capital punishment is left to the discretion of the jury as the bill is now written, but I also realize that this issue is a volatile and constitutionally sensitive one, and ask that the committee give it the most searching scrutiny to find that provision which will best protect the lives of the public. If there is any way to impose the ultimate penalty under the Constitution, I favor it and will support it in hijacking cases. To my mind, hijackings have recently become more than mere isolated criminal acts; they are vicious attacks upon our society itself, which, if we do not control them now, could one day soon severely inhabit our people from exercising their fundamental right to freedom of travel. The present unbridled terrorism in the skies must be stopped. Guns and bombs and hand grenades are now being used by desperate men against innocent men, women and children aboard aircraft all over the world. To me, these crimes are of the same magnitude of viciousness as kidnapping and assassination, and we should mete out the same stern punishment to these pirates of the air that we normally reserve for kidnappers and assassins. They have shown us no mercy, and I say we owe them none. I am proud to join as a co-sponsor of this bill, and pledge my fullest support on the Senate floor. We stand together on this, and although there were some disagreements between the Congress and the Administration on this bill during the last session as to funding and Federal-State jurisdiction, I feel confident that this year we shall succeed in overcoming our differences and will hammer out an effective law to meet what has become a real crisis of the skies. Thank you very much for your attention. Hon. WARREN MAGNUSON, U.S. SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a telegram and correspondence I have received from the Governor of Idaho, concerned airport operators, and the Idaho Aeronautics Board concerning recent regulations regarding security which have been issued by the Department of Transportation. I would appreciate it if this material could be included in your hearing record on these proposals. It certainly appears to me that the Federal Government must assume some of the financial responsibility when burdens are imposed upon local airports via Federal regulations. Request the following message be conveyed to the Congress committee for their January 9 and 10 hearings. Recent airport security regulations imposed by Secretary of Transportation Volpe have created problems which we think must be considered by Congress. We respectfully request that the Congress consider the following: 1. The time table for implementation of the new security measures is unrealistic and contrary to existing State laws controlling budget expenditures at the local level. 2. Appropriate private security services are not available in a rural sparsely populated State. 3. The proper training of security personnel requires more than the 90-day notice given when the new part 107 was imposed; under emergency provisions without the usual notice of proposed rule making the undesireable and perhaps unthinkable alternative is to place untrained but armed persons in a public place. 4. The State of Idaho and its subdivisions do not enjoy sovereign immunity as does the Federal Government making insurance costs high while enforcing Federal requirements. 5. Serious legal questions arise out of local enforcement of Federal regulations. We believe the responsibility for enforcement of Federal regulations lies with the Federal Government. The maker of the regulations should assume the responsibility to provide the funds required to implement federally imposed security requirements under part 107. CECIL D. ANDRUS, Governor, IDAHO BOARD OF AERONAUTICAL DIRECTORS, AIR CARRIER AIRPORTS, Boise, Twin Falls, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, and Lewiston. LEWISTON-NEZ PERCE COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION, Hon. FRANK CHURCH, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Lewiston, Idaho, January 5, 1973. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: The Federal Government, through the Federal Aviation Administration, has imposed on the Airports served by Air Carriers, a very severe and almost prohibitive economic penalty by their enactment of Part 107 (Airport Security), and Part 139 (Airport Certification). This Airport, as all other small community Airports, are already carrying a heavy burden on the local taxpayer through their capital improvements and other programs. The Lewiston-Nez Perce County Regional Airport has been, and intends to continue investing every reasonable and taxable dollar into upgrading the Airport. Part 139 (Airport Certification), will increase our operating cost approximately $100,000.00 per year, of which in our particular case many of these requirements are of questionable value, however, most of the cost will be in increased manpower, in which will not be eligible for Federal Aid under the "Aid to Airports" program. Part 107 (Airport Security). We have no argument that Hijacking has not become a serious problem, and every effort should be made to curb this situation. We anticipate the manpower cost to provide this security to our Airport to be approximately $25,000.00 per year. We feel that this problem is a national one, and should not be a sole burden to the local tax payer. We feel that part of the cost of providing the foregoing and additional requirements on both manpower and equipment should be provided by the Federal Government, whom are the ones imposing these requirements, or some other source of revenue should be found. The Lewiston-Nez Perce County Regional Airport expended in the calendar year of 1972 in local tax money, both capital improvements, and maintenance, operations was, $152,893.00. The budget request for the calendar year of 1973 will be $202,054.00, for local tax money, capital improvements, maintenance operations, Security, and Airport Certification. We would appreciate your support and any help that you may give us in assuring that our problem has been heard. D. D. LYELLS, Chairman. STATE OF IDAHO, Boise, Idaho, December 7, 1972. Hon. FRANK CHURCH, Senate Office Building, DEAR FRANK: It has come to my attention that the Secretary of Transportation has imposed new security requirements on all air carrier airports. With the security requirements already imposed and the new airport certification program now being funded by local governments, the additional burden imposed by the DOT cannot be funded in the local governments' existing budget period. It would seem unfair to deny