Agreement elusive on aviation security bill

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House and Senate conferees met for the first time Wednesday to try to hash out differences on airline security legislation.

Both sides stressed the need to find common ground quickly, but provided few ideas on how to achieve compromise on key issues dividing them.

While the House and Senate bills are similar in many ways, seeking to provide higher federal safety standards across the board, they differ on whether those who work as baggage screeners must be government employees.

The House bill, backed by President Bush, implements a federally supervised and trained airport security workforce, but allows for a private contractors to actually employ security workers.

The Senate bill, backed by most Democrats on both sides of the Capitol, makes some 28,000 screeners and baggage handlers government employees.

Conference chairman, Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., pointed out that lawmakers are protected by federally employed Capitol police force for security, and although he is "willing to compromise," he "can't compromise on public safety."

Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, Hollings' House Republican counterpart and author of the House approved bill, said they have to come up with a bill the president will sign.

"The president has talked to you, he talked to me, he does want flexibility, we will define flexibility," he said to Hollings. "We have full screening, we have background checks, we have standard sets, we federalize, we hire, we supervise and we make the system, I believe, secure and when all is said and done, our goal is to have the best system for the traveling public."

Chief of Staff Andrew Card made the rounds on Capitol Hill prior to the meeting to urge key lawmakers to strive for a deal quickly.

Most negotiators stressed the need to send Bush a bill soon in order to reassure skittish air travelers. However, many used Wednesday's session -- which consisted only of opening statements -- to re-state their existing positions on the issues.

Government vs. private employees

Democrats stressed the need for the government -- not private companies -- to employ airport workers, saying companies have been driven by profits.

"Airlines were interested in the bottom line. They want to hire the people to do the security who could do it as cheap as possible. And that's why they gave it to the low bidder," said Sen. John Breaux, D-La. "It was acceptable because we never had problems with that arrangement. After September 11th everything has dramatically changed."

But Republicans who support the private employees trained under federal guidelines warned a federal workforce may not be as reliable as Democrats believe.

"Don't assume that federal employees will do this job perfectly. Remember how frustrated we have been with the FBI over the last few years in several instances. We are dealing with humans, and humans make mistakes," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican from Texas who has sided with Democrats on the need for a government workforce at airports, floated a compromise on the issue with pilot programs with both private and government employees to help determine which works best in ensuring the highest security.

Another key difference between the House and Senate bills is which government agency oversees airport security. The House bill puts the Department of Transportation in charge, while it is the Justice Department under the Senate legislation.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the Senate lacked confidence in the Department of Transportation because of "billions of dollars" wasted with no results in the past.

Negotiators will work through the weekend and lawmakers will reconvene next Tuesday in the hope of reaching a deal by next week.