• Political Insider • Political Insider Live • Live: "Free Media" • Subscribe to the OnPolitics e-mail update • Talk: OnPolitics message boards • Live Online Transcripts

Political Insider Live
With Charles Babington
Staff Writer and Chief Political Correspondent for washingtonpost.com
Friday, Nov. 2, 2001; 1 p.m. EST

The House rejected a Senate passed aviation safety bill yesterday in favor of a Republican plan to tighten airport security without mandating that all baggage screeners be federal workers. The vote is seen as a critical victory for President Bush at a time when his administration is being criticized by some for its handling of the war in Afghanistan.

Charles Babington, chief political correspondent for washingtonpost.com, will be online to discuss President Bush's handling of the terrorist crisis, the aviation security debate and other political news from the past week.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Charles Babington: Greetings, welcome. We have several questions today on last night's House vote on airport security. Please weigh in with your thoughts, questions, on this and other political topics on your mind.

Arlington, Va.: I feel that the argument the administration is making against federalizing airport security is a bit, well, silly. They are saying that in order to be effective, the system must allow bad employees to be fired. Well, isn't that exactly the kind of system we had prior to 9/11?

Then the administration complicates things by suggesting that the supervisor should be a government employee. What good will this do?

I would gain comfort in knowing that all airport security (as well as baggage handlers)had been well screened prior to employment. Once employed, I feel a living-wage combined with the peace of mind of eventually retiring on a decent pension would contribute strongly to a more professional system. It would be a good idea to throw in recurring training as well. Obviously, the security companies have not and will not provide these things. So, I would vote for federalizing airport security.

washingtonpost.com: House Passes Security Bill (Washington Post, Nov. 2, 2001)

Charles Babington: I'm going to toss in a couple of similar comments before responding.

Assos, Turkey: I think you had your facts wrong. Some European nations do privatize their airport security, and pay their people well and train them as you note. But not all.

Europe is not the standard we should settle for.

We expect better from the U.S.

Especially when travel to, and in, the U.S. is a much greater threat.

Clinton Vickers

Assos, Turkey

U.S. citizen (with son guarding the USS Kittyhawk)

Charles Babington: Thanks for writing, Mr. Vickers, and best wishes to your son.... Here's one more.

New York, N.Y.: In your opinion, is there a difference between having private contractors or government employees handle airport baggage? The federal government is overseeing it either way, and personally i don't really care where they come from as long as they do the job.

Charles Babington: Arlington and New York make similar points, which are well taken. As long as a worker is well-trained, motivated and diligent, it doesn't matter much whether he/she draws a paycheck from the federal government or from a private company with a government contract. For that reason, it's possible that there's not quite as much difference between the House and Senate versions as the heated rhetoric suggests.
Under the Senate bill, the airport screeners would be federal employees (under the Justice Dept.). They would have to pass an exam and criminal background check, and undergo classroom and on-the-job training.
Under the House bill, the workers could come from the private sector (the president would decide), but the government would have to devise "strict standards'' for airport security measures. It also calls for more stringent training of such workers.
I'll bet most airline passengers don't care too much whether the airport screener is a public or private-sector worker. They'll care more that the screener is well-trained and doing his or her best to keep all flights safe.

Frederick, Md.: I have no problem with private guards for airport security, provided that their companies are adequately regulated and inspected, and that the Congress gives them legislation that exempts them from laws of some States that require people to retreat if possible rather than use deadly force against an armed attacker. Also, they should have authority to detain individuals (arrest authority?). Does the House airport security legislation include those things? What agencies will be the regulator and inspector? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the experience but this would be quite a departure from their authorizing legislation for them.

Charles Babington: I don't know about the ''retreat or attack'' issue. As for detaining suspicious people: They have those powers now, although in practice the actual arrest might be done by a police officer on duty in the airport.
Under the House bill, a new security administration in the Transportation Dept. would oversee airport security. Under the Senate bill, it would fall to the Justice Dept.

