the hijacking. They made the statement that if the FBI shoots at the tires, we will shoot the stewardesses first and then the passengers, one row at a time and I am convinced that they would have, Senator.

So by letting me be captain in command, no one died on the airplane once it came under my control. Two people were shot, one killed, prior to my taking control of the airplane at Houston.

Mr. O'DONNELL. If I may, Senator, the statement by the hijacker to Captain Hines with respect to the FBI shooting out the tires or trying to abort it was made before Captain Haas' hijacking. If I could, I would like to read J. Edgar Hoover's statement from a piece of ALPA correspondence.

It states:

The captain of the aircraft is by far the most qualified to make the on-thespot determination as to the dangerousness of a hijacker. He should be the one to recommend that action be taken to disable an aircraft or board it in order to apprehend the hijacker.

That is a quote, Senator.

Senator HART. Captain Haas was confronted with a hijacker who said, "You have only used half your oil, therefore you can go at least another 29 hours." Was he correct?

Captain HAAS. Well, this was his own observation from looking at the oil gages, and since there isn't a minimum oil quantity for DC-9 type airplanes, as a matter of fact, he probably was correct.

Senator HART. I see.

Mr. O'DONNELL. It must be remembered that they were not servicing those engines, they had shut down one engine to service it for oil. They were going to start that one and oil service the other engine. The hijacker didn't want to be sitting in an aircraft with no power. They could have serviced it with oil if it were a problem.

The other question was whether they were concerned with that aircraft heading across the Atlantic or heading toward Bermuda, as the company stated. Captain Haas had discussed it with the hijacker, told him he couldn't make it across the Atlantic, but he could make it if the hijacker would agree to let him go up the east coast across the North Atlantic to arrive at a destination.

Captain HAAS. As a matter of fact, we already changed course to follow this plan of flight. Then it was decided that we would go into Orlando, Senator, to get the oil, refuel, and get the necessary charts for a North Atlantic crossing. We did land there at Orlando, of course, and I felt like now was the time to reach the subject of getting the passengers off the airplane, that they were simply a liability.

Mr. O'DONNELL. We don't like to give too many details about an operation, Senator, because it will end up in the next hijacker's training manual. As you know, many that have been captured have had looseleaf notebooks with newspaper clippings describing the details and they highlight the mistakes made by the previous hijacker, and each one hopes his will be successful.

Thank you.

Senator HART. I am sure my questions didn't indicate disagreement. with Mr. O'Donnell's claim that the pilot should be the ultimate judge. I was testing the problem that I would be confronted with if this bill passed, and I was the administrator of it.

Captain HAAS. Senator, if I may answer that question in the way that I would answer it, you know when you have got a gun sticking in

your ear and a hijacker is banging a hand grenade off the top of your head, you get real small consolation out of seeing two armed men on the ramp arguing about jurisdiction.

Mr. GINTHER. Mr. O'Donnell, the committee's been of the understanding that there has been an informal agreement in effect regarding jurisdiction between Government agencies when a hijacking incident is taking place, and that the essence of the agreement is that, during the period when the aircraft is in flight or is on the ground with its engines running, that the Federal Aviation Administration will have sole authority to make any decisions regarding interference or termination but, if the aircraft is on the ground with the engines shut down, then the FBI is the agency with the jurisdiction to determine what, if any, actions will be taken to terminate. Is that in fact an agreement that exists that you people are aware of?

Mr. O'DONNELL. That is a memorandum, Mr. Ginther, that is a little bit different. It says if the aircraft is on the runway for the purpose of takeoff or in the landing role, the FAA has jurisdiction. If it is off the active runway, even though the engines are running, the FBI has jurisdiction. I would like to quote from the FAA flight security director, Mr. Jim Murphy, who was here this morning, in reference to the memorandum between the Department of Justice and Department of Transportation.

It states in both instances, and I quote this:

In both instances the pilot in command has the responsibility to indicate whether or not he desires the aircraft to be immobilized and hijacking terminated by the degree of force necessary to terminate. It is fully understood by the pilot, FBI, and personnel of the FAA. It is the pilot's determination whether or not to give the signal.

This is the policy in effect today and is fully understood by both the FAA and the FBI. The date of that letter is December 1971.

Mr. GINTHER. Why was it in this instance that the FAA abdicated whatever responsibility it had pursuant to that agreement?

Mr. O'DONNELL. I think, sir, that the decision was made, and I think Mr. Murphy could answer perhaps more appropriately, but I don't think he was aware the decisions were being made by the FBI. Again, I shouldn't be speaking for him. But when the decision was made between Southern Airways Co. and the FBI, and it did, in fact, take place, I would suspect the FAA was as surprised as we were. Again, I cannot speak for Mr. Murphy.

