Congress: Indeed, time for you to act...

Over the weekend one of the lesser stars in the media firmament of our Nation's Capital, The Washington Examiner, took to task in an editorial what it views as "chronic problems" at our Federal Aviation Administration. Without remotely suggesting that there aren't issues worthy of the Examiner's suggestion -- that Congress dive seriously into its oversight role -- it's misplaced and, simply, dumb to suggest that one particular member of Congress "demand that (FAA Administrator Randy) Babbitt produce significant, measurable improvements in each of" six specific areas during the coming year -- "or resign and let somebody else take over the controls."

The Examiner's posing an interesting idea...if, that is, you consider it smart to have people who've failed to do their jobs for several years suddenly get over their neglect by demanding that the new guy, in under a year, "produce significant, measurable improvements" -- or quit.

While The Washington Examiner may believe in its idea, they clearly aimed it in the wrong direction.

From my perspective, Congress should first succeed at providing the budgets and the tools agencies like the FAA require to best serve the public -- or resign and go on to that K Street lobbying job they'll have waiting on them.

If, however, Congress indeed succeeds on doing its authorization job, then it can get heavy into oversight -- not before.

Congress needs to conduct oversight over federal agencies and this writer won't be one who suggests that the FAA couldn't benefit from something better than it gets from Congress today, which seems to veer between benign neglect and superfluous micromanagement.

Last time Congress did more than vote another extension of FAA funding was last summer and Congress used the opportunity of temporarily funding the agency to load it up beyond its existing overload; Congress added a number of mandates involving complex changes to the FARs, changes that, by an act of Congress, must be made through the lengthy and time-consuming Administrative Procedures Act, or face congressional ire of another sort.

Congress largely ignored all of the Examiner's bullet points going back years, when the GOP controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and both sides of the Capital and, as these things go, Congress hasn't shown itself to do much better with the Democrats in the same position -- references the new mandates from last summer.

So how about this Congress:

First, pass a five-year budget authorization for the FAA...you know, one that provides for the changes and evolution already ongoing. Do that now, please, and let the agency get on with attempting to make progress by at least knowing what its budgets will be.

Second, apply your oversight role; if some of that oversight picks up on some of the Examiner's somewhat lame claims, well, that's the price of democracy. Administrator Babbitt's a big boy -- he can handle himself, for example, on airline pilots training for collision avoidance as part of their recurrent, or the Examiner's hysteria over what it calls "lighter-than-air gliders," a mistake that calls into question the depth of knowledge by the paper's editorial writers; sounds, at points, like they actually know or understands less then they think about aviation, overall.

But Congress should resist applying its oversight authority as an exercise in applying even more conditions to allowing the FAA to have a five-year authorization and with it a semblance of funding predictability. Matter of fact, let's up the ante to you finishing your work for all agencies of the Executive Branch -- it is in your job description; getting re-elected isn't.

And if you can't do that by year's end, Congress, resign and make room for a lawmaker interested more in public service than in private campaign funds -- that thing you know you spend more time on than actual lawmaking.

'Nuff said.

-- Dave