Mr. OBERSTAR. Screening, all of it is screened. There is the ability to do the screening and to do it in a timely fashion.

What is the volume, I wanted to ask because I did not find it anywhere in your testimony and I didn't read all the addenda, so it may be in there.

What is the volume of international mail?

Mr. ORLANDO. Let me see, I think I do have that. In terms of pounds, in foreign mail and this is strictly just out going. In other words, U.S. mail destined to foreign countries is 47.2 million pounds per year.

I tried to just sensitize that and again these are rough calculations, sir. But on the foreign mail itself, what are we talking about as far as the number of pieces that might be in those pounds and in those sacks, and I tried to put that on an approximate average daily basis and for just foreign mail, that would equate to approximately 46,920 pieces per day.

But you would have to add to that an additional 156,000 pieces of military mail moving in both directions.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is mail located in any particular or special location within the belly of the aircraft?

Mr. ORLANDO. No, sir, because the carrier decides where they wish to place the mail. As I mentioned before they pick it up at our facility.

In the case of international flights, most of those flights are containerized flights, so they put that mail in their containers and it is their choice where they place it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That was my next question. On international flights and 747's, they would be containerized and the containers are placed indiscriminately within the aircraft?

Mr. ORLANDO. Yes, sir, that is usually a function of the weight and balance computation on the aircraft and at the discretion of the carrier.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you separate out package mail from letter mail when you put bags together?

Mr. ORLANDO. In some cases no, in some cases yes. If we have the volume, we do separate them. We prefer to keep them separate. Mr. ÓBERSTAR. Would it be possible to screen only package mail, parcel mail?

Mr. ORLANDO. The pieces that I just referred to and the volumes I just referred to were our estimates of the volumes that would be a pound or greater. It excluded all the letter mail.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, I see. That 47.2 million pounds is only that mail of a pound or greater?

Mr. ORLANDO. Yes, sir, that is our estimate.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay, I have that distinction.

I think we need not pursue this further. I think we have got enough information on the record that we can work with you to refine the legislation and develop a way in which appropriate screening can be done to accomplish the objectives of security that we seek.

Has a court ever ruled that x-raying of mail is a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment?

Mr. DAVIS. No, sir, there have been no cases.

Mr. OBERSTAR. No cases?

Mr. Davis. No, sir. There have been a couple on baggage. There are, I guess, two of them that I am aware of that hold that the xraying of a bag can be a search in violation of the fourth amendment, not on mail.

Mr. OBERSTAR. There are postal facilities, are there not, at most major international airports?

Mr. ORLANDO. If you are talking about those airports in this country

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes.

Mr. ORLANDO. Like Kennedy?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes.

Mr. ORLANDO. Yes, sir, they are.

Mr. OBERSTAR. U.S. airports. I do not know and you do not necessarily know about foreign airports.

Mr. ORLANDO. Correct.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would it be possible to perform screening at such facilities?

Mr. ORLANDO. In my viewpoint, setting aside any cost considerations, just looking logically, where would be best to do it.

No. 1, our facilities at most airports are very very antiquated, very old, and very small.

For example, at Dulles Airport, our Airport Mail Facility is a little bit larger than a garage, so to answer your question, I think we would have significant difficulty.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So there are physical limitations that would involve cost considerations, finding the money to develop an appropriate facility, build a facility or expand upon an existing facility, to perform the necessary screening and then you would have to be concerned about inter line mail that didn't originate at the international airport.

Mr. HEARST. Transfer mail.

Mr. ORLANDO. The other concern that I have and it is one that I do have to state.

My preference for the air carriers to do the screening is not based on any cost that would have to be borne by the Postal Service because I think we are going to bear that cost anyhow, no matter who does the screening.

My concern is that, in my viewpoint, as close to the belly of that aircraft that that screening came be done, the less vulnerable that mail is to having something placed into it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You're absolutely right. I could not agree more with that. The fewer people involved, the better it is. There is also the question of liability to the Federal Government if the Postal Service does the screening as compared to the air carrier doing the screening and Chairman Fascell has pursued that matter. Mr. Clinger has done the same and we will have to address that further.

If there are no further questions I will excuse this panel and proceed to our next group, and thank you very very much for your splendid testimony.

Mr. Richard F. Lally, Assistant Vice President for Security at the Air Transport Association of America and Mr. Wilfred A. Jackson, Director of Operations at the Baltimore-Washington Interna

tional Airport, representing the Airport Operators Council International and the American Association of Airport Executives.

Welcome, it's been a very long day. You have had to wade through a lot of testimony and listen. I'm sure it has been very enlightening and since you are the last witnesses, we expect you to come up with all the answers.

Mr. Lally, again, we appreciate your many hours of testimony before our Aviation Subcommittee on many subjects, both the Aviation Subcommittee and the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee in the past, and the wealth of knowledge that you have in this field of security.

