ment officer is present in the event that the aircraft returns to the boarding area before takeoff.

The armed law enforcement officers provided by the airport operators are to support airline and airport security measures to prevent air piracy incidents and to act in the event of suspected or actual unlawful activity.

I want to point out that the program, which the Federal Government established this past December, is not a new program. It is an expansion of the program we have been working with for more than 2 years and which has produced a record of increasing successes.

However, during the last few months we have faced a new breed of hijackers armed groups of fleeing felons, willing to resort to violence in order to gain access to the aircraft. The Houston incident in October and the Birmingham hijacking in November stand out as examples.

In Houston, a jetliner was commandeered by four alleged murderers and bank robbers who shot two airline employees, one fatally. Thirtysix innocent passengers and crew members faced extreme danger. Twelve days later, on November 10, three persons wanted for criminal offenses, took over a jetliner out of Birmingham, Ala., and for more than 28 hours, placed the lives of 30 passengers, and flight crew members, in jeopardy. One pilot was shot and three passengers required hospitalization.

Where a simple screening of a selected few passengers might have deterred hijackers in the earlier stages of this period of aerial piracy, we now must be ready to forcefully stop them at the boarding gate and deny them access to the ramp area.

Our objective is to keep all weapons off all air carriers. To achieve this goal, we tightened up our procedures by requiring an electronic screening of all passengers and a physical inspection of their carry-on articles, and the presence of armed guards at the boarding gates.

As you will note, several of the emergency measures we announced in December were contained in a bill passed by the Senate last session (S. 2280-92d Congress). This legislation was reintroduced in substantially the same form last week as S. 39.

At this time, I would like to identify the features which our program has in common with S. 39. Specifically, the regulations recently issued by FAA follow S. 39 by requiring the screening of passengers by weapon-detectors. Additionally, the FAA regulations direct the air carriers to deny boarding to any person who is not cleared by a detection device, or if such equipment is not available, does not consent to the search of his person for a weapon and to refuse to permit any person to carry aboard any property which he does not consent to have inspected.

Now, let me comment upon other provisions in S. 39 which we continue to support. In particular, I wish to stress our strong support for provisions in S. 39 which would implement the convention for the unlawful seizure of aircraft for the United States (the Hague Convention).

As you know, this convention obligates contracting States to establish severe penalties for air piracy and to extradite, or submit to prosecution, hijackers in their custody. Title I of S. 39 provides the neces

sary changes in our laws to satisfy the United States' obligations under the Hague Convention.

S. 39 also contains provisions which would authorize the President to suspend air service to any foreign nation

Senator CANNON. Mr. Secretary, right there, would you furnish for the record, how many nations are parties to the Hague Convention, or rather, how many countries are not?

Secretary VOLPE. I can almost give you that off the top of our heads. Senator CANNON. Put it in the record.

Secretary VOLPE. Yes.

(The following information was subsequently received for the record :)

LIST OF STATES SIGNATORY OR PARTIES TO THE TOKYO, HAGUE AND MONTREAL CONVENTIONS AS OF JAN. 10, 1973

LIST OF STATES SIGNATORY OR PARTIES TO THE TOKYO, HAGUE AND MONTREAL CONVENTIONS AS OF JAN. 10, 1973-Continued

LIST OF STATES SIGNATORY OR PARTIES TO THE TOKYO, HAGUE AND MONTREAL CONVENTIONS AS OF JAN. 10, 1973-Continued

Sept. 14, 1963 Sep. 5, 1969 Dec. 16, 1970 Sept. 14, 1971 Sept. 23, 1971 Nov. 1, 1972 .do.

Mar. 13, 1964

June

6, 1969

Sept. 14, 1963 Feb. 12, 1971 Dec. 16, 1970 Oct. 2, 1972 Sept. 23, 1971 Oct. 2, 1972

Secretary VOLPE. S. 39 also contains provisions which would authorize the President to suspend air service to any foreign nation which he determines is encouraging aircraft hijacking by acting in a manner inconsistent with the Hague Convention.

The administration does not have any objection to that portion of the bill which contemplates primary boycotts of other nations, provided the boycott is instituted in concert with other countries, and not the result of unilateral action.

We do have a reservation with respect to the provisions of S. 39 which relate to a secondary boycott. Our fear is that under certain circumstances, a secondary boycott would do more damage to our friends and allies than to the country which is not acting in accord with the principles of the Tokyo, Hague, and Montreal Conventions. Consequently, we are opposed, at this time, to the adoption of any statutory provision providing for secondary boycotts.

With respect to the provisions of S. 39 (sec. 104 (b)), which would provide a mechanism for bringing pressure on countries to comply with international security standards, I would like to bring you up to date on the development of such standards.

The DOT has been working directly with the members of the secretariat of the International Civil Aviation Organization to develop detailed amendments to the Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation which will assure that security is part and parcel of such technical areas as rules of the air, air traffic services, flight operations, aerodromes, and airworthiness and facilities.

In addition, a broad general new annex has been developed specifically on the subject of air security. These draft international security standards have been reviewed by the ICAO Committee and are being sent to the 124 contracting States of ICAO for comment.

We are hopeful that the council will promulgate final international security standards by midyear. This section of S. 39 is consistent with our intent, and we, therefore, support it.

Further, you may be interested to know that on the international level, work is underway at the present time on the development of a new international multilateral treaty to eliminate safe havens for hijackers.

The United States has proposed a mechanism for the enforcement of the principles contained in the Tokyo, Hague, and Montreal Conventions.

The CHAIRMAN. Sir, that should include the Tokyo and Montreal Conventions, too, all three?

Secretary VOLPE. All three. We shall.

A meeting of the ICAO Legal Committee began yesterday in Montreal to draft a proposed multilateral convention. If this work is successful, a diplomatic conference will be held in August to consider its adoption. We believe that this multilateral treaty would place strong pressure on countries not to provide safe havens for hijackers or hold the passengers and crew of a hijacked aircraft for international blackmail.

There is one final feature of S. 39, which we favor. Existing law makes the offense of carrying weapons aboard an aircraft, or attempting to do so, a misdemeanor. We support the proposal contained in S. 39. (sec. 206) which would continue the misdemeanor offense and make it a felony in instances where that action is willful and taken without regard for the safety of human life.

There is, however, one major feature of S. 39 which is inconsistent with our current civil aviation security program and which the administration continues to oppose most strenuously. We totally disagree with those provisions of S. 39 which estabilsh a new air transportation security force in the Federal Aviation Administration.

These provisions call upon the Federal Government to take the primary responsibility for providing a law enforcement presence at airports in the United States, adequate to insure the safety from criminal violence and air piracy of persons traveling in air transportation.

We believe a legislatively mandated Federal role in the preventive, I repeat, in the preventive, law-enforcement aspects of our civil aviation security program is an unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion of the Federal police power into the jurisdictions and responsibilities of State and local governments.

In introducing this bill, Mr. Chairman, you indicated your belief that the Federal actions taken by the administration requiring airline passenger screening systems to be supported by local law-enforcement officers, rather than by Federal enforcement personnel, were an abdication by the Federal Government of its proper responsibilities in this

area.

We feel, however, that the obligation to provide a law-enforcement officer during the passenger boarding process is properly a local responsibility. Merely because the need for police security and crime prevention is present at our airports does not make the patrol of the airports a Federal responsibility any more than it is at other public places in the community where a similar need exists.