Lawmakers Agree on Federal Oversight of Airport Screening

Key lawmakers reached agreement Thursday on an air travel security bill that would put federal workers in charge of screening passengers and baggage at the nation’s airports, clearing the way for congressional passage of legislation that President Bush can sign before Thanksgiving.

The House and Senate are expected to approve the measure today. It calls for an array of new security features, including installing assault-resistant cockpit doors, hiring additional air marshals, screening all checked baggage and allowing properly trained pilots to carry firearms.

“Safety comes first,” Bush said Thursday, announcing that he will sign the measure. “And when it comes to safety, we will set high standards and enforce them.”

Under the agreement:

* Airport screening will come under a new Transportation Security Administration as soon as the legislation is signed. Within a year, all screeners would have to be federal employees.

* Three years after the federal government takes over airport security, airports can opt out of the program and contract with private security companies.

* Screening of checked bags must be increased within 60 days. By December 2002, all checked bags must go through explosive-detection machines.

* A hidden switch--and possibly video cameras--will be installed in cabins to alert pilots of trouble.

* A “trusted traveler” program, using high-tech devices such as retinal scanners, is authorized to expedite the screening of passengers who choose to participate in it. International flights must provide federal authorities with passenger lists before landing.

* A ticket surcharge--$2.50 for each leg of the flight up to a maximum of $5 each way--will be charged to passengers to fund the security enhancements, which officials estimate at $2.5 billion.

“This, I think, with the president’s signature, will give Americans confidence that their government and their Congress and their president are doing everything possible to improve airport security as rapidly as possible,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The agreement ended a weeks-long stalemate that had grown increasingly tense in recent days, as lawmakers faced the possibility of returning home for the Thanksgiving recess without an aviation security bill more than two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The dispute, largely over whether an estimated 28,000 airport security screeners should be government or private employees, held up a bill that Bush and others have called vital to restoring the public’s confidence in flying.

The compromise appears closer to the Senate bill, which called for federalizing the screening jobs. The House bill, favored by Bush, would have increased federal oversight of airport security but allowed the administration to decide whether the screeners should be government employees, private contractors or a mix.

“The Senate position was ultimately going to prevail because the politics demanded a significant change from the status quo,” said Marshall Wittmann, a political scholar at the conservative Hudson Institute, a public policy center in Washington.

Lawmakers seemed to have little sympathy for the private security companies that handle screening, as security lapses have continued even after Sept. 11. In fact, the nation’s largest security company, Argenbright, was barred Thursday from continuing to work in Massachusetts because of ongoing security lapses at Logan International Airport in Boston and the company’s conviction on felony charges for failing to perform adequate background checks and hiring convicted felons.

Under the current screening system, private companies bid for airline contracts, then hire low-wage workers as screeners.

These screeners are eligible for the federal positions, but they must meet specific requirements, including proficiency in English and a high school diploma. They also must be U.S. citizens and must undergo a criminal background check. If, after three years, airports choose to renew their contracts with private contractors, those employees will have to meet federal standards and be supervised by federal workers.

In Los Angeles, Mayor James K. Hahn called the bill a “tremendous step forward” toward making the skies safer.

Although the bill gives airports the option of using screeners hired by private companies in future years, Hahn said he expects that Los Angeles International Airport will stick with federal employees.

Mike Garcia, president of Local 1877 of the Service Employees International Union, criticized the requirement that screeners be U.S. citizens.

“Some screeners have worked [at LAX] for as long as 12 years, performing jobs for which they no longer qualify,” said Garcia, noting that about 40% of the 600 unionized screeners at LAX are legal residents but not citizens. “They’re devastated. From the beginning, they feel they have been scapegoated and it’s not their fault.”

Indeed, LAX officials expressed concern that screeners may begin leaving before their replacements can be trained, potentially opening significant gaps in staffing as the holiday travel season begins.

It takes 30 days to complete fingerprinting, drug checks, background research and training for new employees, said Paul Haney, a spokesman at LAX.

Kenneth Quinn, chief lobbyist for the Aviation Security Assn., a trade organization for the private companies that provide screening, said the legislation puts 20,000 security jobs in jeopardy.

“We’re obviously disappointed,” he said.

On the other hand, Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Carson) said the security measure would provide an economic boost. “With 1 in 20 jobs in Southern California attributed to the operation of LAX, the loss of confidence in air travel was immediately felt by thousands of local families in waves of layoffs,” she said. “With federal security officers ensuring that air travel will become the safest mode of travel in this nation, many of these laid-off workers will be rehired and we will see an immediate recovery in the economy.”

Lawmakers were eager to strike a deal before returning to their districts for Thanksgiving.

“Had we not gotten it done,” said Rep. Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.), “we would have taken a lot of heat.”

House Republicans opposed to a federal takeover of screening said they expect that many airports will eventually return to private contractors, though the caliber of all screeners is expected to be higher.

Under the legislation, the Department of Transportation will test various approaches to screening--private contractors, state and local law enforcement officers, federal workers or a combination--at five airports of different sizes that volunteer for a pilot project.

“We think at the end of two years there will be a clear example of which is better,” said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

But Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, doubted that any airports would opt out of using federal employees.

House Republicans were criticized by some of their constituencies for caving in on the bill.

“I don’t think it’s any good,” said Christian Josi,executive director of the American Conservative Union. “The simple fact is that there are nations like . . . Great Britain that have a good 20-plus years on us in terms of preparing for terrorist attacks. They have tried federalizing. It didn’t work . . . . I just think the Republicans could have fought a little harder.”

The White House also took criticism from both sides of the aisle.

Asked if the administration was helpful in hammering out the compromise, Young said, “Not as much as I would have wished.”

And Hollings, who had hoped to put the Justice Department, instead of the Transportation Department, in charge of airport security, said: “I need me a Stormin’ Norman [Gen. Schwarzkopf] to take over this task, not the easygoing, pleasant, adorable Norm Mineta. He’s my friend, but he’s too easy.”

However, Mineta, the Transportation secretary, pledged to develop a system that will feature “professionalism, accountability and, most importantly, a level of safety that will restore confidence in our national transportation system.”

*

Times staff writers Nancy Cleeland, James F. Peltz, Jennifer Oldham and Scott Martelle contributed to this report.