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.
Lawmakers reach deal on airport security
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than two months after the airliner attacks of September 11, congressional negotiators and the White House reached agreement Thursday on an aviation security bill. The compromise legislation is expected to go to the White House by week's end.
"We have a deal," a senior administration official told CNN. "It's a good bill. It's done." President Bush is expected to release a statement later Thursday praising Congress' bipartisan effort and describing the final product as a solid melding of divergent House and Senate bills.
Earlier in the afternoon, the deal was approved by both the Republican and Democrat leadership in the Senate and the House.
"It's a victory for both sides" said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., who called it a "good agreement." Lott predicted the aviation security bill would "pass overwhelmingly in both bodies" by Friday evening.
The agreement is an attempt to bridge the gap between two competing bills that passed the House and the Senate. The Senate bill called for federal employees to handle security screening at the nation's largest airports. The House bill, supported by Bush, called for federal oversight of security screening with the option of using private contractors to do the work.
According to several lawmakers, the deal would require almost all of the nation's airports to put federal employees in charge of security screening for the next three years. After that, individual airports would have the right to opt out of that federal system and request that the screening be handled by private contractors, state or local law enforcement.
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 able to unionize, but not allowed to strike, Mica said. All employees would have to be U.S. citizens.
While most airports would phase in the new federal employees over a nine-month period, a handful of airports would be part of a pilot program involving private security companies.
The pilot program is meant to test the effectiveness of using privately contracted screeners supervised by a federal agent. The program would be in place at five airports nationwide. One airport from each of five size categories -- from the smallest airports to the largest -- would be chosen for the test program.
Chief of Staff Andrew Card, a former transportation secretary, and Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta led the White House lobbying effort. Though the White House did not prevail upon Congress to grant it complete flexibility on the hiring of airport security workers, the senior official said the compromise is acceptable.
Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., said the new system is meant to provide uniform standards for security screeners at airports. "They'd be accountable to the federal system, federal standards," Kerry said. "It would all be the same system no matter who the workers are employed by."
"This is a victory for everyone who flies," said Senator John Breaux, D-La., "to know we have a safe system in place that is 100 percent better than the past."
One senior Democratic aide described the potential deal as 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."
But the compromise is meant to give something to House Republicans and the White House also by providing airports the flexibility to use private contractors in the future.
"It does give the president the flexibility and the local airports the flexibility to do what's right," said House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas.
Lott said Republicans were always for a federalized system, and were just opposed to making airport workers government employees. He said that although he believes this deal allows too much time -- three years -- for screeners and baggage handlers to work for the federal government, he is going along with it "in order to get this bill done."
To pay for the enhanced security at airports, passengers would have to pay a new fee, according to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. The fee would be $2.50 per leg with a maximum fee of $5 per one-way airline trip.
A new federal agency called the Transportation Safety Administration would be created in the Department of Transportation in order to oversee and administer the federalized security program.
-- From CNN Congressional Correspondent Kate Snow, White House Correspondent Major Garrett and Producers Dana Bash and Ted Barrett
I trust Tom Delay.
Or better yet, Grand Old Panties.
This also is another bailout of the airlines. Now the airlines don't have to pay for the security so will they reduce prices? Maybe we should get some of the bailout back since one of their responsibilities is taken away?
Also, what about the $2.50 per ticket? Is that money going to remain separate to ensure it is spent on airport security and cover the cost of the new employees? I doubt it. It's another tax and that is all the government ever seems to do. I'm gonna be sick.
There's no way to effectively vote any other way (although I always do). The two party cartel effectively has a lock on the system.
The brain-dead doesn't realize there is 'only one side' anymore!!! Sheesh....wonder what this boob would do if someone slipped him a dose of male hormone!!! Anything, just anything to keep him from bending over and grabbing his ankles--the fool acts as though he enjoys it!!
You've got that right, partially. You left out Congress and the President though.
Good that there are still those who are carrying the banner for what is right. We are going to have to elect ourselves more of these kind of Republicans.
Looks like the last hope is the people, most of whom will just whine and not bother to pick up the phone to call their congressperson to tell them to nix the whole idea.
202-224-3121 - Congressional switchboard
Actually, here in Jersey, they privatized the DMV years ago. I've never had to do anything there that took longer than 1/2 hour. That includes getting a photo License (and I took the finished one with me). But your point is well taken...
Dem politicians and their foolish followers will let out abig sigh and trumpet that we are all safe now. And, of course, there will be no more hijackings for 50 years because AQ has been there, done that.
You are right. What you can also probably count on is that now that the baggage screeners are going to be Federal employees, if/when they do screw up and let some weapon/potential weapon through it will turn out, according to Democrats, not to be their fault (e.g., bad working conditions or faulty equipment, something we need to allocate more money for to "let them do their job")
No one seems to realize or refuse to admit that the baggage screeners did absolutely nothing wrong on 9/11. Those box cutters were perfectly legal at the time. Geez...they even had steak knives in first class for crying out loud. The failure was at the INS, CIA, and FBI levels. But everyone needs a target so they rail against the baggage screeners!!
A bump for Armey, DeLay and Young. I am very disappointed in what finally came down. It will lead straight to corruption. At least with private screeners you would have to work a little harder (pay a little more)to corrupt the process.
I bet this is reversed in two years.
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.