This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Agree
Back to Squawk list

House Republicans look to ‘strip’ TSA screeners of their ‘officer’ title

Submitted
More than two dozen House Republicans introduced legislation on Thursday that would prevent the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) from calling airport screeners "officer" unless they have gone through federal law enforcement training or are otherwise eligible for federal law enforcement benefits. (thehill.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


SSMMRFLD45
Two points to make: airport security was privately managed by the airports and air lines before 9/11 which failed due to our general complacency up to the highest levels of government. Unfortunately the overreaction to go Federal resulted from the Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other over who could be more aggressive in "defending" the country.
Second if you want to see how privatising governmental functions works read the book "Blackwater".
Going private may reduce government head counts, and long term benefit obligations, and avoid unions, etc, but it costs a lot more in the short run, and that short run can be pretty long, such as having 100,000 private contractors in Iraq. That public trough is sure attractive.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
To your first point - Private security did not fail us on 9/11. The terrorists brought on LEGALLY allowed items.
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 0
I agree.
sullivanmanagementconsulting
I don't care what they do. I think they should all be "deputized" and sent to the Mideast to "remove with prejudice" the culprets that are the reason for the TSA's being, and let the rest of us go back to enjoying air travel. I know the IRS wouldn't be happy with this solution, because it would move that section of the Treasury Department back to the top of everyone'e hate list.
genethemarine
Gene spanos 0
I agree here.
viappc
Larry Adams 0
They are arrogant, nasty, ignorant, couldn't get a job at the post office losers, with unjustified power.
Abolish the TSA and adopt the El Al method of intercepting "real threats" instead of harassing our society!
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 0
Are you all weak on terrorism? Where were you when George Bush created the largest beurocracy in the history of the nation? Now congress wants to pass a bill that would allow the military to arrest and detain indefinately any US citizen on US soil who they only suspect has terrorist ties. They want to declare the whole country as a battle field. Who thinks Obama should sign this one into law?
kachina196david
David Roush 0
A very sound idea!
ap23ap
A M 0
Lets see we have a security officer, customs officer, corrections officer, parole officer, parking enforcement officer, peace officer, court officer, probation officer. Help me out here. None of them have police office training. I wonder if Rep. Marsha Blackburn was groped and now she wants to spend tax payer dollars getting back at TSA. Why isn’t the GOP concerned about jobs, jobs, jobs?
crashburn
Bill Neel 0
That's not true. ALL federal and FL state correction officers and probation officers go through an academy for officer certification (I know I did).Active & Retired Federal Corr. Off. are considered "law enforcement officers". Insofar as the others, probably not.
innos
andrew tobin 0
About time they did something about these over zealous rent-a-cops
brianpl2049
Thank the Lord Jesus Christ! Most of these people have no right to even hold a security clearance!
ibock
Ian Bock 0
Only a select few have security clearances.
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 0
Don't you people realize we are at WAR??
kachina196david
David Roush 0
We are not at war!
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 0
We most certainly ARE at war. Didn't you watch any of George W. Bushes speeches about 9 11? Homeland Security, the Patriot Act,the invasion and occupation of Iraq all where justified with 9-11. What kind of American are you?
kachina196david
David Roush 0
Elliot, we are not at war! The only way we can be at war is if we declare war. That means Congress must declare a state of war.
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 0
"That means Congress must declare a state of war". That is exactly what these morons want to do. They want to declare the entire country as a battle field. You're absolutely correct and I couldn't agree more. I only mentioned George Bush and his actions to show how stupid they were. Bush will go down in history as one of worst President we have ever had.
kachina196david
David Roush 0
By the way, Bush was a joke, and each of the documents you listed was a joke. Take it from someone who served in Iraq and Afganistan
Falconus
Falconus 0
This can't be right... The house proposed something, and... ...it makes sense?!
bestnorm
Norman Best 0
So now they are going to ramp up the TSA screener's power and authority, not to mention salary and retirement benefits by giving them law enforcement training? Q: What do you call a monkey in a tuxedo? A: A monkey in a tuxedo.
aknorris
aknorris 0
Unless the monkey is a government employee. Then you call them officer.
kachina196david
David Roush 0
TSA is the single most ineffective government agency in the USA. The Republican Party dreamed this agency up and it is stunning proof of what a republican run government would look like. So, I say, bend them over the table,GOP, and take there shiny toy badges away. And while your at it, put their leader, Boehner, on the table.

