Posted on 11/16/2001 1:19:03 PM PST by Cacophonous
WASHINGTON – Fearing they might have to work over Thanksgiving, congressional negotiators Thursday reached a "compromise" on airport security that gave proponents of federalization nearly everything they wanted. One senior Democratic aide told CNN the deal was a "huge victory for federalization and a token gesture for privatization."
"For us it's a big victory because you're talking about five airports in the whole country not being federalized," the aide said. "Security companies may not be able to survive on only five airports."
House and Senate negotiators had been arguing over whether to make airport security workers and baggage screeners federal employees.
"I think we have an agreement," Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, told reporters on Capitol Hill after meeting with Senate and House conferees who have been working for weeks to reconcile two bills passed by the chambers.
The House GOP conference met Thursday afternoon to discuss the agreement. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told reporters on his way in that he expected it to be accepted, even by conservatives who battled to kill the Senate approach.
"It's a victory for both sides" insisted Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. He called it a "good agreement" that has the support of the White House.
The battle, which had grown increasingly contentious over the past week, raged between the unanimously passed Senate bill to federalize all airport security workers and a plan passed by the House to add federal supervision.
Under the terms of the deal, screeners will be, except in a few cases, federal employees, but some qualified airports might be able to retain private employees if they meet certain conditions. A broader opt-out program would be in place after three years.
The federal employees working at security checkpoints would fall under the Department of Transportation but would not be offered the same civil service protections as other federal employees, according to Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. They would be allowed to unionize but not to strike, he said. All employees would have to be U.S. citizens.
This deal, if it holds up through final floor votes, is much closer to the Senate approach.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Majority Leader Dick Armey, both Republicans from Texas, led the fight against the ultimately successful Senate approach, apparently unable to change the bill substantially.
Republicans said federalization would expand the federal bureaucracy without any increased security benefits. They pointed to the incompetence of such federal agencies as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and FBI, noted that it would be much more difficult to fire government employees for incompetence, and said the Democrats wanted to add to their core of voters by increasing the government workforce.
Democrats and the Senate said that only federal law enforcement officers can protect airports.
Both plans were to be paid for through a flight surcharge and would allow the reinforcement of airplane cockpit doors to protect crews. The Senate version also would allow pilots to carry firearms at work, but it was unknown if that provision survived the conference talks.
Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.
Yeah, those politicals all use those Gulftreams, and Lear jets to get around!!You know, the jets that belong to Corporations!!
...didn't they?
I wonder of the GOP ever tires of castrating itself.
The GOP is not castrating itself. It's just as much a party of power and big government as the Democrats. When are we going to understand that fact?
The government is only interested in the government.
f
gubmint in charge herya boys, expect a diverse workforce - will they be jihadist-moles in the ranks of the new gubmint employees? Do the gubmint care?
PLUS! New jobs for DemoRat minorities coming soon to a theater NEAR YOU.
Darn right! I voted Republican for GW Bush! Not everyone working for the fedgov is a Democrat my friend.
Sure, airport security workers are not being paid enough. None of us is. It seems to me that the cost of making flying safe again will be more than the marginal airline passenger can afford. We may go back to pre-deregulation days when only the well-off could afford to fly.
Only good news today is that United is allowing its pilots to carry Tasers (guns are still verboten because of the politically correct FAA).
Yeah, that guy! What was his name again? I remember, it was Marxist Earley.
What you have to do is write a letter and mail it. Letters you write get filed. Phone calls are forgotten and emails are dumped. Basically, though, unless what you request or recommend is what your congresscritter wants to do, you'll be ignored after you get your form letter in return.
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.