moran countered by noting that the Republican-controlled House approved his amendment to the fiscal 2003 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, which is intended to derail the White House competitive sourcing initiative. "We had Republican control and we still passed it," he said. The Bush administration has threatened to veto the bill because of Moran's measure.
Ronald Utt, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who led privatization efforts in the Reagan administration, said Congress never has been a big proponent of outsourcing efforts. "Congress doesn't require that agencies be efficient," he said.
Even if control of the Senate and House does not change hands, reshuffling the leadership of congressional committees could also affect the Bush management agenda. The Office of Management and Budget has launched an ambitious effort to rate the performance of federal programs, with the objective of reducing funding for weak performers and adding funds for high performers. But the effort will flounder unless Congress participates, according to Kettl.
"The administration can do as much measuring as it wants, but until Congress pays attention it won't have as much impact as it might," said Kettl.
This could happen if the leaders of key committees take an interest in federal management, Kettl added. "If it turns out there are a couple committees that are filled by people with affinity for these issues, it could add a lot of traction to the administration's efforts," he said.