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.
Let me make my point plain:
Critiquing only the GOP is not balanced. I suggest you condemn the *real* perps of this travesty - aka the DEMOCRATS - instead of just hammering on the reluctant accomplices as the only guilty party.
Those will be union workers by the way. Another democratic sell out to the unions.
As I see it, the problem is that government relieves the private sector of the responsibility of its actions in this case. If airlines were hit with the financial consequences of hiring $6/hr security guards, that situation would not persist for long. But instead, the congressmen steal from the taxpayer to reimburse the airlines for their failure of securing the planes from hijacking.
True capitalism would have the airliner pay for the WTC damages - security of planes would become a serious concern of the airlines CEO's.
But instead, our ridiculous, and seemingly corrupt, congresmen relieve the airlines of responsiblity, which will predictably lead to a worsening of the situation.
Congressional Republicans are pussies, and The Great Leader Bush hasn't even threatened a veto to fight for a small restriction on government growth.
Thanks a hell of a lot for nothing, Republicans. I vote Libertarian for a reason.
Are you kidding? It emanates out of the commerce clause, of course! No lawyer you!
-vs-
Democrats and the Senate said that only federal law enforcement officers can protect airports.
When with an arguement that strong...how could they have lost!
Now, otherwise worthless cousin whats-his/her-name will now have a job at the new Federal bag checker department.
Of course we will need a huge compliment of support staff to maintain supervision of the bag screeners, these choice centralized jobs will be the ones filled by Politicians friends and family.
Just like the Federal Government.
A few years ago I moved from L.A. to a small city in eastern California. The DMV in L.A. was a nightmare; long lines, rude people, etc. In the small city it's exactly the opposite; no lines, friendly, helpful employees.
In both places the DMV is a government entity.
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.