Democrats have been playing musical chairs on the House Intelligence Committee, but when the music stops, it looks as if they will not follow through on their promise to improve oversight by restructuring the intelligence and homeland security committees along the lines the 9/11 Commission recommended.

After a big election win, Democrats have been unified with the exception of the Hoyer-Murtha contest and the machinations over the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. Whatever one thinks about the relative merits of Reps. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), Democrats could have made lemonade out of lemons by combining the change in chairmanship with a bold committee restructuring.

It would not only have been good politics, but it also would have been the right thing to do. Since Sept. 11, we have undertaken two of the most significant bureaucratic restructurings in our history with the creation of the Homeland Security Department and the realignment of intelligence agencies under the newly created director of national intelligence. To make these new structures work effectively will take many years, much presidential leadership, and robust legislative oversight.

There are two overarching problems. With homeland security, we have rearranged the executive branch and done very little to change the congressional committees that oversee it. There is never a perfect match between executive departments and legislative committees, but because Homeland Security was created from parts of many other departments, its secretary might have to testify before 88 committees and subcommittees, according to the 9/11 Commission. A second major problem is the weakness of the House and Senate intelligence committees. In the House, members only serve on the committee for a limited time until new, inexperienced members replace them. More importantly, 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton was concerned that intelligence appropriations were given short shrift because they were lumped in with the defense appropriations subcommittees.

The 9/11 Commission recommended several options. The most radical was a joint intelligence committee that has both authorizing and appropriating functions. The bottom line, however, was not this particular solution, but some change of committee jurisdiction that would afford strong oversight of homeland security and intelligence matters. And the commission was not alone in its concerns.

Finally, if good politics and policy are not reasons enough to change, Democrats promised to make these changes in their Six for ’06 platform. If Democrats want to get out of their promise on a lawyerly technicality, they might note that Six for ’06 only pledged to take up the port-security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. But Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) herself was very clear on the campaign trail that the second day of the Democratic majority would be dedicated to adopting all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Changing committee jurisdiction is difficult to do, as no chairman willingly cedes power over important areas. (Remember that Pelosi ally Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) will chair the defense appropriations subcommittee.) After 1994, Newt Gingrich and House Republicans were able to shake up the committee structure to a degree. Democrats need to make changes now, before new chairmen are ensconced, or it may never happen.

If Democratic complaints about Republicans’ poor oversight in the 109th are to be taken seriously, they should start by revamping the committee structure to better oversee intelligence and homeland security.

Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.