|
ep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, a ferociously partisan Democrat,
voted for a Democratic-favored airline-security bill calling for
full federalization of the nation's 28,000 baggage screeners. Then
last night, after that measure failed, Kennedy voted for a Republican-favored
bill that provides for private screeners under heavy federal supervision.
Kennedy wasn't
alone. Rep. David Bonior of Michigan, another ferociously partisan
Democrat, did the same thing. So did Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin,
yet another ferociously partisan Democrat. And the ferociously partisan
Rep. John Dingell, too. In all, 69 Democrats who voted for the Democratic
version of the airline-security bill changed their position and
voted for the final Republican version.
It's not too
difficult to figure out why. "They didn't want to go on record
opposing airline security," says one top House GOP aide. But
now, with the House bill headed to a conference committee to reconcile
differences with the full-federalization Senate bill, what will
the Democrats do? Go back to their original preferences or support
any bill that has the words "airline security" attached?
Before last
night, it appeared full federalization had the upper hand. After
all, the Senate passed it 100 to 0. That's strong stuff; if every
single senator, from Jesse Helms to Barbara Boxer, supported full
federalization, why shouldn't that be the version that becomes law?
But the situation
today is different from October 11, when the Senate voted on the
one-month anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
Now, the House has had a serious debate on the issue of whether
screeners should be federal workers or private contractors under
intense federal scrutiny. Now, the public has had a chance to hear
experts — many with experience in Israeli and European airports
— who make the persuasive case that private is better.
And now, some
Republican senators say privately they would not vote again for
a full-federalization bill. That, combined with the results in the
House, will create an upside-down situation inside the conference
room. There will be some Republican senators who voted for full
federalization who will oppose it in conference. And there will
be some Democratic representatives who voted for private-with-supervision
who will oppose that in conference.
It's a recipe
for confusion. In addition, along with the switch-hitters, there
are major players on both sides who are deeply dug in. Taken together,
those factors could lead to a long and contentious conference. And
that's where the White House comes in.
The Senate
bill passed after a series of mixed signals from the administration,
which couldn't seem to decide which option was better. Even last
Sunday, after George W. Bush spoke in favor of the Republican bill,
White House chief of staff Andrew Card said the president would
sign the Democratic bill, were it to come to his desk. Now, however,
the White House seems to be strongly behind the Republican plan.
Which means
that if the president works hard enough, Republicans might be able
to defeat full federalization. But if Bush does not succeed, there's
still another option. The president could simply enact the most
important measures of the bill by executive order, dispensing with
the House-Senate argument altogether. It's something a number of
Republicans have wanted him to do all along. And, despite all the
bipartisan rhetoric that has come out of the White House since September
11, an executive order might appeal to the president's desire to
take the lead and get something done, bypassing all that bickering
at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
|
