WASHINGTON — As the U.S. House prepared to debate whether to arm hundreds of airline pilots, a Maine lawmaker expressed concerns about how pilots would be screened, and a congressional study outlined options on the proposal. U.S. Rep. John Baldacci, a Transportation Committee member, called the legislation "a work in progress" because of a lingering desire to require training for flight attendants and a report on whether arming pilots really improves security.

After two pilots were charged on Monday with being drunk in the cockpit, Baldacci also said he would closely monitor how pilots are chosen for the experimental gun program. "It's certainly going to make me more concerned about the background and reliability of pilots," he said.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the bill's goal is to offer a last line of defense.

The Transportation Committee approved the legislation June 26, and the full House is expected to debate it after returning from a break on Monday.

Although earlier legislation would have allowed the Transportation Security Administration to arm pilots, the agency chief has opposed the move. The bill would force the agency to create an experimental program to arm as many as 2 percent of pilots who volunteer, about 1,400 nationwide.

Pilots would be trained similarly to air marshals, who ride armed and undercover on some flights to protect against hijackings. Pilots would be authorized only to defend the cockpit, not protect passengers in the cabin.

The program would run for two years after the first 250 pilots joined. After that, Congress could end or expand the program.

Before deputizing the pilots to carry weapons, the Transportation Security Administration would have to create the protocols for carrying guns, such as what types of weapons and ammunition are allowed, where the guns are stored, and how to prevent a pilot from taking a gun into the cabin. The program would be established within 90 days of the bill becoming law.

Pilots applauded the legislation as part of improving security through better baggage screening and improving cockpit door locks on all airlines by April 2003.

But the Association of Flight Attendants criticized the bill as sexist because 99 percent of pilots are men and 85 percent of flight attendants are women. The group argued that crew members should receive more self-defense training to protect themselves and passengers.

The bill calls for unspecified training of flight attendants. Baldacci said he would like to see at least 60 hours of training required for every crew member.

Amendments are expected on the House floor because of lingering concerns about the bill.

U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., complained that pilots would add to security risks by carrying guns through airports and to hotels. She also argued that airlines and pilots would be exempt from liability if a passenger were inadvertently hurt or killed in a gunfight, leaving the government responsible.

On the other side of the debate, U.S. Rep. John Thune, R-S.D., proposed to expand the program to 10 percent of all pilots.

Even if the House approves, the legislation's fate is uncertain because the airlines, the Bush administration and Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., chairman of the Transportation Committee, oppose it.

Hollings suggested at a May hearing that since pilots want guns and crew members want crowbars, "I guess we're going to give the passengers machetes and let them all fight it out in the cabin." He argued that weapons don't belong on planes because terrorists could overpower whoever has one, and that pilots should concentrate on flying.

John Magaw, the undersecretary of transportation who oversees airline security, has said he wouldn't authorize firearms in the cockpit.

Hollings asked the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, to review reasons for and against arming pilots. In a 13-page letter released Tuesday, the GAO analyzed 7,500 comments collected by the Federal Aviation Administration about the proposal.

Without determining the full benefits and risks, the GAO reported that opponents warned the bill would introduce as many as 100,000 guns into society, while qualifications and training for pilots using them haven't been settled. The GAO also noted that electric-shock weapons could restrain attackers without lethal force.

Supporters of the legislation said most of the GAO issues were resolved because the Transportation Security Administration was assigned to design the program. The problem with electric-shock weapons is that they come in only one or two shots, and are difficult to aim and reload, which could leave pilots vulnerable to attack by multiple hijackers, a Transportation Committee spokesman said.

Lawmakers supporting the legislation weighed the risk of shooting passengers against the benefit of fending off hijackers, the spokesman said.

Susan Butler contributed research to this story.

Staff Writer Bart Jansen can be contacted at 202-488-1119 or at:

bjansen@pressherald.com