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.
and about as attractive to Lady Liberty.
This is disgusting. The difference between the democrats and most congressional republicans is - the republicans give us the same posion, they just phase it in.
We get to look forward to the same quality of service as . . . Bimbo Crusher's "injustice" department; the postal service of last job hope; the DEA;
What unmitigated joy abounds.
They will end up getting civil service protection soon enough, you can bet on it. They will have more protections than private hirees will- the problem with the private security staffers is that even private employers risk lawsuits if they peer into the backgrounds of their employees... just from routine hiring procedures. If people get passed over or disciplined, they cry 'civil rights abuse' every time.
Worse, being federal, there will be no commercial pressure to force good performance or good behavior. They will end up bnehaving like snotty government employees do, and will not enhance customer service, but likely will drive customers away- which is what the 'feeling' of security was supposed to prevent in the first place. They will be paid more but do no better than they are now, and will get retirement paid for all of us, whether we fly or not. It is in effect, nothing more than a subsidy program to make people 'feel' like they are secure when security will be no better- a bad thing- because people will be less vigilent.
Bread and circuses is all it is: feel-good make-work to create an illusion.
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.