sumably, if a passenger refuses to be searched or insists upon boarding an aircraft with a "weapon", then local law officials may be requested to intervene. The analogy may be made that this is a police action similar to detaining or arresting an intoxicated person who is refused permission to board a plane. But if this measure is allowed to go through by Executive mandate, then local law enforcement officers could be required at banks and post offices to prevent robberies, or at customs and immigration offices. There is an essential distinction between a local decision to provide a security force or have one available to supplement private forces, and the President's requirement to have a local law enforcement officer at every active boarding gate at the nation's 531 airports. Thirdly, there is the immediately anticipated cost of approximately $60 million annually, as estimated by the Airport Operators Council International (AOCI), to provide the manpower to implement these requirements. The resources and the men to meet these needs in most instances will come from the cities, on extremely short notice. Cities will have had only a maximum of 60 days to plan and provide these forces. During the short term, they will have to be drawn from other resources, already stretched thin. These new demands might conflict with other, equal or higher, local or Federal priorities. The practical difficulties discussed by AOCI are multiplied by each and every airport and city or jurisdiction responsible for the airport, because each is unique. Already, local governments are burdened by high taxes and the inability to meet existing problems. Cities currently are spending more than $430 million annually to maintain and improve their airports. Over the next decade, the FAA foresees a need for almost 1,500 new airports, which would require an expenditure of more than $6 billion. About $3 billion of this would be available from the Airport Development Program, the balance must then come from the cities. But it is increasingly clear that cities cannot continue to increase expenditures for airports at the level that has occurred over the past few years. Yet this new policy announced by Secretary Volpe would require the expenditure of significant additional funds for airport security. I would like to point out that while municipal expenditures have increased by about 12 percent annually, city expenditures for airports increased by more than 20 percent per year. Clearly, without continued Federal support, the nation's airport system will become incapable of serving the estimated needs of the next decade. Thus, cities are in no position to have additional costs imposed, most particularly without prior consultation, as to the means and procedures for implementing such a broad and important program as this one. In my city of Richmond, for example, we anticipate annual costs of $57,348 for salaries for seven law enforcement officers. Equipment costs will add another $4,550, for a total of $61,898. Under Part 107.3, we will need to spend $133,000 for security fencing. For Part 139.49, we will have to purchase two crash trucks at a cost of $135,000 and provide a 20 man crew for the trucks at an estimated $146,120, plus $13,000 for additional equipment. The building to house the trucks will cost another $150,000. The final total is $639,018 and the annual direct recurring costs for manpower are expected to amount to about $204,000. This Federal regulation would add a significant burden on the local taxpayers, in a city which already subsidizes the airport at $335,000 per year from general fund revenues. Smaller cities, dependent on air service, have little or no leverage or bargaining power in seeking to renegotiate contracts with airlines. Without assuming bad faith, airlines may be reluctant or even refuse to renegotiate their contracts. They may threaten to withdraw or to reduce service, alternatives which Secretary Volpe has told us are completely acceptable. One alternative to prompt renegotiation, with fair and equitable cost assumption by the airlines, is for the airport operator to impose an airline passenger user fee, or "head tax." This alternative would allow direct reimbursement to the cities and to the airport operators for costs incurred in implementing these regulations. The Administration has remained silent on this approach as an acceptable alternative or option for cities. But, it may be the only alternative for an equitable and speedy way to raise the money to meet these new requirements. Action by Congress to prohibit "head taxes", as proposed in S. 38, is in effect an intimidation of local authorities in their attempts to negotiate with airlines and the Federal Government. A locally imposed user fee may be the best solution in some cases. But local governments have no certainty that the Congress will not again prohibit head taxes as a possible alternative if the President is successful in shifting Federal responsibilities for airport security to local governments. Aside from these concerns, this requirement raises a number of other problems already discussed by the AOCI. While some of the problems involved in implementing the requirements may be solvable over the long run, the short-run problems are difficulties that the Administration has been glossing over. To briefly touch upon some of these, it is not clear what police powers the various law enforcement officers will have, particularly with respect to enforcing federal law. On the basis of the recent Airport Operators survey, it appears that police power at airports varies widely. In addition, it will be difficult to assure uniform interpretation of the federal laws. The problems associated with liability of local governments also have not been addressed. According to information transmitted to the Airport Operators Council International, many airports will not be able to meet the requirements of the airport security amendment, particularly in the short time period allowed. One of the key problems is to recruit and train a sufficient number of law enforcement officers within the sixty days required by the order. Many cities already are having difficulty recruiting police. Yet as I indicated previously, cities would have to shift police to airport security, while existing forces already are insufficient to meet normal and routine city needs for police protection. Estimates indicate that about 4,500 additional security officers will be needed to meet these airport security requirements. Add to this is the burden for adequately training manpower to serve as airport law enforcement officers. In some cases, State law requires a longer period than that currently allowed to implement this order. Skyjacking must be recognized