the citizens of Idaho access to the air transportation system because of unfunded requirements placed on the local governments by their Federal representatives and Federal agencies with delegated policy-making powers. I would appreciate your taking action to provide funds to implement these new Federal requirements and insure that if further airport security and certification measures are imposed that the policy-makers also provide the money to implement their policies. DEAR SENATOR CHURCH: Idaho's air carrier airports are under extreme financial pressure to comply with more Federal restrictions. John Volpe announced on 6 December 1972 the latest requirements for further increased security at all air carrier airports. It is true, as Mr. Volpe states, that “air pirates are showing an increasing disregard for human life." But Mr. Volpe is also showing a complete disregard for local budgets and ignores the local funding cycles. The new increased security requirements cannot be met by most of Idaho's airports and if the requirements are not met by 6 February 1973, we understand that airlines will not be allowed to serve our communities. This will leave over 679,000 annual originating and departing Idaho passengers without service. I know that you can easily see the economic impact and inconvenience this would have on Idaho. This latest requirement comes on the heels of the FAA airport certification program which has already stretched local airport budgets to the breaking point. We believe that it is time for the Federal government to provide the direct funds, without Federal strings attached, to help local communities comply with Federally imposed requirements. It is easy for someone in Washington to write regulations to solve the hijacking problems without providing the necessary funds to implement the program at the local level. We request that the Federal government at the very least provide operating funds for the first year of operation to implement the new provisions of FAA Regulation Part 107. Sincerely, Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON, DARRELL V. MANNING, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation, Senate Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CANNON: This letter is to state the position of the Department of Justice on certain aspects of S. 39 as discussed by the Secretary of Transportation in hearings before your Subcommittee on January 10, 1973. This Department is especially concerned with the provisions of S. 39 establishing a Federal police force within the Federal Aviation Administration. We believe such action would not represent sound and effective law enforcement policy, would conflict with established and traditional Federal law enforcement roles, and would constitute an improper intrusion of the Federal police power into the areas of law enforcement responsibilities usually reserved for state and local governments. The strengthened civil aviation security requirements directed by the President and announced by the Secretary of Transportation on December 5, 1972, are designed to strengthen the total operation of the program and are in no way intended to shift law enforcement responsibiliies from the Federal Government to either the airlines, the airports, the local communities or to local police personnel participating in the program. The air piracy amendments to the Federal Aviation Act vest the law enforcement jurisdiction and responsibility for air piracy violations in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI has fulfilled and will continue to meet these responsibilities; that is, all apparent and actual violations are immediately investigated and the facts presented to appropriate U.S. Attorneys for prosecutive action. These violators will continue to be swiftly and vigorously prosecuted and severe sentences will be sought in the event of conviction. In addition, the role of the FBI concerning responsibility for aircraft hijacking in progress will continue. This is clearly an FBI responsibility and, as the record reflects, the FBI has the capability to do this job and has done it exceptionally well. The role to be played by the local police under the strengthened civil aviation security program is primarily one of prevention, and enforcement only when necessary. We believe that this distinction between enforcement and prevention in valid and consistent with traditional and established Federal/state relationships. As the Secretary of Transportation indicated, the intent of the strengthened aviation security requirements is to prevent air piracy incidents. The airlines are required to inspect the people and things that go on their aircraft and to safeguard their aircraft. These are proper airline responsibilities. The airports are required to prevent access to airport operations areas by unauthorized persons and vehicles. This is a proper airport responsibility. To insure that the preventive programs of the airlines and airports are effective, uniformed police support must be available. Under the emergency Federal Aviation Regulation issued December 5, 1972, airport operators must arrange for this law enforcement presence. The primary mission of the local officers is to back up the preventive security programs of the airlines and airports. In the event law enforcement intervention is required, these local police officers would usually exercise the non-Federal police powers vested in them. They would intervene as properly-authorized peace officers only in the event of actual or suspected unlawful activity just as they would in other cases, e.g., intoxicated or unruly passengers, assaults, robberies or other crimes committed on airports. If there is an actual or suspected violation of Federal law, the FBI will respond immediately upon notification and follow through and perform the Federal law enforcement function. We believe this approach is proper and is consistent with established Federal/state law enforcement relationships. The Federal bank robbery statute is a case in point. While there are several thousand Federal bank robbery violations each year, each posing a threat to the lives of innocent people, the provision of law enforcement and presence for security purposes has never been a Federal responsibility. At the same time, however, the FBI responds immediately to each violation and fulfills the Federal law enforcement responsibility. It is recognized that in many instances the local police officers will need training and indoctrination in the requirements and scope of the Civil Aviation Security Program and certain security problems unique to aviation and the airport environment. To assist in meeting this need, the FAA will sponsor and conduct a formal training program at their training facility in Oklahoma City. