House, Senate Part Ways on Airport Security

Re “House Passes GOP-Backed Air Security Bill,” Nov. 2: House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said after the vote, “If the Senate would listen to the president, we could have a bill out in a week. But if they want to play politics . . . this could drag out.”

It is abundantly clear who is playing politics. Airport security debates were unquestionably nonpartisan (as evidenced by a unanimous approval in the Senate) until they wound up in the House.

What DeLay appears to be forgetting is that neither the Senate nor the House works for the president. They both work for the American people, the majority of whom, as the Senate managed to figure out, want federalized airport security.

Bruce Graham

Glendale

I would like to pose a question to all the Republicans who callously chose to protect profits over safety at our airports: If given the choice, how would the dead of Sept. 11 have voted?

Paul Jackson

Chatsworth

Why not mix federal employee oversight with private security companies?

Robert Matano

Santa Monica

The Times’ Nov. 1 editorial, “Make the Skies Safe,” called for the use of high-tech scanners at major airports to detect knives, plastic explosives and other dangerous items.

Those scanners are needed in small airports as well. Small commuter airports are one of the weakest links in the airport security chain. Once someone passes through security at a small airport, he or she is not rescreened at larger airports when making connections. This is how several of the Sept. 11 hijackers ended up inside security at Boston’s Logan Airport. They first boarded a plane in Portland, Maine, and took a connecting flight to Boston. The entire system needs to be overhauled.

Patrick Mallon

San Luis Obispo