House Passes GOP-Backed Air Security Bill

A sharply divided House approved an air-travel security bill Thursday that puts the Republican-controlled chamber at odds with the Senate over whether airport screeners of passengers and baggage should become federal employees.

The House bill, offered by Republicans and supported by President Bush, gives the administration the option of using either private contractors or government workers as screeners, while imposing higher standards and greater federal oversight of all airport security forces.

Last month, the Senate unanimously approved legislation to put 28,000 new federal employees in charge of screening at major airports and bring airport security under the control of the Justice Department.

The final tally Thursday was 286 to 139, reflecting the desire of many Democrats to avoid casting a vote against increased airline security. A more critical vote came earlier when the House, 214 to 218, rejected an amendment that would have made its bill identical to the Senate’s--thus putting airport screeners on the federal payroll.

Airline security has emerged as one of the most politically divisive issues in Congress since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Proponents say federalizing the screeners would help rebuild public confidence in the safety of air travel, but critics deplore the broad expansion of the federal work force and contend there is no guarantee that federal workers would provide a more secure environment than carefully supervised private workers.

In a statement after the vote, Bush said: “I commend the House for passing legislation that will help ensure the safety of the traveling public by strengthening security at America’s airports.”

Bush lobbied hard for the GOP version of the bill, meeting with House Republicans until the vote, although his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., had said that he would have reluctantly signed the Senate version of the bill had the House approved it.

The White House said the House-passed bill “would enable the administration to build the toughest airline security work force possible in the fastest and most effective way.” Legislation mandating a federal screening work force, the administration warned, “could destabilize the security of the aviation system in the near term” by causing an exodus of private companies currently conducting screening.

Bush wants an airline security bill sent to him quickly, to help restore public confidence in flying, but House and Senate negotiators now face a difficult process of reconciling their differences.

Unlike the closely divided House, the Senate approved its bill Oct. 11 by 100 to 0, with prominent Republicans such as John McCain of Arizona and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas backing a federal takeover of airport screening.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said after the vote, “If the Senate would listen to the president, we could have a bill out in a week. But if they want to play politics . . . this could drag out.”

But McCain, a co-sponsor of the Senate bill, said that the House measure “significantly weakens provisions contained in the Senate bill.” He added that he expects the Senate “to fight to restore these important security measures.”

The aviation security bill is the first of what is expected to be a series of measures designed to tighten security at everything from railroads and harbors to national monuments in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The House and Senate versions have much in common; both require more air marshals, assault-resistant cockpit doors, anti-hijack training for flight crews, screening of all checked luggage, and background checks of anyone learning to fly a large plane. Both measures permit properly trained pilots to carry guns.

The House measure provides for a passenger surcharge of up to $2.50 on each one-way trip to help pay for the security enhancements. It also would authorize $1.5 billion to help airports cover increased security costs. This provision would benefit Los Angeles International Airport, which has incurred more than $15 million in added security costs since the attacks.

That left the issue of who should do the screening as the major sticking point.

“Do you want to contract out the Capitol Police?” House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) asked his colleagues. “Do you want to contract out the U.S. Marines? Do you want to contract out the FBI and the Customs Service? . . . If it’s good enough for us, it’s good enough for the American people.”

Gephardt contended that seven weeks after the attacks, security lapses are still occurring at airports. “The companies that have been doing this have failed the American people. . . . It is time for them to be replaced.”

Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), one of eight Republicans who had supported the Senate bill, added: “National security should not be left to the lowest bidder.”

Disagreeing, Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation aviation subcommittee, told colleagues that if they voted to make the screeners federal workers, they could go home and tell their constituents, “What we did was create the biggest bureaucracy in a generation.”

The vote came after heavy lobbying by the administration, House GOP leaders and security companies fighting to hold onto their screening contracts.

GOP leaders made last-minute changes to the bill in an effort to pick up votes. One amendment expanded liability protection for damages stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks to cover Boeing Co., the manufacturer of the planes involved. Another would permit musical instruments to be carried on planes, regardless of other restrictions on carry-on baggage.

The airlines now are responsible for screening passengers and their bags. They contract on a competitive-bidding basis with security companies that in turn hire low-wage workers as screeners. The workers can often get better-paying jobs at airport restaurants or concessions, so the turnover is high.

The administration has said that under its plan, privately employed screeners would be much better trained and more closely supervised.

In addition, House GOP leaders and the administration contended that putting the screeners on the government payroll would make it more difficult to fire incompetent workers--an assertion that some of their Republican colleagues in the Senate disputed.

Unlike the Senate bill, which puts screeners under Justice Department control, the House measure would create a Transportation Security Administration within the Transportation Department “whose only job will be to protect our transportation system from terrorist threats,” said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

Under the House bill, screeners would be deputized and wear badges and uniforms. A law enforcement officer also would be stationed at every screening location.

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, who last week led a group of mayors in support of the Senate’s version of the legislation, said he was disappointed by the vote.

“This [bill] is not the best, it’s second-best,” said Hahn, who has taken a highly visible role in the debate as chairman of the U.S. Conference of Mayors task force on airport security. “But we’ll have to make do with it and hope the administration is serious about doing a much better job of supervising these private security workers.”

He said that if the Federal Aviation Administration continues to oversee the private screening companies, it must “do a better job of standing up to the airlines and standing for the passenger public.”

Union leaders who represent most of the hundreds of screeners who work at LAX applauded the outcome in the House.

“We hope the House and Senate conference committee can work quickly to craft legislation that is based on a public-private partnership,” said Jono Schaffer, director of security organizing for the Service Employees International Union.

He added that his organization hoped the federal government would allow screeners currently on the job to remain in their positions if they “are qualified or can be trained to qualify.”

Schaffer said screeners who work for several contractors at the world’s third-busiest airport have been fired in recent weeks for airing their concerns about security procedures to reporters.

“Our most important concern is that workers who do this job don’t get scapegoated for a system they didn’t create,” he said.

Business traveler representatives said the traveling public favored federalization and would be concerned that Congress was sending mixed signals about its intentions to upgrade security at the nation’s airports.

“About 87% of Americans, as evidenced by a Washington Post/CNN poll, wanted federalization of these airport security workers, and so did 91% of the large purchasers of air transportation services like DaimlerChrysler and Procter & Gamble,” said Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travelers Coalition, a trade group that represents 51 major corporations. “Given these constituencies . . . I think Congress may get a backlash in the coming days on this vote.”

*

Times staff writers Edwin Chen and Jennifer Oldham contributed to this report.

RELATED STORY

Airline losses: United Airlines’ parent and Delta join other carriers in posting big losses. C1