Bless there pointed little heads!
kachina196david
David Roush 0
Bless their pointed little heads:)
n42769
n42769 0
TSA is effective. I know three people who couldn't get a job ANYWHERE until they applied at TSA... now they're "officers".
Also TSA is effective in saving me money since I refuse to travel via airlines. Another point: NOBODY will sit still and die during a hijacking EVER AGAIN.
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
Lets look at this from a political angle. It's easier to fight FOR something than to fight AGAINST something. Seems they'll want more tax dollars to train these screeners to fit the title, so follow the money. It's always about the money.
rw812
Michael Smith 0
That bears repeating, Steve: It ALWAYS about the money!
aknorris
aknorris 0
Right on the money.
pilot0987
pilot0987 0
These people are useless.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
the legislators, or the TSA? I haven't really found a use for either!
tarbaby
phil gibson 0
Like most of us said before......it is always the dollars(s) ......your dollars!!
77504
Keith Rowland 0
As a 100k+ traveler watching these "Officers" crack jokes, complain about lunches, watch bags pile up on the discharge conveyor line like blocks, not look anyone in the eye while doing the above speaks loudly to their qualifications and professionalism. A GM production line feel has landed.
mjkracher
Mike Kracher 0
I'm Canadian but the one thing I do know is the Republicans have done enough damage to the world economy and should find a way to fix it not worry about terminology.
ASUHornet
Erik Hatcher 0
If you abolish the TSA and adopt the El Al method, there's a few different things you'll need to consider...

*Israel has one airport to secure where the US has around 500 that have daily commercial flights.

*Israel has multiple layers of security with the first checkpoint around a mile or so away from the airport. TSA security measures begin at the fence, so you'd have to extend security out about a mile or so from the airport.

*In Israel, you're subject to search from the time you pass that first checkpoint until you buckle your seatbelt. Here in the US, you're talking about adding multiple security checkpoints, more officers, more cameras and sensors, and more equipment.

By the time we tried to institute the "El Al method", we would have a security force around a half million people or so to cover all those airports. That's only averaging 1000 security personnel per airport. Some of your busier places would need tens of thousands. You'd end up with a much larger agency than TSA with a much larger cost to taxpayers. Not to mention, the US loves it's freedoms, and their method isn't quite compatible with a free society like ours.
johnheida
John Heida 0
Good point! Behavioral observations could, however, save TSA the necessity of searching children and senior citizens. So, TSA "officers" just need additional training in human behavior like the the Israeli security agents get.
SHELTON
Tell me more about them being on the highway in Tennessee?
Where did that come from?

