MechEngr
Reverse order.
Not in Washington, it isn't ... the response among adults in D.C. to a cheap shot is to wrestle in the ring into which your opponent or challenger has thrown you. The Committee has not only oversight roles but will originate the reauthorization bill (if one moves forward), as I'm sure you know, making it completely germane for the incoming Chairman to level the playing field of current official pronouncements, whether pricey, cheap or indeterminant.
What relevance may be found in former Sec'y Chao's good fortune in not having this evidently - from comments on cause and effect of what actually took place- unexciting I.T. process go wrong on her watch, frankly eludes me.
What private business, as precursor to the nice deflection of "next question", are you referring to? Was the I.T. process here run by a federal contractor? - but that would hardly place oversight out of bounds.
As for the Administrator role ..... it's great when a critic can take unmeasured liberties with what a public official actually said. Personally I think Mr. Nolen would serve in the fully authorized role just fine, given his record, but the Chairman didn't say otherwise. The jab he gave the WH was about the lack of a successful nominee for Administrator - and if your view is that not having a fully authorized head of such a federal agency in office has no impact on leadership of that agency - which was the point of that part of the Chairman's statement - I guess it's down to agreeing to disagree.
I lack knowledge sufficient to question whether the Chairman has or has not tinkered improperly with GA matters, so I'll pass on that. But to dig at the Chairman for not doing the serious business of legislating because he issued that statement, is surprisingly cynical even for this forum. Of course there will be hearings and of course observers aplenty will say it's all notoriety and staff careerists and so on. Yet hearings are part of the legislative process. The Congress just opened this session, and in the wake of the Southwest meltdown (so-called), this statement was pretty nominal. There also are consumer protection measures in play, as everyone is aware, and so that fact also makes a statement now - even as we await progress on a reauthorization bill if that is going to move forward - quite nominal. Not least, let's see what there may be to object to in the oversight letter, forthcoming, according to the statement.
I'll poke fun at Congress-missions as much as anyone when I think they deserve it but in this case, the Chairman was just fulfilling the expected slot associated with the office (at Committee) he now holds.
Incidentally, in the several days of hearings or among the reams of reports and documents at House T&I about the 737 MAX, did you find anything like grandstanding on this Reprsentative's part?