as a national problem which can only be dealt with effectively at the Federal level. So long as "safe havens" exist, skyjacking will continue to be a major threat at airports across the country. We share with you the opinion that the President's order is "a complete and total abdication of the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the American traveling public from criminals who are attempting to violate Federal, not State, laws." We urge prompt and affirmative action by the Congress to assure that the Federal Government will assume its appropriate responsibility in providing a national system of airport security. Finally, I would like to point out that on November 30, 1972, during its 49th Annual Congress of Cities, the National League of Cities passed an Independent Resolution on "National and International Actions to Combat Skyjacking and Other Crimes Against Civil Aviation." In particular, it strongly recommended "that the Administration propose and the Congress promptly enact legislation to provide Federal law enforcement officials at active boarding gates to support and back-up the airline screening effort. . ." It opposes "current federal proposals to require local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal antihijacking laws at public airports, as this function of protecting passengers from terrorists and political refugees is uniquely a federal obligation and cannot effectively be delegated to local government." The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a similar resolution at their annual meeting in June of 1972. It also urged full federal funding for those items required to establish an approved Airport Security Plan. I am submitting for the record the Independent Resolution on Skyjacking, adopted by the National League of Cities at its Annual Congress of Cities in November of 1972, and a resolution of the United States Conference of Mayors, adopted at its annual conference in June of 1972. We appreciate this opportunity to testify before this Committee, and shall attempt to answer any questions that the Committee may have. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, Hon. SPIRO AGNEW, Washington, D.C. DEAR VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW: On November 30, 1972, during its 49th Annual Congress of Cities, the National League of Cities passed an Independent Resolution on "National and International Actions to Combat Skyjacking and Other Crimes Against Civil Aviation." In particular, it strongly recommended "that the Administration propose and the Congress promptly enact legislation to provide federal law enforcement officials at active boarding gates to support and back-up the airline screening effort. . ." It opposes "current federal proposals to require local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal anti-hijacking laws at public airports, as this function of protecting passengers from terrorists and political refugees is uniquely a federal obligation and cannot effectively be delegated to local government." The above concerns are shared by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a similar resolution at their annual meeting in June of 1972. Copies of these resolutions are attached. We are concerned about Secretary Volpe's announcement today on this matter. His announced policy, requiring airport operators to provide a local law enforcement officer at every boarding gate, 30 minutes before scheduled departure, has serious implications for cities, their officials, their law enforcement agencies and their local taxpayers. You will recall that the President has stated emphatically that he wanted a close and continuing working relationship between the Executive Departments and the representatives of state and local governments in the development of new policy and program initiatives. We have not been consulted in the development of this policy. We respectfully request an opportunity, at your earliest convenience, to discuss this critical issue with you. Sincerely, ALLEN E. PRITCHARD, Jr., JOHN GUNTHER, Executive Director, Enclosure. RESOLUTION OF THE CONFERENCE 40TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, JUNE 17-21, 1972 28. Skyjacking Whereas, the aviation industry of the United States and the individuals who travel on our airlines are being endangered by the heinous crimes of skyjacking and extortion and all the dangers inherent thereto; and Whereas, the President of the United States has publicly directed that the proper federal, state and local agencies take all action possible to end these despicable crimes against the citizens of the United States and others who may be traveling on our public airlines; and Whereas, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration has caused to be issued Federal Aviation Regulations Parts 107 and 121 which make incumbent upon all airport managers and airlines the immediate implementation and continuous promulgation of adequate security measures with considerable expense incidental thereto : Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Conference of Mayors support before the U.S. Congress legislation designed to authorize full federal funding for those items required by F.A.R. Parts 107 and 121, as necessary, to establish an approved Airport Security Plan, including those items purchased prior to enabling legislation; and be it further, Resolved, That the United States Conference of Mayors supports the position that those guilty of these crimes and who seek refuge in a foreign state be automatically extradited to the state in which the flight originated, and that all states of the world be urged to become signatories to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hijacking Convention) as promulgated at the Convention held at the Hague, December 16, 1970. NOTE.