APB
ibock
Ian Bock 0
I replied to this above. We are sliding down the slippery slope! Google TSA, tennessee. It will only get worse as the agency gets larger. Soon, TSA style "security" will be in bus stations, and we will have checkpoints on highways. "PAPERZ PLEEZE!"
STEELJAW
STEELJAW 0
Officer, Agent or Screener, what differences does it really make??? NOT ONE!!! TSA is still a Federal Agency. If you work for a Federal prison you are a Federal Officer. You got to ask yourself, why would the Republicans write a bill over something so trivial? It's all about money. They are not doing this for the public, but for themselves. They are figuring that if you strip TSA of the Officer title, it will be the begining of the end for the TSA. This obcourse will open the door for private security companies to fill the void. Now ask yourself, why are these Republicans so thirsty for private companies to jump in? MONEY!!!!MONEY!!! MONEY!!! Remember Haliburton and Iraq. Helllooooooo, is anyone listening???? If you keep your eyes on the money bag, you'll always find JUDAS, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees lurking nearby.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
What is wrong with privatizing TSA? Privatized security did not cause September 11th. Lots of money is floating around TSA right now, and it's government run. At least the private company running it could be held accountable.
aknorris
aknorris 0
Agreed completely. "Federalizing" airport security was probably the Number 1 Worst Decision made in response to 9/11/01. Yes, there will be companies like Halliburton who profit by providing a service. So what? I contract with the government to provide services, too. Better a private firm than a government-run circus any day.
xmacfly
ALLEN McLEAN 0
Useless people adressing pointless topics regarding other useless people. Good goverment adressing important issues.
mpradel
Marcus Pradel 0
not a minute too soon.
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
We need less government involvement. They [government] have less to loose by a crappy program that exist now where as a private investors would still be held to federal standards just like the commercial airlines are but more to loose by appeasing their employer the airlines. I believe you'd see more quality than quantity as the TSA likes to approach the problem of security.
MARIAGE
Job description is title enough.
Stop promoting egos and attitudes with titles of power.
"Screening Advisor" has a nicer more civilized tone.
If the advice is not respected, you produce an officer.
Too many titles of "officer" suggests a police state.
The noble service to gently guide people thru a zone of safety is in principle no different than a fireman escorting lives away from danger.
Should we call them "officers"?
johnheida
John Heida 0
It's not the TSA employees that ae to blame for the public's negative perception. It's their management in the Department of Homeland Security who have made a joke out of providing security. They cannot secure the borders. They will not employ profiling to truly discern the bad guys and the poor TSA schmucks are left having to hassle grandmas. The policy is set at the top. The Republicans should spend their time on reducing the size of this worthless department rather than looking at titles.
chuckndd
I am in complete support of TSA, as well as Unions. They do a thankless job, and do it well. No one will ever reach 100%, in this field, because the work is absolutely speculative. I would venture to say that in another twenty years, possibly less, Union membership will grow in leaps and bounds. The very people who now condemn TSA, are the very people who need the protections afforded through DHS.
dmanuel
dmanuel 0
I wonder how legitimate police officers feel about these folks (with uniforms/badges) being called officers?
aknorris
aknorris 0
While we argue the point about it, I doubt many "real" police officers actually give it a second thought.
magic1flying
scott moore 0
I think calling them "little Natzie" is sufficient!
soarby007
brent young 0
Get rid of their badges, they are law enforcement officers at all and is an insult to those that really are/were. They are mostly puffed up govmint idiots.
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 0
Let us not kid ourselves. These are people hired, typically not from schools of higher learning, that receive training on rummaging through people's personal belongings looking for a list of common "threat" items (some may say questionable items). This is not rocket science, this is not high risk, this is not practical anti-terrorism, it is appeasing and calming a terrified and frightened population. As for these folks, it is IMHO certainly not worth officer definition in my dictionary. This news announcement is another un-pealing of the post 911 hysteria. At the time, there was a need to put across an image to the world and US voters that all possible was being done including naming guys and gals who would go through your unmentionable as officers. Want to know what their real worth is - titles aside? Look up their salaries.
JCMIA
James Carlin 0
Political BS. I worked for TSA in 2003-2003 before leaving for another job. I was called "screener" and wore the white uniform with the embroidered badge. Ill remind the house republicans who are suddenly so very concerned that the switch to the blue uniforms with the metal badge and "officer" title happened under them. When they were calling all the shots. The ONLY thing we need to "strip" is the B.S.
jeffadam
Jeff Adam 0
Sounds reasonable. Let's add actual training into this and we are likely to see increased professionalism, greater respect for TSA and hopefully increased safety. Win, win.
drschwartz2
Richard Buck 0
The TSA is as useless as the tits pn a bore hog, and have a license to steal
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
