"Chaffetz admits that his plan to implement the usage of the dogs over the scanning machines will have an uphill battle.

"The dogs don't have something the scanning machines do have -- a lobbyist," Chaffetz said."

"I am personally outraged and disgusted by yet another example of mistreatment of an innocent American at the hands of TSA," wrote Chaffetz in the letter addressed to TSA chief John Pistole. "This conduct is in clear violation of TSA's explicit policy not to conduct thorough pat-downs on children under the age of 13."

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loca...b3745d119.html

Based on the article the bill will not ban pat downs of children just parental supervision.

That is not good enough!

No pat down of a child unless some very strong indicators dictate doing so is necessary.

A pat down of a child should be an effort of last resort.

Pat down of anyone; child, woman or man should be an effort of last resort.

I am very disappointed in Chaffetz, Mica and the rest of them. Chaffetz called Pistole a liar on Freedom Watch, says here that TSA agreed not to do these searches that they now say are ok to do and this is the best he can come up with. If the lobbyist are controlling this than he needs to go public and say who's getting paid off.

I agree, but I think everything in Washington has to be done in babysteps.

Ah, the lobbyists! You could be right. I never understood how DHS/TSA acquired their power and arrogance so fast! See previous statement above. Really, most of the pols got really sucked into this terrorism-boogeyman-the-sky-is-falling-cluster-f**k.

This whole situation with Congress being so timid is really troublesome.

While I detest and vehemently oppose TSA's current tactics I can at least deal with them when circumstances induce me to fly. If I have a bad experience, I will survive it unscathed and complain vociferously to every agency or organization available and, thanks in large part to this forum, I know where to go.

I can also limit or altogether eliminate air travel and while my choices of vacation or business opportunities may be limited that remains within my control.

What really bothers me about this is that Congress seems to be intimidated by an agency whose budget they control. This is an extremely dangerous precedent and threatens the basic structure of our government. It reminds me of an out of control teenager whose parents acquiesce to every demand out of fear of some real or perceived threat. It is unacceptable to have an agency dictating policy to Congress and effectively obviate their function.

I can't figure out what could possibly be behind this but it seems as though every elected official is treading on eggs when they interact with DHS or TSA. In the last hearing (EPIC and Cissna present) Chaffetz was practically groveling asking low level operatives sent in lieu of Pistole if they would return to finish answering the committee's questions. The hearing hasn't been completed to date.

Meanwhile, Pistole has become increasingly aloof and defiant of Congress, yet seems to get away with it and grows more arrogant in the process. I'm just at a loss to decipher this one.

I'm not sure they are deferential to the agency as much as they are their reelection chances if a major incident occurs. They worry an opponent would say, "Senator Noname gutted the TSA and look what happened!"

They worry about reelection above everything else.

Which makes an excellent discussion point for term limits.

I totally agree. This is amazing neglect of responsibility on the part of (most of) our elected officials.

Bruce

Scared of TSA but not of the seniors whose safety net they are attacking. Hmmm, I tend to doubt that is the real reason. Maybe they are being successfully bribed. Any reason to rule that out? Think of the billions DHS spends. That's a pretty big pot of sugar. The sort of thing that creates gratitude to politicians who go along.

At that level it's not called "bribery", it's called "lobbying" and "campaign contributions." It amounts to the same thing, but the pols make sure that there are plenty of perfectly legal avenues for those who want to buy their influence to funnel massive amounts of money to them.

Oh yes "lobbying" Not "graft" but "free speech". Lets get our euphemisms straight here.