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.
Nah, unless things go very wrong in the coming months (which is a possibility), they'll ride Bushwacker's coattails back into their sorry seats.
A 'bipartisan' solution lets the Democrats avoid responsibility once the shiite hits the turbofan.
One thing about airport security -- it's hard to bury the real screw-ups.
The government will continue to do the wrong thing until even more vast numbers die.
Really? Huh, since you proclaim yourself a swami, maybe you can give me a stock tip so that I can make a million dollars tommorrow.
Excellent points. I am outraged at this and intend to let my Congressmen and Senators know. Right now I'm so upset I'm even contemplating emailing the WhiteHouse.
Someone tell me to be calm-----that this will all work out with federal employees---NOT!
Isn't this the issue that causes the most concern? That with Civil Service protection we'd end up with nothing but deadwood working as screeners.
I don't see this compromise as deserving of all the castration garbage.
Republicans don't give a sh*t about reducing the size and scope of government...
They are only interested in increasing the power of the government over the individual...
The only people interested in reducing the government to Constituition size is Libertarians...
All other congresspeople are socialists...
I'm not sure. I think he's Dick Gephardt's "life partner".
I don't see this compromise as deserving of all the castration garbage.
Exactly, but get used to it, there is a vocal community on FR who will take any headline that Newsmax states as better than the word of God and then complain and flagellate themselves, saying how they have been "betrayed" again.
I don't like Federalism as much as the next Freeper, but replacing the single-parent mothers from the projects who work at airport security checkpoints with a genuine Federal agent seems to me to be a fine idea.
So, to those of you who don't like this idea, answer me this: Why is it a good thing to have a Federal agent acting as a 'Sky Marshal' on the plane, but not as a first line security agent at the gate?
Now, if they're just going to lay a sword on the shoulder of the current crop of hobos that we see at airport checkpoints and proclaim them Federal agents, then yes, I see a problem.
Am I missing something here in this discussion?
Uh I am not the one who makes pronogstications.
I know I am in the minority on this board on this one, but federalizing these workers is the only way, private industry under federal control is what we have had and look what its gotten? People fresh off the boat making $6 an hour can't speak english doing security! Profit motive for private industry in this matter will never allow adequate security, ever... because the private companies won't pay or train enough because the airports and airlines won't pay or train enough.
It was a fools errand for the Republicans to take this stand, they could not win the fight, and they knew it... this whole stand was token on this from the get go, putting on show for their hard core constituents who just will not accept federal control of anything, or government run anything even if it is the only practical way to achieve what is neccessary.
I ain't crazy about another federal union, but I sure as hell feel better about it being this way than some pakistani fresh off the boat working for some proxy company being responsible for airliner security.
How well did that work? No, the only thing that saves us this time around is redisctricting which will shift some power to the Texas delgation, but the Senate will be lucky to maintain the current breakdown.
And don't get me started on the Governor's races.
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.