'TSA no-show angers lawmakers as they get few answers about TWIC'
Jun 30, 2012, 5:56 am
#1
Original Member
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
'TSA no-show angers lawmakers as they get few answers about TWIC'
LINK
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee invited a senior Transportation Security Administration official to discuss its decade-old port security initiative, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program, but was stood up.
Stephen Sadler, the TSA assistant administrator for Intelligence and Analysis, didn't come to the hearing to answer questions about TWIC, and the lack of answers frustrated committee members.
Instead, the Homeland Security Department — which TSA falls under — sent Joseph Servido, assistant commandant for preparedness in the Coast Guard, and Kelli Walther, assistant secretary in Homeland Security's office of policy, who both failed to satisfy the committee desire for answers to longstanding problems with TWIC.
"It's appalling that TSA would thumb their nose at the committee," said committee chairman John Mica (R-Fla.), who called for a recess during witness testimony because of his frustration over Homeland Security and TSA's inability to send informed witnesses to the hearing. "That they would send a witness who's so unprepared and then have the nerve to sit there and say, 'Well, TSA has the answer to that,' but they won't show them up."
Walther and Servido couldn't answer questions about the cost of the program, its timetable for completion or the reasons behind the lack of promised capabilities.
Stephen Sadler, the TSA assistant administrator for Intelligence and Analysis, didn't come to the hearing to answer questions about TWIC, and the lack of answers frustrated committee members.
Instead, the Homeland Security Department — which TSA falls under — sent Joseph Servido, assistant commandant for preparedness in the Coast Guard, and Kelli Walther, assistant secretary in Homeland Security's office of policy, who both failed to satisfy the committee desire for answers to longstanding problems with TWIC.
"It's appalling that TSA would thumb their nose at the committee," said committee chairman John Mica (R-Fla.), who called for a recess during witness testimony because of his frustration over Homeland Security and TSA's inability to send informed witnesses to the hearing. "That they would send a witness who's so unprepared and then have the nerve to sit there and say, 'Well, TSA has the answer to that,' but they won't show them up."
Walther and Servido couldn't answer questions about the cost of the program, its timetable for completion or the reasons behind the lack of promised capabilities.
Jun 30, 2012, 11:44 am
#3
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Jun 30, 2012, 12:10 pm
#4
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Holding a TSA official in contempt, however, would be much less dangerous politcally. Pistole has limited influence outside of DHS, and he has virtually no influence within DOJ.
Jul 2, 2012, 7:52 am
#5
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
I'm totally confused by this, because ironically... I believe DHS did the right thing (the horror!). The parties responsible for the implementation of TWIC is the TSA and the USCG, and DHS sent... representatives of the TSA and USCG. I'm trying to figure out why Congress asked for AA-I&A. Granted TSA could have sent a note asking "umm... can we send the correct rep(s)?", and maybe they even did.
Yet here's where it gets muddy... they sent the correct reps, and those reps didn't have the answers. I'd be more wondering why TSA isn't beating up their own for being unprepared, because it sounds that Congress is saying they don't care who they send just send someone who's prepared. Then again, TSA might have thrown them under-the-bus, by sending them to a meeting without time or questions to prepare for (does an AA really know the oeprational status of TWIC?), yet like anything else in D.C., it's all about the politics.
And as reference... the GAO issued a report back in 2006, stating that the DHS should deal with the key challenges with implementing TWIC (GAO-06-982). This isn't old news, if there's a report dangling out there from 6 years ago.
Yet here's where it gets muddy... they sent the correct reps, and those reps didn't have the answers. I'd be more wondering why TSA isn't beating up their own for being unprepared, because it sounds that Congress is saying they don't care who they send just send someone who's prepared. Then again, TSA might have thrown them under-the-bus, by sending them to a meeting without time or questions to prepare for (does an AA really know the oeprational status of TWIC?), yet like anything else in D.C., it's all about the politics.