Fairfax, Va.: Well, it took less than two months for the heated rhetoric to make it's way back to the Capitol. Why is this? It's OK for the two parties to have differences. It's not OK for both parties to think the other one is evil, or un-American, or whatever else that they say about the other. Why can't the 535 members figure out that the enemy is not on the other side of the aisle, but are hiding in caves right now?

Poll after poll after poll says that the public is tired of the partisan bickering (I know I am), but they just keep doing it. Is there any hope?

Charles Babington: Nice points, nicely made. You're right: It's entirely possible to disagree stringently with someone without questioning his/her motives, honesty, etc. Debate in the House (and to a lesser extent, the Senate) sometimes goes over that line -- and some lawmakers clearly step over the line in their press conferences, campaign mail, etc.
You mention public disgust. Remember, ordinary people have a say here. It's called the ballot box.

Boston, Mass.: Small, but important, point:

I think the debate on airline security has less to do with the workers themselves but the management of the effort. A private company seeks to take cost out of the operation to maximize profit (that's why screeners are so poorly paid).

A federal enterprise is constrained only by the budgetary constraint from Congress. If the public wants improved security they can act through their elected representatives. As such, the operation becomes more of a public service than a business that happens to handle airport security.

Charles Babington: Yes, but under a federal contract, the government can require minimum standards from a private contractor that can't be ignored, no matter the cost. For example, the contract can require xx hours of training, the passing of a standard exam, etc. It can even require minimum salaries. Then, of course, it's up to government officials to make sure the contract is followed.

Crystal City, Mo.: If the Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia win in their respective elections, how do you think this will play out in the '02 elections? In theory the GOP should be winning now that the issues at hand are about national security and defense, but it seems to me that the Democratic candidates haven't really been hurt by this.

Thanks.

Charles Babington: I agree with those who say next week's NJ and Va. governors' races may say little if anything about the 2002 elections. (Whichever party wins, of course, will say otherwise, I assure you). Even though issues of terrorism and national security hang heavy these days, they can't dominate statewide elections. In Va. and NJ, the main issues are similar to those in past gubernatorial elections: Taxes, transportation, education, etc.
Polls show the Democratic nominees in both states (which now have GOP governors) with healthy leads. I think local, not national, issues are the main reasons for this. In both states, the Democratic nominee is probably a better and more dynamic politician/campaigner. In Va., Republican Mark Earley has been hurt by voter anger over a recent budget impasse between Gov. Gilmore and the GOP-controlled legislature. In NJ, GOP nominee Bret Schundler has been hurt by (among other things) effective ads suggesting his record on abortion and other issues is too conservative for the state's majority.

Southwest, Washington, D.C.: How do you explain the unanimous vote in the Senate for the airport security bill?

Charles Babington: Easy. The vote was close on the tough issue of whether to federalize airport security workers. Once that issue was settled however (to make them federal employees), not a single senator wanted to be on record as voting against an "Airport Security Bill'' when it came time for final passage of the overall measure.
Similarly in the House last night, the vote was 218 to 214 on the showdown question of whether to adopt the Senate proposal for federalized workers. Once that was settled, the vote on the overall bill was 286-139.

Washington, D.C.: As owner of a firm that exclusively works on government contracts, I wanted to remind people that just because the government is contracting with a private firm does not mean that the work will therefore be "less than" that of a government agency. To me, the line is very blurred, because all of the jobs we do are in direct contact with government agencies, and there is close coordination between our staff and that of the agency we are working with. In fact, sometimes I feel that I am a government employee -- I spend that much time at different agencies! They set the standards and requirements, and we follow them. I just wanted to remind people how much work is done on a contract basis here in D.C. -- I think we, inside the beltway, are probably much more aware of the prevalence of government contracting than those elsewhere.

Charles Babington: Good points, thanks for writing.

RE: Fairfax: Actually, I'm relieved that there is some partisanship. Complete unity, you may recall, was the Soviet style that we fought long and hard to bring down. Communists want everyone to think alike.

America is strong because we can differ in opinion, and express ourselves freely (well, up until that anti-terrorism bill...)

Personally, I'm tired of Republicans agreeing with Democrats on everything. When they do, it seems like one party... the Republicrats (or is it Democans?). Why bother to have political parties if the goal is for total agreement?