Senator CANNON. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate it. Mr. O'DONNELL. Thank you very much, Senator. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. O'DONNELL, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION MR. CHAIRMAN: I am Captain John J. O'Donnell, president of the Air Line Pilots Association. In this capacity, I represent the professional interests of 46,000 pilots and cabin attendants flying for 37 U.S. airlines.

It should be noted at the outset that this is my fourth appearance before this subcommittee within a year on the subject of anti-hijacking legislation. Since my first appearance last March, United States airlines have experienced 24 hijackings. In these incidents, several crew members have been seriously injured and hundreds of passengers victimized. It is clearly evident that the menace is still with us and accelerating.

I have with me today, two airline captains who faced death in the skies at the hands of cruel and brutal hijackers in recent weeks. They are but two of a

growing number of pilots and flight attendants who know first-hand what it's like to have a loaded and cocked hand-gun pointed at their heads by criminals who would not hesitate to kill to gain their ends.

On my left is Captain Lee Hines, whose aircraft was commandeered by four men wanted for the slaying of a policeman and a bank manager in an attempted bank robbery in nearby Alexandria. To gain entrance to his aircraft, the hijackers murdered a ticket agent and wounded a ramp attendant. For the next four hours, Captain Hines endured the threat of instant death for his passengers and crew if he did not follow the hijackers' orders to fly them to Cuba. Nearly twelve hours after the hijacking began, Captain Hines finally landed safely in Miami.

On my right is Captain William R. Haas. He was the pilot of the Southern Airways jet that was hijacked by three criminals and ordered to fly on an odyssey of terror that ended 29 hours later in Havana. You will recall that Captain Haas had his tires shot out and was forced to make the takeoff alone since his co-pilot was shot and unable to assist. This incident would have ended in a holocaust at the end of the runway except for the magnificent airmanship demonstrated by Captain Haas.

Both of these men volunteered to come here today so that they could answer any questions you might have regarding their experiences with this latest and most dangerous type of air pirate.

It is our understanding that the bill under consideration today is essentially the same as that submitted during the last session. We supported the provisions of that bill which authorized suspension of air service to any foreign nation encouraging hijacking and revocation of landing rights to foreign air carriers under certain circumstances. We reiterate our stand that the only sure way to eliminate aerial piracy is to totally eliminate safe havens for hijackers so that wherever they go they will be apprehended and prosecuted or returned for punishment to the country where they committed their criminal acts.

We also support wholeheartedly the use of screening devices at all boarding gates. However, we again point aut that not only must passengers and hand luggage be inspected but every suitcase, parcel and box carried anywhere on an airliner should be checked by x-ray or similar device. Serious consideration should also be given to eliminating all carry-on items other than searched attaché cases and essential items for babies, elderly people or the handicapped. Suitcases, musical instrument cases and all other types of bags, boxes or carrying cases should be banned from the passenger cabin.

We would also remind the industry that weapons and devices can be carried in cargo holds which leaves a loophole for the extortionist and other twisted minds to harass the airlines. Therefore, we once again state our firm belief that we must close all entryways for weapons and devices to be placed aboard an aircraft.

This committee is well aware of the action taken recently by the Secretary of Transportation which makes airport authorities and the airlines responsible for passenger screening, carry-on baggage search and the presence of law enforcement officers. We concurred in that action because little else was being done to develop airport security. However, we are greatly concerned that the fragmentation of responsibility will mean that training will be inconsistent, equipment maintenance will become lax and monitoring of the law enforcement presence will be subject to the whims of local government and airline budgets. The overall responsibility for the air transportation security system should be at a high governmental level in order to give a consistency of training and competency to the total system.

We note that several airlines plan to contract with protection agencies to carry out the baggage search responsibility. How effective they are will be entirely dependent upon the monitoring, inspection and enforcement forces that must be part of the program. We sincerely hope this new program will be worthwhile. I can assure you that our members will be carefully observing its effectiveness and we and our passengers will be the first to know where loopholes exist. As to how this program should be funded, we prefer to leave that to others to decide. Air crews believe that the 180 million passengers who fly with us annually deserve only the best in air security. In the final analysis, it is the taxpayers and the traveling public of this nation who will end up financing the program.

To summarize, Mr. Chairman, the Air Line Pilots Association is totally committed to eliminating aerial piracy in our time. We solidly support any and all

federal legislation that will close the gaps still existing through which a determined air pirate can slip. There have been too many tragedies and near-tragedies. You will recall that only a week ago at Washington National Airport a man armed with a .45 caliber pistol slipped aboard an aircraft. He took two stewardesses hostage and commandeered the aircraft on the ground at Baltimore. Although he gave up and this hijacking will go on the books as unsuccessful, it must be remembered that he terrorized the stewardesses for two agonizing hours that will haunt them the rest of their lives.