And as reference... the GAO issued a report back in 2006, stating that the DHS should deal with the key challenges with implementing TWIC (GAO-06-982). This isn't old news, if there's a report dangling out there from 6 years ago.
Jul 2, 2012, 9:20 am
#6
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
I'm totally confused by this, because ironically... I believe DHS did the right thing (the horror!). The parties responsible for the implementation of TWIC is the TSA and the USCG, and DHS sent... representatives of the TSA and USCG. I'm trying to figure out why Congress asked for AA-I&A. Granted TSA could have sent a note asking "umm... can we send the correct rep(s)?", and maybe they even did.
Yet here's where it gets muddy... they sent the correct reps, and those reps didn't have the answers. I'd be more wondering why TSA isn't beating up their own for being unprepared, because it sounds that Congress is saying they don't care who they send just send someone who's prepared. Then again, TSA might have thrown them under-the-bus, by sending them to a meeting without time or questions to prepare for (does an AA really know the oeprational status of TWIC?), yet like anything else in D.C., it's all about the politics.
And as reference... the GAO issued a report back in 2006, stating that the DHS should deal with the key challenges with implementing TWIC (GAO-06-982). This isn't old news, if there's a report dangling out there from 6 years ago.
Yet here's where it gets muddy... they sent the correct reps, and those reps didn't have the answers. I'd be more wondering why TSA isn't beating up their own for being unprepared, because it sounds that Congress is saying they don't care who they send just send someone who's prepared. Then again, TSA might have thrown them under-the-bus, by sending them to a meeting without time or questions to prepare for (does an AA really know the oeprational status of TWIC?), yet like anything else in D.C., it's all about the politics.
And as reference... the GAO issued a report back in 2006, stating that the DHS should deal with the key challenges with implementing TWIC (GAO-06-982). This isn't old news, if there's a report dangling out there from 6 years ago.
Jul 2, 2012, 9:23 am
#7
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
That's what I got out of it as well. The TSA was specifically asked to attend, and instead, DHS sent someone from the Coast Guard whose was unable to answer the questions that a TSA official theoretically should have.
Jul 2, 2012, 12:48 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
And, as long as Pissy has Peter King and Lieberman as his sugar daddies, he can fearlessly blow off any other Member of Congress with impunity.
Jul 2, 2012, 2:17 pm
#9
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
I fault the DHS Congressional Liaison people for not sorting this out with the committee staff ahead of time. I'd like to see the letter the Committee sent asking for witnesses because these letters usually spell out discussion topics and general objectives of the hearing. Most Committees, in the general course of routine hearings, leave it up to the agency to send the right individual, both from subject matter expert and seniority perspectives. The bottom line is that the DHS had the opportunity to make sure they sent the right people and they didn't do it.
And, as long as Pissy has Peter King and Lieberman as his sugar daddies, he can fearlessly blow off any other Member of Congress with impunity.
And, as long as Pissy has Peter King and Lieberman as his sugar daddies, he can fearlessly blow off any other Member of Congress with impunity.
Let's keep in mind that Mica's committee's page has a press release from Jun27 indicating that Servidio and Walther were witnesses, and Sadler (TSA AA-I&A) was invited. So Mica is beating up Sadler for not honoring the invitation. If Sadler was a witness and didn't appear, that's contempt. Yet he was invited, and choose not to show up (maybe for a reason, maybe busy, who knows).
So... the two witnesses showed up, the invited individual didn't. Written testimony was submitted. The USCG and SCO were asked during testimony "what's taking so long?", and I'm hearing their response was "ask TSA" (presumably because TSA is building-to-spec?). TSA was invited and didn't show up. Then again, I'm not sure which section of TSA should have shown up to answer that question? Not sure AA-I&A would know about implementation. AA-SO (Security Operations)?. The people who built the specs will say it wasn't implemented well, the implementers will say they didn't have the tools to do the job to spec. An ancient story.
I'm the last person to give DHS a free-pass, yet I think everyone in this mess has some skin in the game, of how this got this far. Yet I'll agree someone from TSA should have been there (presumably from SO).