[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.

[Jorge]

I also originally favored federalizing the security....but the more I listened to the arguments, and the more I heard about this approach failing in Europe and Israel....the more I realized that the Bush/Republican bill was the way to go.

I'm glad the House defeated the Democrat bill.

[Eva]

A former neighbor of mine was in charge of the new FAA Securtiy division that was set up following the downing of TWA 800. The man was incapable of managing our little homeowners' assoc. and unable to control his wife. It is no wonder that the FAA security division was inept. I have no doubt that any gov't agency would be the same. (He was also the crash investigation team)

[ninenot]

There were a bunch of other wacked-out problems with the Senate bill--for example, passengers departing Green Bay or Appleton would pay MORE for "security" than those departing O'Hare--and provisions for "security" at the small-town airports were VERY lackadaisical. WHY? Terrorists found the airport in Maine, for crying out loud--why not Green Bay??

[quizitiveOne]

...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.

Are you saying that the attachment frees the private inspection companies from lawsuits if they fail at their purpose or if they are not PC?

I want them to be fully liable if they fail to provide adequate security. You could never attach liability to federal employees or agencies. It always would fall back to those of us who pay taxes. It is exactly this risk of liability that would make them effective.