Hijackings have now reached a new and more dangerous plateau where every desperate criminal in the country thinks in terms of escaping punishment for his crimes by taking over an airliner. The experiences of Captains Hines and Haas are verification of this trend.

The nation's professional air crews firmly believe that world governments should take the necessary action to bring this air age crime to a halt. We believe that our own government should make every effort to negotiate bilateral treaties with such countries as Cuba and Algeria. Indeed, in the case of Cuba, there is evidence that the Southern Airways hijacking may have made better relations possible because even Mr. Castro has grown tired of being the depository for the dregs of our society.

This committee is aware that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) meets this month to discuss another anti-hijacking treaty. We are not optimistic that sufficient action will be taken in time to avoid the catastrophe that seems inevitable. Therefore, we urge this committee to make every possible exertion to have this bill passed so that at least this country will be accomplishing a major step forward in the anti-piracy effort. By so doing, this nation will be setting the pace which other nations are sure to follow.

We are pleased that this committee is one body that shares our sense of urgency concerning the hijacking problem. There were 61 worldwide hijacking attempts in 1972. We know it is only a matter of time before an unnecessary tragedy of immense proportions will occur that could be avoided by prompt action of world governments. In the absence of world action, however, we who are responsible for the safety of our passengers and aircraft will be forced to take the ultimate course which is uniquely within our power because the time will surely come when we will judge the situation too dangerous to continue operations. That course, simply stated, will be the denial of our services when and where we deem it no longer tolerable.

This statement should not be considered an idle threat. It is a promise we intend to keep if duly constituted authority cannot solve the problem. It is a promise that was confirmed last month at Las Vegas by our own ALPA Board of Directors as well as the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations in Mexico City.

I am sincerely gratified to have been invited to appear before you once again on this vital issue to give you our views. It is our position that aerial piracy must be eliminated from the world's skies within this calendar year. The United States Congress has the power to lead the way for the world in accomplishing this goal. We promise you and the people of this nation wholehearted support in this effort. Captains Hines and Haas and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Senator CANNON. The committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. STENNIS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

I am proud to join my esteemed colleague Senator Cannon as a co-sponsor of this important bill. I am also confident that this fine and responsible committee, for which I have always had special respect, will move quickly to bring this anti-hijacking bill before the Senate so that the American people and all air travellers will have some real, concrete protection against the fear and danger of airplane hijackings. It was a great disappointment to me that this same bill died at the end of the last session of Congress, after having passed the Senate by vote of 75–1, and I am extremely eager that we act together and act quickly on this bill now, and I wish to commend Senator Cannon for his initiative in making this anti-hijacking bill the first order of business this year.

While in Mississippi during the past two months, visiting numerous areas of my state. I was deeply impressed by the nearly universal concern expressed by my fellow citizens that something tough and effective be done to stop airplane hijackings, and I vowed to my constituents that I would use all my will and energy to see that a substantial bill against these hijackings would be passed in this session of Congress and vigorously enforced.

As has been stated before, these airplane hijackings are nothing really new in the history of crime, they have merely taken a new form. Hijackings are actually just the same old blackmail which pirates at sea long practiced against peaceful ships and their passengers. Piracy is piracy, whether in the 17th Century or the 20th; it is hard-core criminal activity, and we have a duty to put a stop to it.

In light of the variety of methods and means used by hijackers to terrorize the public, we must have a number of different measures designed to stop all potential hijackers at every possible point. I feel that our bill offers just such measures. First, it will prevent potential hijackers with deadly weapons from boarding aircraft by requiring careful inspection of all persons at all airports before boarding; second, sufficient, well-trained federal security officers will be present to handle in the most effective way any hijacking attempt; third, wellcoordinated federal investigation and pursuit of all actual hijackers will be provided; and last, and very important, appropriately severe punishments will be imposed on those persons guilty of air piracy, and appropriate sanctions will be invoked against those countries guilty of encouraging or harboring air pirates. Most of these highly important provisions are included in the 1971 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the so-called AntiHijacking Convention, to which the United States is a party. The present bill constitutes the necessary implementing legislation to make that Convention effective, and it is shocking to me that Congress and the Administration have not yet passed it and made it the law of the land, and I shall spare no effort to see that this is done.

Now there is one other issue on which I wish to speak specifically, and that is the question of capital punishment. Personally, I favor the use of the death penalty, wherever constitutionally permissible. in all hijacking cases, and I have faith that this committee and the Full Senate will carefully and thoughtfully explore the question of properly severe punishments for hijackers. Some have suggested that providing in this bill for a mandatory death penalty if anyone dies as a result of hijacking activity would help restrain and deter hijackers from personal violence beyond the actual takeover of the plane itself, leaving life imprisonment or other long-term sentences as punishment for hijackings where no human life is taken. I do not pass on the validity of such theories, but merely mention them for the committee's consideration. I realize that the question of