I believe the people with the money that is acquired through monopolization of air transportation should be footing the bill for their own protection instead of letting the government[Us, The People] spend our money pretending to do us a favor by saying they're protecting us by relieving us of our civil rights. Hurt the airlines by boycotting travel and they will change to privitized security. They've[Airlines] been taking advantage of not having to secure themselves with their money from day one. On top of the extortion of ticket cost to fly they've left the government[Us, The People] to carry the ball. It should be the cost of doing business in this industry by securing themselves. It seems they've [Airlines] distanced themselves from the customers using the government as an excuse for poor service and high cost. You think the government worries about how much it cost when they have access to your money via taxes to do it with? Think again. Has the government done anything that truly cost what it should much less less than what it should? I can afford not to spend my money for extortion by both sides.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
That would be great to make only the passengers pay for security, but like many other things in this country, the benefit is also to people who don't fly. It is in every citizens best interest to not have a terrorist attack on an airplane, so why should it not be, at least partially, funded by the federal govt?
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
Who's paying for it now and what are we getting for it? Have you seen the profits the airlies are getting now just through ticket sales? They're barely paying for maintenance cost much less customer service. I believe the only ones benefitting are the airlines.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
Who is paying for it? Anyone who buys a ticket is assessed a fee, and anyone who pays taxes (and doesn't get a full refund) pays for it as well. I have seen the lack of profits the airlines are making. Sure, a few make profit, and a few don't. It does go in cycles. Overall though, since deregulation, airlines have been a money-losing enterprise. We really don't have anyone to blame, but ourselves. No one wants to pay the ACTUAL cost of a ticket to fly. Everyone wants the $69 coast to coast fare. So, to make it happen, airlines have to go bankrupt, cut back on customer service, outsource maintenance, bust unions and pay lower wages. The only ones benefitting are senior management and board members.
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
It's not just ticket sales that pay for TSA, Homeland Security. We all pay for it weather we fly or not. We[government] also subsidize the airlines especially those who seem not to make a profit and those fees you don't see included in the cost of your ticket. Some things need to fail. If they seem too big to then we're in trouble because we take too much for granted. I agree with you on that.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
Sorry, I used rhetoric. Many people don't catch it. I was answering your question about who pays.
The government subsidizes many industries, and individuals. Who deserves it, who doesn't? The airlines were never in the "too big to fail" category. They are a highly regulated industry, and are necessary for the continuation of our lifestyle, so the government has helped them from time to time. Either with loan guarantees or EAS routes, among other things.
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
When they become necessary to our lifestyle they're too big.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
All utility companies are too big? How about any part of our healthcare system?
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
Your getting it now.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
Well, lets get rid of farms then! And any company that makes toilets!
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
If they're subsidized with our tax dollars. I'll agree to that as probably the majority of those farmers who were squeezed out in the 80s by the big banks and corporations that were bailed out by the government and current administration. You've got to ask, who is it really that can not do with out those corporations that seem to be too big to fail. The consumer? It'll bring back true capitalism and entrepenuership if we lose a few of these whales. I think it's called a wake up call. 12/21/2012 is just around the corner.
sfjasper
Steve Jasper 0
Oh, as far as toilets go I've used a few makeshift latrines in my day as well as burned a few pits.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
You and me both, brother. Don't take my stand as supporting "too big to fail". In fact, I think the best thing for the economy would have been to allow Lehman Bros to fail. Followed by bear, and the rest. Also, chevy and dodge should have been allowed to "fail". Of course, they wouldn't have failed, they would have just gone into bankruptcy, and come back in a different form, like any "legacy" carrier now.
canuck44
canuck44 0
Absolutely nothing wrong with stratifying these functionaries...it is likely in preparation for some plan to "deputize" them all or confer additional legal protection to them by Big Sis and the "union". This of course would be accompanied with an additional reach into the public wallet with an inverse decline in our Fourth Amendment rights.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. Kind of like when their uniform changed, and they got metal badges. Setting themselves up for something bigger in the future.
dvbepd1
I am a sworn police "Officer" who works with TSA "officers" every day. I would venture to guess that they take part in more training each day than you do at whatever your job is. I think many of the negative comments are made by people who would like to see their jobs privitized so someone could unionize them. And no, I don't belong to any police union.
devsfan
ken young 0
Your assumption is off base. In fact I have been stating that all TSA screeners should be sworn officers. The qualifications should be either former law enforcement and if not, a minimum of an associates degree in criminology or at least 600 hours of BLET. Yes these qualifications will result in higher wages. So what. I would rather pay for professionals.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
