Security Risk
Which airline-security bill will reach the president's desk?

November 2, 2001 5:45 p.m.

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.