Check Politics at the Gate

Last month, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed legislation requiring all workers who screen baggage at airports to be federal personnel. The Senate plan acknowledges the importance of airport security as a law enforcement role, unfortunately neglected before Sept. 11. Last Thursday, however, the House narrowly defeated the Senate’s bill and instead passed a Republican version of the legislation that removes the personnel requirement. We urge the conference committee to move quickly on the bill and to restore the Senate language as much as possible before sending the bill to the president’s desk.

The original Senate debate was a model of bipartisan compromise in response to Sept. 11, an effective step to place national security above political bickering. We applaud the Senate’s unanimous approach in recognizing the importance of having federal personnel at airports to protect air passengers and all Americans.

The House bill would also take a number of steps to provide federal oversight for airport security. However, the bill rejects the Senate plan to have all security workers be federal personnel and was approved after the Senate version, backed mostly by Democrats and moderate Republicans, was narrowly defeated in the House.

House Republicans criticized the Senate’s version on grounds that the standards mandated by the F.A.A. before Sept. 11 did not prevent the tragedy from occurring. Furthermore, many Republicans insisted that the rules set forth in the bill would leave airport security in a worse state than it is currently, citing the need to give the president flexibility in regulating airports.

However, there is no reason to want Americans’ safety to be ‘flexible.’ Airport security personnel who were federal employees would undergo a universal screening process and would be expected to work as highly trained professionals. Having higher-paid federal workers instead of outsourced personnel will attract more qualified individuals to guard our airports, and we would rather pay the extra cost than have the safety of all Americans protected by the lowest bidder.

The House Republicans also failed to recognize that private companies, as events since Sept. 11 reveal, have repeatedly failed to provide effective airport security. In fact, several amendments added to the bill limit the financial liability of airlines, airport security firms and airplane manufacturers in the case that lax security provisions lead to future hijackings. We are concerned that these amendments, in the context of a watered-down security bill, would lessen the responsibility of private security companies (many of which are Republican campaign donors) and are motivated by a desire to satisfy special interests rather than to protect Americans.

To pass the bill, the House leadership also catered to other special interests, giving the American Federation of Musicians a provision exempting musical instruments from carry-on baggage restrictions and kowtowed to the airline industry by removing a provision that capped executive salaries for airlines receiving a $15 billion assistance package. The Republican version overlooks air passengers’ safety in return for such special-interest provisions.

While we are disappointed that the bill passed by the House does not provide a strong federal role in airport security, we are glad that the basic security provisions outlined in the Senate plan have passed unchanged, such as requiring mandatory screening of checked luggage and providing for reinforced cockpit doors. Other reforms made in the bill are less necessary, such as allowing armed air marshals on flights and permitting pilots to carry guns under certain conditions. But at this point, Congress should focus on preparing an effective airport security bill for the president’s signature as soon as possible.

The tragic events of Sept. 11 unified the Senate on the goal of providing Americans the most effective security possible. The overwhelmingly bipartisan support for the anti-terrorism bill signed into law two weeks ago was one such example of the necessity of compromise to fully protect Americans. Even though the Senate’s unanimous approach was not repeated in the House, we hope that its example will be followed by the conference committee and by both houses in the weeks to come.