Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Win on Federalized Airport Workers
NewsMax.com ^ | Thursday, Nov. 15, 2001 | NewsMax.com Wires and NewsMax.com

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-249 last
Comment #241 Removed by Moderator

To: michaelje
"Airports will now run as efficiently and effectivly as your local DMV."

I've been to my local DMV 3 times in the past month and have spent no more than 10 minutes there each time.
Therefore, I'm taking this as good news.

242 posted on 11/16/2001 1:27:05 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: D Joyce
More of the same is idiocy.

I'm glad your post is a great example of it.

243 posted on 11/16/2001 1:27:07 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
bump
244 posted on 11/16/2001 1:30:41 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #245 Removed by Moderator

To: D Joyce
You keep talking about smaller government when our constitution calls for limited government, which is not the same thing. The constitutional principle of federalism simply means that certain powers belong to the federal government. National defense is clearly within the federal government's jurisdiction under our Constitutional system envisioned by the framers. None of the Founders would have had a problem with the federal government taking steps to protect its citizens or declaring war against terrorism.

Long before the New Deal, the Federal government launched a war against the 19th century version of international terrorism, namely the Tripoli pirates. I'm sure American Firsters like you and Pat Buchanan would have been screaming about the expedition that sent U.S. navy frigates to Tripoli to fight and defeat the pirates in the early 1800s. Whatever the merits of that adventure, it was clearly constitutional.

Civil libertarians like Nat Hentoff have a point about the threat to the Bill of Rights the War on terrorism entails, but that is an entirely different argument than your vague ramblings about the Republicans turning their back on "smaller government." Federalizing airport safety personnel may or may not be a good thing, but it is clearly NOT unconstitutional even under the original understanding of the Constitution. Article I section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. If air travel isn't interstate commerce, nothing is. I don't want the federal government involved in tasks that properly belong to the states, but national defense is the federal government's responsibility.

Since you have no interest in discussing the real enemy - the Democrats - I have no interest in engaging in petty arguments, fallacies, and incoherent statements. I appreciate having an intelligent discussion and constructive criticism of the GOP or anyone else for that matter. But I definitely don't waste my time with the ones that don't meet this requirement. Put it simply, I'm NOT your hate monger, Bush basher, trash talking, name-calling, liar, and petty-soul 1%er loser. Your best option is Salon or the Bush haters for that.

246 posted on 11/16/2001 7:01:23 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

Comment #247 Removed by Moderator

To: liberallarry
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?

CIA had specific knowledge on one of the perps, Muhammad Atta. If they had coordinated knowledge with INS, FBI, it might have been stopped. Don't think we are giving up much in liberty to have agencies coordinate better. JMHO.

248 posted on 11/17/2001 7:52:04 AM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
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.

Dittos on this!

249 posted on 11/17/2001 7:57:05 AM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-249 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson