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.
Competition is what makes private enterprise work.
Where you have a situation, like airport security, where competition is not applicable you've got trouble.
Would you prefer federal employees who are difficult to fire or private contractors working for the federal government who are even more difficult to fire?
Yep...and then the RINOs in the Senate did what they always do and Grow the Federal Bueaucracy!!
SHEEEESH...MUD
Competition is not applicable to this situation so private enterprise does not get a chance to work its magic.
"All the Democrats were slimy on this, using hollow and disingenuous arguments to 'win' on this. It will cost air travellers and the airlines dearly and will do nothing to improve real security..."
Partisan politics aside you have a point. Better screeners could not have prevented 911 (I don't know that McVeigh or Anthrax have anything to do with airline security).
You place the blame with the FBI, INS, etc. How far are you willing to allow such agencies to penetrate into the lives of people? What solutions do you offer? Are you opposed to better screeners as a waste of money?
It's an interesting idea. You won't need a TV to hear the screaming when it comes before Congress for debate.
Sure, what the hijackers were doing at the moment they entered through airport security was perfectly legal as another person pointed out, but to say that the system isn't broken and is working fine is nonsense.
Anyone trying to pass that off as fact sure doesn't do anywhere near as much flying as I do.
Airport security being Federal agents? Sure.
Making the current crop Federal agents? Hell no.
Does Israel use private security in Tel Aviv?
That remains to be seen, correct?
This should be carved in stone on a monument someplace. It PERFECTLY reflects Dim thinking. A private business failing is a GOOD thing in their eyes. This says it all.
Bingo. I thought the left is supposed to TOLERATE ? Apparently they only tolerate "ZERO TOLERANCE" policies whose targets are typically law abiding citizens.
WE all know this won't last a year. Leftist Dim lawyers are already firing up the copy machines for the discrimination lawsuits even as I type these words. BOTH Dim and semi-Dim (Republican) politicians from states with heavy union voter bases are already preparing bills to change this in Congress. Bills that will be QUIETLY passed without comment or discussion in a year or so. The fix is already in.
The question is if this is all so apparant to US,why can't the politicians see it? The answer is,"They can." They just want to pull the old bait and switch on us again,knowing that Joe Sixpack has the attention span of a fuit fly,and that all this will be forgotten about by the time the changes are made.
This is because the INS,CIA,and the Feebs are all gooberment agencies. You don't REALLY expect the gooberment to admit the gooberment was at fault,do you?
A wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC.
My views are more in accordance with the views of "House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and Majority Leader Dick Armey, both Republicans from Texas, [who] led the fight against the ultimately successful Senate approach, apparently unable to change the bill substantially." I agree that the GOP does not always follows the party line and that they deserve their share of criticism. However, I cannot help but notice how the GOP's critics always give a free pass to the Democrats who are the biggest cause of the problem. So I think the Mister Magoo glasses are more fitting to compensate for the 1%ers' lack of vision. After all, by voting for proven losers, they make it possible for the Democrats to enact their socialist agenda.
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.