Thread: House Chairman Skeptical of Transition Plan

House Chairman Skeptical of Transition Plan

February 11, 2008 - 8:49am
By Patience Wait
FederalNewsRadio

WASHINGTON - A powerful House committee chairman is questioning whether the Homeland Security Department is preparing adequately for the transition to a new administration.

He also wants to know if the administration is quietly moving any of its political appointees into career civil service positions in advance of the transition.

Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, fired off a letter Feb. 7 to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, requesting a lengthy list of detailed information to be provided by Feb. 15.

"The overriding factor [for the request] is that in between the change of administration we want to make sure the continuity is there so that terrorists could not take advantage of a perceived weakness in the change from one administration to the other," Thompson told FederalNewsRadio from his Mississippi district office.

A smooth transition is of paramount importance at DHS. This is the first time the sprawling, 208,000-employee department, created from dozens of agencies scattered among several departments in 2003, has gone through a change in the White House. In recent years, other countries have suffered terrorist attacks soon after their governments changed hands.

Chertoff and some of his principle deputies meet with Thompson and others on the committee about once a month, Thompson said, where there have been discussions about some elements of the DHS transition plan.

"So what we want to do now is see whether or not there is a plan for transition put together by the Department of Homeland Security so we can look at it," he said. "Rather than saying 'I've appointed so-and-so to do this and so-and-so to do that', we'd like to see it as a committee, so we can have some time to digest it going forward."

In the letter he also asked Chertoff to issue a directive within 60 days prohibiting the conversion of political appointees into non-political roles. He expressed concern that such a practice could "provide an internal obstruction to the policies of a new administration."

"If past practices of other agencies are any indication, … there's this term called "burrowing," that's where individuals who are in appointed positions are given civil service positions," Thompson said. "So basically we want to see whether or not that's taking place."

Laura Keehner, herself an appointee, dismissed Thompson's concerns. As part of the department's transition plan, career civil servants are actually moving into positions previously held by "politicals," she said in an interview.

"I imagine this could be cleared up quickly, but it is unfortunate that this a very misleading letter, mischaracterizing the department's incredible efforts to ensure there is a smooth transition with our career civil servants, who have in most cases been here for many, many years," Keehner said.

She cited Jayson Ahern as an example. Ahern has spent more than 30 years at Customs and Border Protection; he is now the number-two person and will be acting commissioner during the presidential transition period, she said.

As for Thompson's questions on the transition, Keehner said there already have been extensive dialogue.

"We've actually been planning for years. The Office of Management and Budget has already mentioned that our efforts and planning are likely going to be studied as best practices," Keehner said. "On November 5, 2007 we already briefed Chairman Thompson in detail on all of these things; this is nothing new. On November 16 we briefed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. We've participated in multiple conversations with members of Congress, including Chairman Thompson, on our detailed plans."

Chertoff will have a chance to explain where things stand with the transition plan, and Thompson will get to ask his questions directly, at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 13.

"We'll have him for four hours. I think you'll see significant time being devoted to him having the opportunity to explain the transition," Thompson said. "[W]e need to assure the public that during this period of transition the department is as strong as ever and vulnerabilities have not been increased because we've lost key personnel."

"We've actually been planning for years. The Office of Management and Budget has already mentioned that our efforts and planning are likely going to be studied as best practices," Keehner said. "On November 5, 2007 we already briefed Chairman Thompson in detail on all of these things; this is nothing new. On November 16 we briefed the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. We've participated in multiple conversations with members of Congress, including Chairman Thompson, on our detailed plans."

Chertoff will have a chance to explain where things stand with the transition plan, and Thompson will get to ask his questions directly, at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 13.

"We'll have him for four hours. I think you'll see significant time being devoted to him having the opportunity to explain the transition," Thompson said. "[W]e need to assure the public that during this period of transition the department is as strong as ever and vulnerabilities have not been increased because we've lost key personnel."

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.p ... 012&page=1

Personally, I don't think he is planning on leaving. Just unsure how he will pull it off

I'm watching to see how DHS succeeds in overcoming the federal court ruling against the "no-match" letters. They are supposed to be back in court in March with an improved plan that deals with the shortcomings which led to the program's suspension. Let's see what arguments the ACLU might come up with; do they ever give up?

Once a policy is firmly established I would think it would be more difficult to reverse it, as long as the appropriations are there. If defense expenditures decline, funding homeland security shuld be easier.

We might want to ask Homeland Security Chairman Thompson why he is not supporting and overseeing the proper constructiion of the double-tiered fence along our International Border with Mexico as mandated by the "Secure Fence Act of 2006"? Surely this, too, would be of significant assistance in blocking the entrance of foreign terrorists, not to mention other criminals and illegal drugs! I do not recall Thompson's objecting in any way to attachment of the "Hutchison Amendment" to the recent ""Omnibus Spending Bill", effectively blocking construction of this important fence.