House rejects creation of federal work force for screening (Airport Security)

StLtoday.com ^ | 11-1-01 | Jim Abrams

[FairWitness]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House rejected a plan Thursday to turn airport screening operations over to federal employees, handing a major victory to the White House and its Republican allies.

The 218-214 vote to defeat the Senate-passed, Democratic-backed alternative set the stage for passing a GOP aviation security bill that would allow screening to be contracted out to private employers. A vote on the Republican bill was to come later Thursday evening.

[LS]

I originally favored federalizing the security. However, there was an attachment on this bill that I was not aware of that made the security companies at airports basically free from lawsuits, which was my concern---that due to civil rights laws, they would NOT be able to properly screen, inspect, and if necessary, detain people. With that addendum, I fully support the PRIVATIZED version.

But ONLY if that attachment is in play. If they pass a private bill with no liability protection, it is as good as no bill at all.

[FairWitness]

Good news, I think, but it is still a work in progress. The idea of 28,000 new Federal "police" is not appealing.

[Amore]

All that arm-twisting the President did certainly paid off. Good job!

[6ppc]

Looks like we posted at the same time. I did a search first.

[RadicalRik]

Thank God!.....and Republicans that have a set of.....intestinal fortitude.

[FairWitness]

218 to 214! Will be interesting to see the "party line" breakdown of the vote.

[jwalsh07]

This was all Bush. Greg Ganske, Rino from Iowa, said two days ago that he and Gephart had the votes to create a new federal agency. Bush makes all the right moves and sticks it to the Senate Republicans, John McCain in particular, the dims and the RINOS and he does what is best for America.

Quite a guy!

[MileHi]

Great news!

``Do you want to contract out the Capitol Police?'' Gephardt asked his colleagues. ``Do you want to contract out the U.S. Marines? If it is good enough for us, it is good enough for the American people.''

Shuddup, Gepfart...

[FairWitness]

I was taking a quick look at the "STLtoday" site (covers both the St. Louis Post Dispatch and a chain of local community papers) and this popped up as "breaking news". I guess it hit this site so fast because of Dick Gephardt being a "local guy". I did a quick look at "latest articles" and did not see it so I posted it. I see there are now at least three versions going on FR.

[d14truth]

``I want every mom and dad who gets on an airplane to feel safe,'' he said.

Me, too. Which is why AFSMCE employees under the control of their union bosses would create a combination of bad and expensive security, IMHO.

[d14truth]

``Do you want to contract out the Capitol Police?'' Gephardt asked his colleagues.

Yes, well, no, if I was Cong. Gary Condit.

[stryker]

A victory for the Republicans; a defeat for the people. Now, instead of immediately having an improved federal force checking luggage, we have to wait for a committee to reconcile the two bills, then a further vote, etc. etc. The patriotic thing to do would have been to swallow a loss for the country and vote for the Senate bill in its entirety, politics and political ideology be damned. At least we could fly safely immediately. Once again, the Republicans prove that they are no better than the Democrats: only in it for themselves, the people be damned.

[piasa]

"Do you want to contract out the Capitol Police?" Gephardt asked his colleagues. "Do you want to contract out the U.S. Marines? If it is good enough for us, it is good enough for the American people."

The Democrats were complaining that the reason security is so low is that the people working at the airports weren't paid enough, and the best people wouldn't work there.

OK, fine.

Now, Dick, answer this question: If low pay means low security, how come the Democrats are always standing in the way of giving meaningful pay to the military?

[FairWitness]

I don't want an airport security guard who I know can not be fired (for all practical purposes), no matter how good or bad they are, because he/she is Federal and unionized.

[stryker]

I might add they have already held this bill up for three weeks. That's three weeks that we could have been getting the new and improved federal employees trained and in place.

[Greatgrandma]

Ganske is my congressman. He's a major disappointment. He thinks he's McCain.

Iowa has a GREAT young man named Bill Salier challenging Ganske in the primary to become the senate candidate to take on Harkin.

Ganske is probably better than Harkin, but not much and he's drifting farther left all the time.

If there's any freepers out there willing to help Bill Salier, check out his website.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think you're on to something.

[al_possum39]

``Do you want to contract out the Capitol Police?'' Gephardt asked his colleagues.

We might want to consider contracting out the FBI, the Border Patrol and the INS. They haven't done such a good job either and they are Federal employees.

[jwalsh07]

You're wrong and you're certainly not a conservative.

Ask yourself this question, what would have changed if the "baggage screeners" had been federal employees? The answer is nothing.

Now ask yourself this. With affirmative action running wild in governemnt unions, would the best people have gotten the job or the right people?

Is the post office or federal express more efficient and better run?

And try this on for size. In the eighties in Europe with government security, 30 hijackings occurred. In the 90's with private security and government oversight 4 hijackings.