One effect of the TSA security is that they standardize security measures across the country. Everyone has to go through more or less the same types of machines and faces the same restrictions on what they can bring onto a plane, from weaponry to liquids not in a small plastic bag. While this legislation would increase funding and allow for airports to regulate their security how they want, it doesn't set any specific standards that they'd need to follow.
So I could see a scenario where one airport has even more stringent security than TSA standards and another has no security standards at all. Or a scenario where someone is detained for having something in their luggage that is against airport A's regulations when they got it perfectly legitimately at the more lenient airport B. Do you see either of these as a problem?
I don't necessarily consider either of those scenarios to be recurring problems. Passengers, I would assume, would know what is and what is not allowed to be brought on flights before they purchase their tickets. But there is disagreement over what items should and shouldn't be prohibited on flights. For example, U.S. and European security officials currently plan to ban laptops, tablets, and other electronic devices from the cabins of trans-Atlantic flights.
The British Airline Pilots' Association opposes this ban on the grounds that it could lead to more accidental fires in cargo holds, posing a greater risk than that of terrorism. Other travel and security experts say that the countries implementing the ban risk alienating tourists and business travelers. This is a matter that I feel should be left to the individual airports operating in the country.
If, however, a member of the House would like to offer an amendment that establishes certain standards, or authorizes a national security department to write rules which don't impede upon a flyer's right to their privacy and property, I could support that change as a compromise.