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is considering appropriate means of supporting this program. Approximately 1,000 police officers will participate in this training program starting with the first class of 40 officers on January 22, 1973. In addition, it is my understanding that the FAA regional air transportation security officers are currently conducting briefing sessions for the local law enforcement personnel at all airports within their areas of responsibility. The Department of Justice through the U.S. Attorneys are also cooperating in this effort. In summary, the Department of Justice supports fully the strengthened civil aviation security measures initiated on December 5, and the views of the Secretary of Transportation on S. 39. We view the creation of yet another Federal police force for air transportation security as presented a very dangerous precedent. We think it would be particularly unfortunate to expand and intrude into an area of law enforcement which is clearly a matter of local responsibility. Sincerely, RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST, STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. GURNEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important piece of legislation. In my view the Federal Government must assume the primary role in putting an immediate stop to air piracy. I therefore heartily support S. 39. From January through July 1972 we had 28 hijackings—an average of four per month. We have had four attempts since July of 1972. On October of this year several men literally shot their way through an airline security screen, killing a ticket agent. In the context of our current battle against airborne violence, I disagree with the administration's view that local jurisdictions should assume primary responsibility for maintaining airport security forces. If time were available to await the phasing of local resources into the airport security field, a case for local responsibility might be made. But we cannot wait for such an orderly phasing to take place. We face an immediate, continuing threat of airborne violence. On the other hand, the hasty imposition of this responsibility upon local jurisdictions has created a potentially dangerous situation. The consensus seems to be that those who engage in air piracy are a new breed of criminal. Their motives and methods vary widely; so, accordingly, do the techniques required to identify them and to prevent them from boarding an airplane. My judgment tells me that front-line airport security personnel must be specially trained. Therefore, I reject the idea that local law enforcement officers, hastily recruited to meet Federal deadlines, should bear the primary responsibility for airport security. As competent as they may be in local police work, they surely cannot be expected to have specialized training in detecting and apprehending those who are determined to commit such heinous acts. The administration has declared that requiring local jurisdictions to assume responsibility for airport security is analogous to their assumption of such responsibility for railroad and bus terminals and on our highways. This reasoning is incomplete. If this Nation experienced, over a period of time, a long series of violent kidnappings on our highways, regardless of the mode of travel, a case could be made for the establishment of a specially coordinated Federal force to deal with the problem. We have a Federal law against kidnapping. Why does the national interest yield to local jurisdictions when the kidnapping occurs frequently, over a long period of time, and in the context of such wanton disregard of human life? The administration also points out, in demanding local responsibility for airport security, that it is concerned with what it sees as an unwarranted expansion of the Federal police power. On this point, in the context of air piracy, if the choice is, on the one hand, between local police assuming new duties and a new, specialized, Federal police force on the other, I favor the latter. When the threat of air piracy diminishes to the point where a cutback in airport security is possible, it will be far easier to quickly phase out the single, visible Federal force than to require numerous local jurisdictions to retrain and reassimilate airport security personnel for regular police work. In this connection it should be noted that when the administration announced that local jurisdictions would be called upon to assume airport security responsibilities, it also indicated that it believed that the 1,500 security force it has been relying upon to protect air traffic will be phased out by the end of fiscal year 1973. On this same point of expanded police power I would like to emphasize some observations made by others in these hearings. The real expansion of police power in this matter arises from the imposition of that power upon entities, specifically airports, which in many cases have not been given police power authority by local jurisdictions. There is still another item of concern to me-the misguided allocation of our Nation's police power resources in the face of our general crime problem. Under the current airport security requirements, local jurisdictions are required to provide adequately trained airport security personnel within 60 days. Local jurisdictions face two alternatives. They can recruit new police personnel or transfer regular police force members to airport duty. By law, in some jurisdictions, individuals engaging in police functions must first be trained for periods of time far in excess of the 60-day period. If local police are transferred to airport security work, the regular police resources will be strained. If new personnel are recruited for airport security work, they will be called upon to perform highly specialized duties involving functions which by local law they are inadequately trained to perfrom. All of this will occur in spite of the fact that it is the Federal Government which has established at least some expertise in the field of aircraft security in connection with the training of the soon to be terminated 1,500 man Federal force. It is of paramount importance to put an immediate halt to actual and threatened airborne violence. The way to do this is to use the best resources Government can muster and as quickly as possible. We must do this not only to protect our citizens from actual or threatened harm, but also to rid our Nation |