If we could send them all to FLETC, that would be great! Better yet, make a new type of academy that focuses on anti-terrorism. We have to keep in mind, these guys are NOT police. They are in anti-terrorism. I would wholeheartedly support that idea. Pay them more for being a well trained, professional anti-terrorism organization! YES! I support this!
tekath
tekath 0
Ian, That is a great idea! An academy for the TSA to train them in LE with a strong emphasis in terrorism is exactly what WOULD keep us safer in the sky. If you do not mind I think I am going to contact my Senator and recommend just that. Also, Dave, thank you for what you do. A move like this would be a move in the right direction for safety and give you and your fellow coworkers the respect needed to keep a solid, competent TSA.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
I appreciate your assumption, but you are incorrect. I train most every day as part of my job. I'm trying to make sense of the rest of your statement. Are you a sworn/state certified Police Officer? If so, why did you put "Officer" in quotes? Are you in support of TSA? Are you supportive of unions? Why do you think privatization is necessary for unionization? I am NOT supportive of the TSA, as an organization. However, I respect the individuals who wear the TSA uniform. Most are hard working, respectable folks. I do not like their mission creep though. Calling them "Officers", the badge, the uniform, all leads to an eventual (already happening) burgeoning of mission.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
What are we waiting for? STRIP THEM CLEAN!
jhakunti
What next, co-pilot's cannot be called First Officer unless they have gone through government brainwashing regiment.
skuttlerats
Jeffrey Babey 0
I totally agree with this. Would your local police department hire any old bum off the street then call them officer? Hiring for a position of authority that comes with a title like "officer" must have a certain amount of training behind it. Otherwise will be calling children who get badges out of cereal boxes "Sheriff".
aknorris
aknorris 0
Really? My bank has officers, and they aren't the "security" kind. My professional development association calls its board members officers. Most of them don't have much more than a college degree. I'm sure I could think of many, many more....
chicoaggie
Tim Smith 0
I think you are misinterpreting Jeffrey's statement. TSA agents are uniformed personnel and are currently called officers, this conotates "an officer of the law" which does not represent their job criteria at all. If the TSA were a private entity, then they can be called whatever they want, but since they are a Government entity, then they should not be called officers.
davysims
David Sims 0
I agree with this entirely. Too many people let the title "officer" go straight to their ego. I would also propose to add the term "agent" as well, as many TSA "agents" think they are equal to FBI "agents", and try to act accordingly.
canuck44
canuck44 0
We actually need additional categories: Slug 1, Slug 2, Senior Slug.
BoeingFan59
Troy Raiteri 0
Let me add to that... A hole number 1,2 and A hole screener.
RaymondHoff
Raymond Hoff 0
We could put Blackwater (ooops, now Academi ... what an oxymoron) contractors in the TSA positions. I am sure having someone standing there with Raybans, flak vest, and submachine guns would make the Congresswoman feel safer. We go from crisis to crisis in Congress in the Senate and they spend time on crap like this. She should go back to naming her post offices in her district. TSA Screeners need some identification. I'm not letting someone in overalls put his hand in my crotch.
crashburn
Bill Neel 0
If TSA personnel are considered "law enforcement", then they should get the requsite training for their own and the public's safety.
ibock
Ian Bock 0
I think calling them "screeners" is sufficient. Though, I do wonder if our legislators could spend this time on more important matters.
chanteclair
L. Jean Davis 0
Their job is screening, therefore, they are screeners.
HunterTS4
Toby Sharp 0
oh they dont have to do this....all those who know anything about the TSA have their own thoughts about them and I can guarantee they do not consider them "officers"
aknorris
aknorris 0
So true.
johncook1
john cook 0
You can GUARANTEE THAT?
I can guarantee that you live in a vacuum.
w32e31
NICK GAGLIO 0
This was done by the Republicans during the Bush years. Now, they see the light? Where were they when Bush converted minimum wage contract hires to Federal Employees? This would somehow make our airports safer???
f451sm
This has to do with budget training dollars..training designed to mimic deputy status for the TSA. The reference to lower primates in formal wear may be harsh, but accurate.
captainmidnight01
How trivial when compared to the major problems this country is undergoing right now that could be solved with a congress that actually did it's job.
captainmidnight01
How trivial when compared to the major problems facing this country daily, which could be solved by a Congress that actually did what it was "hired" to do. Thanks a bunch congress. You're all full of crap!
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 0
Well said Mr. Agnew. Until we can profile individuals we will always be chasing technology. Let us know what if anything your congressman says.
jonesas
Allen Jones 0
Why not just abolish the TSA?
MichaelMcCarthy
To my way of thinking the title " officer " is only earned after a considerable period of strenuous training . In the military and police , officers hold the rank of lieutenant or higher . A sergeant or a corporal is not an officer . To refer to an airport screener as an officer , is quite wrong and you never know , he/she might get ideas above his/her station ..... and I think some of them do !!
When I'm buzzing along in my C172 with my PPL , can I wear four stripes on my shoulders ? , just a thought .
JimA
James Agnew 0
Here is a note I sent.

