One example of this effort was a vote this week on the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act. The bill is designed to bring the handling of TSA employees more in line with other federal workers, possibly making it easier to attract new applicants.
But as part of the process, an amendment was offered that would require screening applicants and conducting background checks. These would specifically prevent the hiring of people convicted of sexual assault and other violent crimes or those whose names appear on the terror watch lists. Given all of the complaints about TSA agents misbehaving when screening travelers at airports, that seems to make sense, doesn’t it? Apparently not to a lot of the House Democrats. Nearly all of them, led by “the Squad,” voted against the amendment and defeated it. (Daily Caller)
The vast majority of Democrats voted against the amendment, which was authored by Democratic Illinois Rep. Lauren Underwood.
Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy was quick to criticize the Democratic leadership for rejecting the law.
“[The amendment] was pulled back by leadership because the socialist wing of the party did not want to have that amendment go forward on this bill,” the California representative said Thursday, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “When it was offered, overwhelmingly the majority of the House would like to see the TSA not hire terrorists or those who have been convicted of sexual misconduct with minors and others. But the socialist wing of the party, that controls now the Democratic Party, said that that could not be offered.”
The first question that comes to mind for most of us is probably along the lines of, wait a minute. You mean they weren’t already screening TSA applicants to see if they were terrorists or sex offenders? These proceedings give the impression that they weren’t. Or maybe they were, but it was just being done as a normal HR function and not written specifically into the laws governing the process.
No matter what the current process may be, what possible justification would there be to not conduct such screening for the people on the front lines of keeping radical Islamists with suicide vests off of our planes? And why would you hire somebody with a track record of sexual predation to monitor the “nudie” scanners and pat down the ladies trying to make it to their departure gate?
It appears that the Democrats were protesting this amendment because it prohibits a “second chance for sex offenders” to get their lives back on track. In other words, this is more criminal justice reform nonsense. If you’re somebody who’s been convicted of shoplifting a few times but then kept your nose clean for a few years, I can see letting you apply for a job as a TSA screener. But if you’ve been found aiding and abetting ISIS or sexually assaulting women and girls, sorry. (Not sorry.) This simply isn’t the job for you.
We’ve already run into instances where TSA agents were found working with drug cartels to facilitate the smuggling of large quantities of illegal drugs. And other agents have forced women to strip down over some very dubious reasons. You can’t catch every bad apple in the screening process, but clearly there’s room for improvement.
So if you find yourself getting felt up by a TSA agent at the airport next year, you’ll know who to thank. It will be AOC and her fellow “squad” members, along with the rest of their friends in the Democratic caucus. Apparently the rights of convicted sex offenders trump yours.