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.
Thats right. Keep voting for marginal candidates like Buchannan, Senator Smith in NH, Brent Schundler and the guy that lost in Virgina Gov race.
We have one party (the democrats) who will do anything no matter how despicable to gain and/or hold onto power
And another party (the pseudo republicans) so desperate to hang onto whatever dwindling power they still have left let the other party get away with it every time.
PATHETIC!!!
This federalization is a total capitulation by Lott and the GOP.
Do you really think the Dems are going to fire the current low income workers who are doing security at the airports. No way. They will just raise their pay, label them federal law enforcement officers, make sure the union dues are collected for the Union buddies and look the other way. If citizenship is a problem, they will run them through a crash program with the INS like Clinton did in 96.
If I can't drive to get there I don't go.
I don't worry about security checks any more.
BTW remember what old patches you know who I am Kennedy did to that guard that tried to stop him from going thru the check point.
No think about it that checker was a federal employ.
BTW I am going to one of the first people to sign up for that new job.
Why shouldn't I suck at the teat the fedgov is going to provide for me?
Then it will take four years to fire me.
Another thing...the pubs will gain seats in the 2002 elections.
You are in the minority, but you are not alone. I've been making similar points for the last two months.
There are federalized workforces that that work well. The current incarnation of air traffic controllers is my favorite example. They are federal, they have a union, and when one of them screws up, they go, and they go quickly. I understand why FReepers are against the federal unions in general, but so much of why they do and do not work has to do with how they are structured and put together in the first place. The FAA has a pretty good track record in this regard.
We wasted a lot of time fighting against federalized airport security, which was an inevitable conclusion. We should have been spending those resources making sure that these workforces were set up with the type of accountability that they need to be successful, and to avoid them becoming just another plodding bureaucracy.
I just hope it isn't too late.
Exactly why the Republicans had to make some deal to get this done! With no civil service protection I think folks are going to be surprised (in a good sense) with the product that we'll get. The air traffic controller position is a good example.
Oh how so very true. Another screaming liberal damnocrat temper tantrum, and these GOP Bozo's, who call themselves "the leadership" blow it again. And why on earth, as the majority, could they not come up with their own bill? We need new blood in there, fast.
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.