GOP Insecurity
Republicans dissect the aviation-security defeat.

November 19, 2001 6:00 p.m.

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.