|
 ere's
one Republican view of the new aviation security bill, signed into
law Monday morning by President Bush: "Given the circumstances,
it was the best that could be done," says Rep. John Mica, chairman
of the House aviation subcommittee, who helped craft the original
House bill calling for airport baggage screeners to be private workers
under heavy federal supervision. "We think the legislation that
was signed into law was far better than the original Senate bill."
Here's another
GOP view, from a senior congressional aide: "We got completely rolled,
and most everyone is trying to put a happy face on it. Anything
that we won in the bill, like the citizenship requirement or perimeter
security, is something we could have won at any time."
As it turns
out, they're both right. House Republicans were completely
rolled in the conference committee that produced the final bill.
And it was the best they could do. And, in some respects,
the final bill is significantly better than the one passed
by the Senate.
It is better,
in the view of many Republicans, because it covers more areas of
security than the Senate bill, which was rushed to unanimous passage
on October 11, the one-month anniversary of the terrorist attacks
in New York and Washington. That bill addressed a limited number
of issues, like strengthening cockpit doors and increasing the number
of federal air marshals; the House bill covered many more, which
were incorporated in the final bill. The final version also eliminates
the crazy-quilt of bureaucratic responsibilities that were in the
Senate bill. "It's not disjointed, with bag screening under the
Department of Justice and other parts in the Department of Transportation
and the FAA," says Mica. Under the final bill, the major responsibility
for everything will be given to the newly-created Undersecretary
of Transportation for Security.
On the other
hand, Republicans lost big on the biggest issue in the debate: the
question of whether to federalize the nation's 28,000 baggage screeners.
Although they studied the subject and came up with a thoughtful
and persuasive argument in favor of using private screeners under
strict federal scrutiny, House Republicans were not able to overcome
the quick-fix appeal of the make-them-all-federal advocates.
Certainly
the White House didn't help. First, the president got into the game
late, after the Senate had passed its bill. Then, even as the White
House pushed hard to pass the Republican bill in the House, chief
of staff Andrew Card signaled that the president would sign the
Senate bill if it came to his desk. "We ended up in a terrible negotiating
position," says the unhappy GOP aide. "One, because the Senate hastily
passed the bill 100 to 0, giving the impression that there was no
opposition. And two, Card's comments eliminated a lot of their negotiating
leverage." Even the diplomatic Mica says, "There's no question that
made it an incredibly uphill battle."
So Republicans
lost. And although it hurt, it wasn't a dreadful defeat; most in
the GOP would concede that the new bill will make airport security
better than it is now, although not as good as it would have been
under the House bill. But the experience has set off worries about
the likelihood of more losses in the future. A Washington Post
story on Monday suggested that some Republican strategists see the
aviation negotiations, in which the president "left conservatives
to their own devices," as a "template for how [Bush] can be expected
to handle the economic stimulus package and other bills, perhaps
including education, that emerge before year's end."
Needless to
say, that's a template Republicans on Capitol Hill could live without.
And, at least right now, they're guessing it won't happen. "My sense
is it's a one-time thing," says the GOP aide of the aviation security
defeat. "I would be surprised if we have another issue in which
the Senate is united 100 to 0 and the White House's position is
'We'll sign whatever you send us.'" At least that's the hope.
|
