Democrats Win on Federalized Airport Workers

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.

Dem politicians and their foolish followers will let out abig sigh and trumpet that we are all safe now

Their foolish followers are the Republicans...The ones we voted into office...It does appear there are no leaders in the Republican portion of the party...The pubbies are followers...The dems are leaders...

Maybe that's been the problem all along...We whine about the "followers" constantly going against the wishes of the conservatives...Maybe we should work on the leaders if we want changes...The Republicans don' listen to us...They listen to the democrats...

So glad you asked!

1. Print this article out.
2. Call the switchboard (better yet, check go here and here to find your own reps and senators direct D.C. office numbers). When you call, you will get (or be referred to) a legislative aide who has been assigned that particular issue. If you don't know what district you are in, freepmail me and we'll try to nail it down. Your senators (there are only 2) both work for you and BOTH should hear from you too.
3. Tell the aide that you don't know where your senator/rep stands on this matter, but you want him to know how you feel. Then just tell 'em!
4. Don't hang up without asking the aide if he/she knows how the rep/senator will vote. Try to get a definite yes or no out of them. They loathe to be specific, but you should be a pitbull. If they say the don't know, tell 'em you will call back the next day for an answer. (Write down that aides name for follow-up.) If they say the senator/rep is going to vote in a way you don't like, as them how many people from their district it would take to call their office before he/she would change their mind. Threaten (if you mean it) to have that many friends who vote call them too.
5. Follow-up with an e-mail if your rep/senator has an address.
6. Find out the number of the reps/senator offices in the state too. Call them - those folks never hear from constituents. The big highlight of the day for them is deciding where to go to lunch. Scare 'em by calling them and telling them you are a constituent and you have something you want them to pass on to the elected official!
7. Ask at least 3 others to do 1-6 above also.
8. For good measure, you may want to call Hastert, Lott, Daschle, and Gephardt (though they are less easily swayed unless they are your rep/senator). Give 'em a piece of your mind.
9. Lastly, you can add to your emphasis by sending an e-mail to the President at president@whitehouse.gov - asking him to veto any bill that federalizes airport security workers. To my knowledge the administration has not issued a veto warning on this matter, but they have let folks know that they don't like federalization.

Hope this helps - the process works the same way on most things, though sometimes you can influence bills in subcommittee...but that's a long and different story requiring knowledge of the players and the political credits they have built up over time and on what issues.

P.S. I strongly recommend you add your voice to an organization/organizations that have lobbyists in D.C. on the issues that matter to you. Joining fees vary, but they will alert you to the who, what, and where. Yes, they want your money, but what they need even more is an activist who will actually respond when they put out an alert. Lots of people talk big, but can't even tell you who their representative is because they never bother to DO. Good for you that you are willing! Now pace yourself for the long haul.....

I ain't crazy about another federal union, but I sure as hell feel better about it being this way than some pakistani fresh off the boat working for some proxy company being responsible for airliner security.

Since Republicans "love" these boat people as a source of cheap labor, what do you propose we do with them...They all can't be nannies and maids for rich Republicans...

One option would be to adapt regulations (oh no...not regulations) that would require employess to be high school grads, US English speaking citizens...Drug screening, background checks, etc...This could keep the employees off the taxpayer's back...Pay them enough to want to keep the job...

I haven't ready all the posts yet, but your question: "Is there a chance GW will veto this..."

Early on, Andrew (?) Card was asked this question on a Sunday Morning Talk Show. His reply was: "He'll sign whatever they send him"

We can thank this ugly mess to Andy. If he had kept his mouth shut, the Senate D's wouldn't have known what would happen. Dashole knew he didn't have to negotiate with the House. Throw in a Rino or two along the way, and WE LOSE BIG TIME.

Funny, we haven't seen much of Andy lately.

Yeah, those politicals all use those Gulftreams, and Lear jets to get around!

Looks like the ambulance chasing lawyer politicians within DC are using these terrorist hijackings to eventually federalize the commercial aviation industry. Wont make the industry any safer. In the future, Washington Air, will even take away your right to sue them for incompetence and failure. Those who complain about the service and security will be guilty of felonies (interferring with the work of an airport police officer). Progressive Fascism benifits from terrorism (film at 11).

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.

G.O.P. = Get'em On the Payroll