Aviation Bill to Federalize Workers

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - House and Senate negotiators reached a tentative agreement Thursday on legislation aimed at making the nation's airports and airplanes more secure. All airport screeners would become federal employees within two years.

"I think we have an agreement," the House Transportation Committee chairman, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said after an hourlong meeting of five negotiators from each chamber.

Young and other lawmakers declined to discuss specifics, but aides, speaking on background, said the negotiators had agreed to a phased-in system under which all airport baggage screeners would become federal workers.

Under the tentative deal, the government would take immediate responsibility for the oversight of screeners. Within two years all screeners would become employees of the federal government. However, individual airports that meet strict federal standards could opt out of the system and use local law enforcement officials or private security firms for screening functions.

The negotiators also agreed that passengers would pay a fee of $2.50 every time they get on a plane to finance increased security measures. There would be a maximum $5 charge per trip.

The House and Senate negotiators had been stuck for several weeks on the issue of screeners. The bill passed by the Senate would create a new federal work force of 28,000 screeners. The House bill would put screeners under the supervision of the federal government but left it to the administration to decide whether screeners would become civil servants or remain employees of private security firms.

With the holiday season approaching and Americans still shying away from flying because of post-Sept. 11 security concerns, President Bush on Tuesday urged Congress to work day and night to give him an aviation security bill.

"I plead with the conferees to quickly reach agreement," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., at a hearing of his Governmental Affairs Committee,where transportation officials outlined continuing security problems at airports since Sept. 11. "It will be truly outrageous if Congress leaves for Thanksgiving without passing aviation security legislation."

The two bills agree on most points, such as fortifying cockpit doors, increasing air marshals on flights and moving toward screening of all check-in bags. Differences remain on whether aviation security should be under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department or Transportation Department and on language in the House bill giving liability protection to building owners and others affected by the attacks on the World Trade Center.

But there was a consensus that the other parts would fall into place once the screener issue was settled. "The climate is there," said Sen. John Breaux, D-La., one of the negotiators.

Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead told the Senate Governmental Affairs hearing that numerous measures had been taken since Sept. 11 to bolster security. He cited reinforced cockpit doors, use of law enforcement officials and National Guard at airport checkpoints, background checks of airport personnel, use of FBI watch lists to identify suspicious passengers, and allowing only ticketed passengers beyond screening points.

But he said there were "still alarming lapses of security" and that steps taken would remain patchwork until Congress moves to enact fundamental changes.

Fewer than 10 percent of checked bags at the nation's airports are inspected for bombs and one overworked detection machine operator was found falling asleep on the job, Mead said.

He said that even those airports that have the $1 million machines often use them only sporadically. A survey by his office over the past weekend of 30 machines at nine airports found that 73 percent were not in continuous use.

Mead said checks over the past several weeks found some 90 security problems, including screeners missing dangerous items such as knives in carryon bags and airlines not carrying out random checks of passengers.

One of the big problems, those at the hearing said, was a lack of consistency. "You know something is wrong when screeners are confiscating thousands of nail clippers but allowing people with arsenals of weapons through," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Well, so far the stupid party has given me every reason not to work nor to vote for them. They refuse to stand for anything and fall for everything. They seem to be afraid of the demorats and that being the case might as well vote for the rats, at least we know what we are getting.

Little do you know, it really doesn't matter. I suggest you read Carroll Quigley's tome, "Tragedy & Hope." It doesn't matter what party is in power. The agenda (or direction of the country) is pretty much the same. Although (ironically), the acceleration towards socialism (the administrative state) has actually been greater during most Republican administrations.

It was long ago decided what direction this country would move ... everything else is just a facade to give the illusion that we have a choice about our destiny. I know this sounds like tinfoil hat stuff, but it's more than that. It's a theory of past and current events - that best explains those events. People who are not familiar with this theory act just like the person I'm replying to - surprised that their vote/activism doesn't seem to make a difference.