-Proposed Resolution No. 29 (on school bussing) was tabled by the New Orleans Resolutions Committee. INDEPENDENT RESOLUTION ON NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS TO COMBAT SKYJACKING AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL AVIATION Whereas, in spite of evolving federal and aviation industry programs, the threat to the nation's air travelers of skyjacking, extortion, sabotage and bomb threats continues largely unabated; and Whereas, federal and international efforts will be required to effectively deter future criminal actions of this type and to assure the safety of the world's air passengers and its civil aviation system; and Whereas, in the United States, the Federal Government has the responsibility for the protection of its citizens in the air and on the ground while in interstate and international commerce; and Whereas, the Federal Government must both make its resources available to a prompt solution of the present security crisis and exercise leadership in assuring compliance by the aviation industry of federal passenger screening and baggage examination regulations, including the provision of federal law enforcement officers at U.S. public airports to back-up the airline screening process and to enforce the federal laws against hijacking, carrying of concealed weapons on board aircraft and bomb threats; and Whereas, the most effective and long-term solution to skyjacking and aerial terrorism lies in international actions to eliminate all "safe havens" for hijackers in all nations and to assure prompt criminal prosecution when such incidents occur; Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the duly qualified voting delegates to the Annual Congress of Cities of the National League of Cities, assembled in the City of Indianapolis, State of Indiana, this 30th day of November 1972, That the National League of Cities: 1. Expresses its abhorrence to the continuing incidents of skyjacking, extortion and other criminal acts of terror which are endangering the safety of the public and the stability of civil aviation; 2. Urges the Federal Government to intensify its efforts to assure that potential hijackers are prevented access to aircraft by regulatory requirements on the nation's airlines to undertake 100% screening of all airline passengers and examination of carry-on baggage at each boarding gate, with the aid of metal detecting devices; 3. Strongly recommends that the Administration propose and the Congress promptly enact legislation to provide federal law enforcement officials at active boarding gates to support and back-up the airline screening effort, to enforce federal criminal statutes against hijacking, carrying concealed weapons aboard aircraft, and to search and arrest potential hijackers; 4. Opposes current federal proposals to require local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal anti-hijacking laws at public airports, as this function of protecting passengers from terrorists and political refugees is uniquely a federal obligation and cannot effectively be delegated to local government; and 5. Strongly urges action by the United States, by multilateral or bilateral negotiations with other nations, to develop and obtain ratification of international agreements to eliminate "safe havens" for hijackers around the world and to assure prompt criminal prosecution when such incidents occur. Adopted by the Resolution Committee. THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Mr. ALLEN E. PRITCHARD, Jr., National League of Cities. Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: I appreciate very much receiving the views of the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors as expressed in your joint letter of December 5, 1972, on the matter of law enforcement support at the Nation's airports to prevent air hijackings. This Department, in close consultation with the Departments of Treasury, Justice, Defense and State, has been working hard for the past two years in the development of a Civil Aviation Security Program that would best serve the national and public interest. I am convinced that the new security requirements announced on December 5 meet those two tests. Most cities and communities in this Nation are served by and benefit from commercial air services. Although the operation and maintenance of an airport should be self-supporting, some are not, requiring a certain measure of financial backing from the community the airport serves. Local law enforcement protection is a normal and established function at most airports. The new requirement for the presence of a law enforcement officer during the passenger boarding process is a major expansion of the established function but a proper local responsibility-rather than Federal. The new security requirements are to prevent an individual from boarding an aircraft with a concealed weapon or from gaining access by use of force. The carriage of a concealed weapon or use of a weapon to commit an act of force is prohibited by local laws in virtually every city and community in this Nation. These laws should be enforced by local law officers. If a Federal statute is violated, Federal law officers, of course, have overall responsibility for apprehension. The objective of the new security measures is to prevent such acts from happening. We appreciate your concern regarding the financial burden created by this situation. We feel very strongly, however, that the costs resulting from these measures should be absorbed by the entire air transportation system as an essential operating expense. In this manner, the costs will be passed on to the air travelers who are the beneficiaries of greater security. Financial arrangements may vary among the airports, cities and states, depending on local conditions but generally the airport operators will pass the cost of law enforcement support on to their tenants-the airlines-as another item of doing business. The airlines then have the option of absorbing the increased costs by streamlining their operations or by taking the necessary steps to increase their revenues by increasing the price of transportation. I hope the foregoing explanation is responsive to the concerns expressed by the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The President and the Administration are determined to put an end to acts of air piracy. The measures announced on December 5, 1972, will be effective in achieving that goal. Sincerely, Airport Manager, Richard E. Byrd International Airport, DEAR MR. DOWD: Section IV, Paragraph E, Page 9-amendment to Richard E. Byrd International Airport is disapproved. This regulation is not contingent upon approval by the City of Richmond Council for approval of a request for funds. It is a requirement to provide law enforcement personnel at each departure of air carrier flights from Byrd International Airport. As contained in FAR 107.4 are requirements that all airports must have law enforcement personnel in place 6 February 1973 so that the processing of each departing flight is conducted in the presence of a qualified law enforcement officer. Compliance with this effort must be achieved and where not achieved necessary enforcement action will be prompt and result in assessment of a substantial civil penalty for failure to comply. JACK L. BIRKENSTOCK, CITY OF RICHMOND, To: Director of Public Works. Subject: FAA Requirement for Airport Law Enforcement Officers. On December 28, 1972 the Airport Manager filed the attached amendment to the Airport Master Security Plan with the Air Transportation Security Officer at Dulles International Airport. This filing was in accordance with Federal Aviation |