Dear Congressman Mica,

I am writing you about the TSA and what I consider to be a total waste of money and ineffective so I have a Win-Win suggestion.

I know you are concerned and have suggested going private. I believe that the TSA fails in several ways as follow.

The #1 problem is the fact that the TSA is built on the foundation of "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT"

Whatever happened to trusted travelers? There is no logical reason that 90% of the citizens haven't been cleared by now. The real reason to keep doing the checks is to allow this agency to justify continuous expansion.

As Einstein said doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

I base my observations on 2.5 million actual airline miles, my wife and I are both private pilots we travel a great deal (116 countries & Islands) and we both have TSA badges since my hanger is inside the fence at St. Petersburg and have to take the TSA training every year (mostly a waste of time especially when about 1/3 of the airport perimeter is open to Tampa Bay)!

Suggestion: every living thing on this planet uses profiling; it is our survival & recognition mechanism so let’s get over the PC.

We have spent billions training our Special Forces units from all service branches and they survive by the special skills they have to identify the enemy. They have risked their lives for us and their families have suffered a great deal many at the poverty level. Eliminate the TSA and seek guidance from their senior officers for returning veterans to put together an elite airport security group. Pay them well and give them great benefits; they and their families deserve it. I’ll bet you that the passengers would be treated with respect, common sense and everyone would most likely be called Sir & Mam. Please consider this suggestion; I’m sure the public would back a plan along these lines.

Jim



James F. Agnew
preacher1
preacher1 0
I really don't think OFFICER is the big problem. I think if gov't is going to do anything, strip their authority down to where they are airport screeners and nothing else, like that VIPER program in TN.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Would that change their role in Tennesee, where they are on the highway now or does the THP deputize them?
jwm707
jwm707 0
Their status would be upgraded from screener to speed-bump.
rlduncanjr
Lee Duncan 0
LOL! Speed-bump! :-)
SHELTON
"ON THE HIGHWAY"? Where did that come from?
New program or are the waiting for the airport to arrive!
ibock
Ian Bock 0
Yeah, look it up. They have a new program, I think it's acronym is VIPER or something like that. If you read the legislation that authorizes the TSA, you will see they are responsible for security in ALL modes of transportation, not just aviation. They have been getting more active in other sectors. We are all frogs, sitting in a pot of slowly warming water.
preacher1
preacher1 0
You didn't hear about that? A month or 2 back, The TN highway patrol started taking them on the road where their superior training is supposed to enlighten all the troopers about potential terrorists rolling up and down the highway.
Parasane
Daniel Brown 0
Do we really need to "strip" them of the title, or can we just shove them through the same X-ray machines to 'expedite the process' for us all?
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 0
And I thought Canadians were smart as well as nice. He is probably a Newfie.
lekpsych
Marek Walczyk 0
good idea
Lee1209
JOhn LEe 0
I agree
bobreid
bob reid 0
They should be addressed as "deputy Dog"or "Majesty"
flashgorman
Tom Gorman 0
Next McDonalds will have French Fry Officers....
flashgorman
Tom Gorman 0
OR they could be called "beep reduciton officer" for their hard work at keeping the metal detector from beeping...
jetlagged
Martin Weaver 0
The Department of Homeland Security is an outrageous federal power-grab. We need to start doing away with departments and this ought to be the first.
chicoaggie
Tim Smith 0
Agreed, disban the TSA and place the responsiblity/requirements of security/screening on the owners of the airports.
Btinn
My sentiments exactly. The US House seems to have one agenda only and that is to thwart anything the opposite political party wants to do and complain that "they" have "job killing" ideas. I wonder how many "jobs" are being saved or created by this time consuming and senseless measure.
Btinn
What a misguided use of time and energy for the US House to consider such an issue. It seems to me that this body has only one agenda and that is to make sure the other political party does not get their way. The Republicans, in particular, oppose every issue as being "job killing" or unneeded because it doesn't "create jobs". Except for a little time on a lawyer's bill or a law clerk's research time I would like to know just how many "jobs" were created by this proposal and for what cause does it take up the time of the representatives.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!