Should the Govt. Handle Airport Security?

Nov. 1 -- To federalize or not to federalize: that is the question facing the House of Representatives as it grapples with airline security.

With House debating air-safety legislation that may come up for a vote today, the major sticking point remains the role of the nation's airport baggage screeners.

House Democrats and some Republican moderates support a Senate bill, passed unanimously on Oct. 12, nationalizing baggage screening and adding the workers to the government work force.

The GOP-backed House bill would increase federal oversight of the security workers, but keep screening in the hands of private security companies.

Public Sector vs. Private Industry

A long-standing desire to limit the size of the federal government and their traditional wariness about organized labor appear to be behind the House Republicans' stance on the issue.

The GOP leadership does not want, as House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, puts it, to "create 28,000 union members," claiming it would be difficult to get rid of inadequate employees. Additionally, the House bill, unlike its Senate counterpart, specifically forbids baggage screeners from going on strike.

But supporters of federalization say the private companies contracted by the airlines to handle security have lax standards. One security company in particular, Argenbright Holdings, has come under fire for alleged regulations violations at 13 different airports.

Critics of the current system also say the private companies do not pay their employees well enough to ensure a stable work force. According to the Government Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, turnover among baggage screeners at Boston's Logan International Airport was 207 percent last year.

"The American people," said House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., this week, "don't believe air security should solely depend on the lowest bidder."

But Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta says there's nothing wrong with the low-bid system.