A blog post from Christopher Elliott
If you don't believe the TSA is doomed after watching yesterday's
House Aviation Subcommittee hearing, then you'll have to at
least agree that the agency as we know can't continue to exist as it
does.
For starters, TSA Administrator John Pistole refused to testify
before the committee on the innocuous subject of "common sense" improvements to
America's airport security, reportedly because
the committee has no jurisdiction over his agency. (That's odd
- I always thought Congress funded the federal government, but maybe I wasn't
paying attention during government class.)
One by one, panelists took
turns excoriating the agency charged with protecting America's transportation
systems. It was plainly clear why Pistole was a no-show, and it had nothing to
do with jurisdiction; it would have been an openly hostile crowd.
Charles
Edwards, the Department of Homeland Security's acting inspector general,
described the TSA as bureaucratic and dysfunctional. Stephen Lord of the
Government Accountability Office, suggested the agency was ignoring the
thousands of complaints from air travelers. And Kenneth Dunlap, who represented
the International Air Transport Association, criticized the current TSA as
expensive, inconsistent, and reactive.
"As this mushrooming agency has
spun out of control," the committee chairman, John Mica, concluded, "passengers
have not been well served."
The congressmen present in the hearing agreed
with many of the criticisms, but it's the solutions that would have sent Pistole
running for the exits. On the conservative end, critics recommended aggressively
reforming the TSA to create a smaller, more responsive agency that fulfills its
mission of protecting and serving air travelers.
But some went much
further. Charlie Leocha of the Consumer Travel Alliance, who represented the
interests of air travelers on the committee, said the TSA should not just be
downsized, but also limited to protecting only air travel (something it
currently isn't).
In his testimony, he described a future TSA that more
closely resembled the pre-9/11 security system, which used magnetometers (metal
detectors) as its primary screening method, had employees that dressed in
non-threatening uniforms, and banned only the most dangerous weapons, such as
guns and explosives, from aircraft.
The real security work would take
place behind the scenes, prescreening every passenger with the help of
technology and through coordination between intelligence agencies, law
enforcement, and airlines.
"The mass screening of passengers would be
replaced for the great majority of passengers
with a Trusted Traveler
program that seamlessly checks passengers before they fly, while at the same
time being respectful of their privacy," says Leocha. “Every passenger is
already prescreened for every flight.”
Such an agency would be
called the TSA in name only. In fact, it would be better named the Airport
Security Administration, although that acronym might be problematic.
With
a powerful congressional committee like this lining up behind sweeping TSA
reform, it is not a question of if, but when Congress -- which by the way,
does sign the TSA's checks -- acts to dismantle this $8-billion-a-year
security boondoggle.
I'm not just saying that because I'm CTA's
ombudsman and helped devise some of these solutions. Anyone who doesn't believe
the current TSA is a federal disaster area with an impossibly sprawling mandate
isn't in touch with reality.
The TSA as it exists can't die soon
enough.
