11-1-01, Asked this week about the possible political implications of the upcoming vote on airport security, House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) had a ready retort.

"I refuse to think about it in terms of politics," Armey responded. "We have somebody who is in charge of political implications around here. That is not my job."

Armey may assert his nonchalance, but a number of House Republicans remain anxious about whether their party will pay a price for opposing an airport security plan approved unanimously by the Senate and set to come before the House today.

The measure, which would create a 28,000-person federal workforce of airline baggage screeners, is opposed by House Republican leaders, who are pushing an alternative that would let the president choose between hiring federal employees and using private contractors. President Bush has said he prefers the House GOP measure, but has also indicated that he would sign a bill that includes federalization.

Some lawmakers question whether voters will even remember the controversy by the time they go to the polls next fall, but others -- particularly those from swing districts -- argue that their constituents are impatient with politicians they see as blocking meaningful improvements in airport security.

"I'm really sick and tired of the ideological bickering on this," said Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), who supports the Senate bill. "Ground zero [in New York] is still burning while certain House leaders are fiddling. The American people are fed up with this delay."

Rep. Jack Quinn (R-N.Y.), another proponent of federalization, said he was concerned that passage of the leadership's bill could send the wrong message to voters.

"People will view us as obstructionist and partisan, and that's the last thing we need right now," Quinn said, adding that lawmakers are being placed in the awkward position of opposing legislation that passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. "One hundred to nothing," Quinn repeated. "There are a lot of conservative Republicans over there.

Even the chairman of the House Republican campaign committee, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), has signed onto the Senate bill. "Delaying this thing for weeks to get your way is not good," Davis said, adding that any negative political impact could be mitigated by quick action on whatever bill passes the House this week.

Senior House Republicans say they are confident they have answered these concerns by permitting a vote on both alternatives. Still, said GOP pollster Glen Bolger, who counts many House members among his clients, "there's a lot of nervousness about" the vote.

"This is not something you can afford to be against," Bolger said. "The American people are going to have to recognize there's an alternative, or they're going to think there's just one option or doing nothing."

While in recent polls Americans say they favor federalizing baggage screening over maintaining the current system, Bolger noted they were also receptive to the GOP argument that simply making screeners government employees does not solve the nation's security problems. He added that poll respondents did not agree with the argument, made by Armey and several other Republicans, that establishing the new workforce was a mistake because it would suddenly boost the number of union members in the United States.

Several Republicans have also begun to chafe at the unionization argument. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who remains undecided, said he is reluctant to vote for the GOP bill because his constituents will think he's "been influenced by the absurd illogic of both Armey and [House Majority Whip Tom] DeLay on this absurd issue of unions. . . . Frankly, I would love it if the speaker would tell them to stop it."

But House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who had taken on a more prominent public role since the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes on New York and Washington, has receded from the limelight on the airport security issue. Instead it has been Armey and DeLay serving as the party's spokesmen.

DeLay has worked aggressively behind the scenes to shore up the GOP's position, urging the administration to play a more prominent role, and calling on lobbyists to sway wavering lawmakers.

Several Republicans said the president's involvement is crucial, because his backing made a politically difficult vote more palatable.

Not surprisingly, Democrats are trying to focus voters' attention on House conservative leaders rather than the president. They opened a new Web site yesterday, www.unsafedelay.com, and issued press releases suggesting GOP lawmakers such as freshman Rep. Mark S. Kirk (Ill.) "caved in to Tom DeLay and Dick Armey."

Kirk said he was confident his constituents would understand his vote, once he explained that he insisted GOP leaders include language requiring all screeners be U.S. citizens and that all screeners be deputized with law enforcement powers.

"This is a safer bill than the alternative," Kirk said.

And most Republicans, including several moderates, said they doubt voters will be angry about the issue months from now. "That's a stretch," said Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.).