Charles Babington: Fair enough. But you can disagree sharply with someone without calling him a liar or unpatriotic or dishonest, etc.

Seattle, Wash.: You say that we have a choice -- we can use the ballot box!
I wonder if we have the time to wait for the next election -- we are naive if we believe that the airlines will not be attacked again.

Charles Babington: Every two years we elect all 435 House members and one-third of the Senate. Do you really want annual elections?

Alexandria, Va.: What happens with the airport security bill now? I heard it was going to a "conference." Excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject, but what is this conference and how long will it take to resolve the issue?

Charles Babington: Good question. "Conference committees'' are used very often, in Congress as well as state legislatures. They occur when the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill on a given topic -- which happens a lot. A bill can't become law until both houses pass the exact same version. So House and Senate leaders appoint members to a conference committee to try to iron out the differences and reach a compromise version of the bill that both chambers will endorse. The members include lawmakers from both parties, but the Senate and House leaders have great leeway in deciding whom to appoint.
Conference committees can be deadly dull (I've covered my share), or rich with intrigue.
Their work is done largely in private, so all sorts of deal-making and strong-arming can take place. Sometimes a "conference report'' will have provisions that neither the House nor the Senate version originally contained! These typically are "sweeteners'' added to appease some key legislators and secure their votes for the compromise measure.
In the case of the airport security bill, the conferees have same major disagreements to tackle. I don't know how long it will take.

Chapel Hill, N.C.: Regarding release (or not) of the Reagan papers: Does an Executive Order trump an Act of Congress?

Charles Babington: The writer is alluding to the news (on page one in the Post today) that President Bush has signed an executive order allowing a current or former president to block the release of their own presidential papers (and allowing the incumbent to block release of a former president's papers).
I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question, though I assume a congressional act would trump the executive order (and then the president could decide whether to veto). Perhaps some of our other readers know more on this issue?

Cathlamet, Wash.: One thing puzzles me about the airline security bill. It passed the Senate 100 to 0.
Even arch conservatives such as Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond voted for it.
So, why are HOUSE Republicans opposed to the Senate version? Delay's and Armey's argument that it might unionize security workers is lame and an insult to all those unionized firefighters and police officers who gave their lives up 9-11.
Besides, don't airline security workers ALREADY HAVE federal oversight?

Charles Babington: Airport security workers do have federal oversight now, but all sides agree it needs tightening -- and both the House and Senate versions would do that, though in different ways.
Reps. Armey, DeLay, etc., have explained their views quite often, so I needn't repeat (or quarrel with) them... As I said earlier, however, the Senate vote was much closer on the key question of airport worker federalization.
Here's another reader with another opinion:

Dryden, N.Y.: About last night's vote on airplane security. Are the Republicans in the House intentionally trying to blow the 2002 election? I can just see the campaign ads. "Congressman Blah de Blah" is protected by unionized federal policemen in Washington but leaves the flying public to the mercy of $6 an hour rent-a-cops! Elect Democratic Mary Smith. Fighting for real people not fat cat security business owners." How out of touch are they?

Charles Babington: Well, Democratic campaign consultants obviously hope you're right... And GOP leaders are banking on you being wrong.

Maryland: There have been federal standards for screeners all along, yet the only "stick" the government has to hit the contractors with is fines. That hasn't been effective in getting the contractors to fire unqualified screeners, or to address documented violations. If we view screeners as law enforcement personnel, then they would be required to meet law enforcement standards. Who in their right mind would contract out the FBI? If we continue to view them as unskilled labor, then that is the level of competence we should expect contractors to hire.

Charles Babington: No, we don't contract out the FBI. But we do contract out security at places such as nuclear power plants.

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Why are the Republicans more concerned about union busting then the safety of the commoners in this country? This is in reference to they're being dead set against federalizing air port security. This war is not uniting this country, the Republicans are seeing it as way to further they're own selfish agendas. They're paid to protect us, not throw us to the wolves.

Charles Babington: OK, in honor of the Yankees, Brooklyn gets the last word today (since no one wrote in from the Bronx).
Thanks for joining, and see you next week.