Democrats Win on Federalized Airport Workers

NewsMax.com ^ | Thursday, Nov. 15, 2001 | NewsMax.com Wires and NewsMax.com

[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.

[Aurelius]

Just got on and haven't read the previous 160 posts, so very likely my post is a duplication. It is clear to me that the main reason the dems are pushing for this is not increased public safety but the enormous increase that will result in membership in the government workers union - which translates into more money and more votes for them.

[CreekerFreeper]

We are complete dorks and idiots. Nothing would have been better than something like this.

[white rose]

I part company with Limbaugh and others on this one. I think it's a reasonable bill.

I certainly hope you're right, but all I can say is, whenever I see Dick Gephardt looking happy about something, I take that as my cue to run for cover.

[Major Matt Mason]

Personally, I look forward to Fox News exposing the incompetence of the Federal workers sometime down the road. The other networks won't do it, of course, so hopefully Fox won't be afraid to embarass the congress critters by catching security lapses caused by the bumbling and overpaid Federal workers.

[dr_who]

Good question. But that's probably what Republicans in congress are thinking.

[WOSG]

Please VETO this W.!!!

[nonliberal]

Does this surprise anyone?

[nomad]

"Paid for by a flight surcharge", at least the US taxpayer will not have to pay for this crap.

[BluesDuke]

"It's a victory for both sides" insisted Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.

Izzatso, Senator Lost? Three guesses which party gets the bigger benefit of fatter campaign coffers from the new claque of federal, unionised workers. Hint: They have the wrong symbol on the voting booth ballot - how in good conscience can they use an eagle when they so consistently behave and legislate like turkeys?

[sayfer bullets]

2002 is going to be a GOP disaster. Without a doubt!

Bloomberg in. Ready to teach us the error of our ways...

what more proof do we need? Ronaldus Magnus' ailment is probably a blessing for him at this point.

[BluesDuke]

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

Why is it that I'm beginning to think that Card is one of the jokers in the Bush deck?

[nonliberal]

I thought Bush was a conservative...Quisling bastards."

Okay conservatives; all together now

We told you so!

[BluesDuke]

I can't wait for Rush to bend over and say this is the best thing since K-Y jelly was given to prison inmates.

I'm reminded of a comment Casey Stengel made when another ump came to put his two cents worth in on a beef he was having with the home plate ump: If I'm gonna get buggered, I don't want an amateur holding the Vaseline pot!

[WOSG]

Federal workers will be LESS ACCOUNTABLE than if you had private companies providing security and Federal oversight. It is better to separate oversight from the activity. A fox cant guard himself.

Also, it should be stated this whole issue is a RED HERRING. The screeners were not the weak link. These guys had objects that were legal to carry on. The weak link was immigration, intelligence, and CIA - who *knew* some of the hijackers and put out alerts, but didnt get them to the right people. This whole exercise smacks of "dont just stand there, do something" and we end up with 99 improper things done to solve a problem that is mischaracterized or doesnt exist. After all, how well will Federal airport screeners solve the ANTHRAX threat? or mcveigh-type bomb? etc.

[WOSG]

Wrong ... Democrats did this, wanted this, lobbied for this, voted for this, pressured for this, forcing GOP hands to accept a 'compromise' that seems a bit lopsided for Federalization. Havent you been paying attention????

[WOSG]

Nobody 'needs' Liberals, just like nobody 'needs' heroin or crack. Call it what it is: An Unhealthy ADDICTION to Liberalism aka kleptocracy aka mal-governance.

[Theodore R.]

Years ago, Pat Buchanan wrote a book called "Conservative Votes -- Liberal Victories." Really, nothing has changed in a quarter century. We had a brief Reagan interlude that gave conservatives temporary confidence. But no matter who "sits' in the Oval Office, government grows larger and more intrusive year after year. I think the situation is hopeless. The American people are junkies -- government junkies. The next thing you know they will want to have a government agency to supply donuts to offices in the mornings!

[oldtimer]

IMO Flight 587 was sabotaged, but that is no rationalization for creating another bunch of .gov rat voters.

[BluesDuke]

...forcing GOP hands to accept a 'compromise'...

That, alas, compares to "forcing" Larry Flynt to publish what Archie Bunker would call hard pore cornography.