After reading Quigley's book, you'll at least be able to understand WHY things happen ... instead of being surprised and frustrated.

This is from another post but it applies. This article isn't very clear to me as to what the supreme court did or didn't do. It is not even clear why this case reached the supreme court or why they bothered making a decision when all they had to do was deny the cert like they do on 99.9 percent of cases anyway. It costs something like $300.00 to file a cert to the court, which is to cut down on frivolous cases, which are against the law anyway.

Heck Renquist said on C-Span not too long back that the SC doesn't even take cases that are erroneously decided anymore. In that case where is a person to appeal a case then?

I have had the unpleasant experience as a pro se litigant of sueing the IRS no less, and essentially all I can say is forget about it. The deck is so stacked against you, you might as well go play tiddley winks or pee into the wind.

Yes the government can fire you and its not that hard the way they go about it. The first thing one must remember is that it is not a law, but republicans in the federal workforce are few and far between. REPUBLICANS NEED NOT APPLY. The dims have had fifty years perfecting there obedient public disservants.

Where I worked at the Infernal Revenue Service they worshipped Bill Clinton like a saint, if that tells you anything. I don't know why I stuck it out as long as I did (8 years). I guess I thought I could make things better through hard work. Show 'em how its done kinda thing. Ever try beating your head against a brick wall? That's about what it's like.

Well of course I made some mistakes along the way, which didn't help my case, but essentially performance evaluations were rigged at every step of the way. Promotions are based purely on politics. The Union only defends the indefenseable and their system is very refined. They must teach management courses in how to make republicans quit the federal work force.

First they try to put hurdles in your way such as not training you for a job they assign you to and then accuse you of not performing. I jumped that one! (Studied solid state physics in college.)

Then they put you on leave restriction and when they deny your leave you were AWOL after the fact. They falsely accuse you of filing false tax returns and when you show them that you correctly filed (it was my job to know how to file tax returns) they ignore the evidence. They reversed the "assessment" six months later showing they owed me a refund, but only after they had already used it as the first charge in a letter recommending my "removal from the service" They accuse you of being AWOL from work when your at home receiving unemployment compensation for seasonal layoffs.

Then when you get "removed" you have 20 days to find a lawyer, (these people don't exist) who will take federal employment discrimination cases pro bono, because your a poor federal worker, who can't afford a lawyer and besides lawyers want to make money and they must all already know you can't sue the Federal govt. Then when you find a lawyer, he won't take the case anymore because the county subpoenaed every record in his office one week after you put his name on the court papers. Then when an appeal with the MSPB is scheduled they don't bother sending you the letter informing you of it until after the meeting has already taken place. ie. I received a letter in February telling me I have a meeting in January when the letter was dated in December of the previous year. (Kinda tricky huh?)

They bug your phone, send military helicopters to buzz your house (caught on tape), put your computer under real time surveilance (confirmed by the clerk at the court), frame you for crimes you didn't commit and kinda hope you just fall off the face of the earth before all the court proceedings wind themselves down.

Then to top it all off, they somehow get the judges ruling on your case to sign off on lies and manipulations of the facts along with other desultory things such as trying to say you threatened a federal judge, even if it never happened.

Then when you've lost your mind, your house, your family and your reputation, guess what happenes next? You lose your case.

FACE IT, THE IRS IS A WHOLEY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! WHO ELSE COULD GET AWAY WITH SUCH BS? My take on all of this is that if the federal government fires you from your job, take it as a blessing and run at full speed in the opposite direction and don't look back.

Do I think the federal govt, with the blessing of the democrap party, ought to federalize anything? Are you kidding me. If the government would spend as much time going after the bad guys as they do terrorizing honest law abiding republicans maybe we would have a chance in this war on terrorism instead of picking up all the pieces after all the damage is done. The above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. "The mission, if you chose to accept it Mr. Phelps... this tape will self destruct in five seconds." A person would have better luck trying to sue the KGB IMHO.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.