We welcome your testimony.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. LALLY, VICE PRESIDENT-SECURITY, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Mr. LALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have submitted a complete statement for the record and with your permission, I would like to summarize my statement.

At the outset, I think the airlines would like to commend the sponsors of H.R. 5200 and the two committees for their interest and initiative in responding so promptly in introducing and considering legislation to implement the work of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. We are concerned, however, that the proposed legislation dealing with the important and very complex area may be premature.

The report of the Commission containing a wealth of analysis and observations as well as some 64 specific recommendations was submitted to the President May 15, 1990, just 72 days ago.

The airline industry has responded in general terms to the report, but we have not had the time for the kind of detailed analysis necessary to consider the far reaching ramifications of the report's recommendations as well as the number of the specific suggestions which would drastically change or modify the basic structure of the U.S. civil aviation security program that has been in place for the past two decades.

Moreover, we do not have and Congress does not yet have the reactions and recommendations of the Executive Branch with respect to the Commission's recommendations.

We think that both industry and government need more time to complete the kind of thorough and thoughtful analysis required. I think the Commission itself in its "final thoughts" recognized the need for such time and thoughtful deliberation by calling upon the Secretary of Transportation, and the Secretary of State to report to the President, the Congress and the American people within one year on the actions taken in conjunction with the Commission Report.

Notwithstanding, however, what we think might be possibly premature consideration of legislation and the need for more time, we also want to offer our views on some of the provisions of H.R. 5200. We have two paramount concerns. One deals with the need to extend the security measures that are in place with U.S. Carriers to the foreign air carriers that serve the United States on the same routes.

The second deals with the need to have the U.S. government get more directly involved and assume responsibility for aviation security. I would like to address briefly those two concerns.

With regard to the first, the airlines concur in the Commission's finding that international aviation security procedures followed by U.S. Airlines are not matched by foreign air carriers.

The airlines concur also in the finding in H.R. 5200 that the United States Government should insure that enhanced security measures are fully implemented by both the United States and foreign air carriers.

However, these findings are not carried out into any specific statutory requirement or mandated rule making in H.R. 5200. The fact that foreign air carriers do not operate under the same security rules is, we think a serious deficiency in the current United States program.

Not only does it place U.S. carriers at a competitive disadvantage, more importantly, it deprives a significant number of air travelers of needed security protection. Some 50 percent of U.S. citizens who travel abroad travel on foreign air carriers.

U.S. carriers fully support the extraordinary security measures now in place. But if the U.S. Government is responsible and serious about the safety of American travellers, it must impose the same requirements on foreign airlines that serve the United States from the same high threat foreign airports. As such, the United States airlines strongly believe that the legislation (H.R. 5200) must contain a specific statutory requirement or mandated rule making to force the DOT and the FAA to require that the foreign air carriers, conduct the same security procedures as U.S. Carriers if the airlines are to support that legislation.

On the point of U.S. Government responsibility, the airlines were pleased again with the views adopted by the Presidential Commission that the Federal Government must play a more active role in aviation security. We heartily agree with the premise accepted by the Commission that Governments of all nations must accept and implement their direct responsibility for security as distinguished from a passive regulatory role.

There is a similar finding in H.R. 5200 that insuring the safety and security of passengers of the United States air carriers against terrorists threats is the responsibility of and should be given the highest priority by the United States Government.

Notwithstanding these stated principles, the United States Government is unique in delegating its responsibility for aviation security to airlines. Since 1986, the U.S. airlines have been advocating that our Government, like others, accept direct responsibility for aviation security. Thus the airlines applaud the Commission's conclusions and finding and the finding in H.R. 5200 in support of this view.

It is clear that airlines are surrogate targets for terrorist acts directed at our nation and that direct action by the U.S. Government is both appropriate and essential.

However, the Commission recommendations and the H.R. 5200 provisions deal only tangentially, we think, with this critical fundamental question of basic responsibilities and that is by calling for

the establishment of federal security managers and foreign security liaison officers.

It is unclear to us, however, whether these officials would be the focus of increased active and direct U.S. Government responsibility for security or whether they would further formalize and expand on the already burdensome and misplaced emphasis on federal regulation, inspection and enforcement of requirements levied on the air carriers. The U.S. airlines would support the former, but would strongly resist the latter approach.

These two issues, U.S. Government responsibility and expansion of security requirements to the foreign air carriers, as I mentioned, involve principles of paramount importance to the U.S. air carriers and their proper resolution will significantly influence the industry response to the remaining provisions of H.R. 5200.

The other topics that we would like to discuss briefly, just to mention our concerns, deal with the topic of cargo and mail just discussed and then the topics of threats to civil aviation, employment investigations and the treatment of airline passenger manifests.

With respect to the Commission's recommendations dealing with mail and cargo, we support three of the Commission recommendations dealing with the regulatory change needed, the need for FAA research and development and that any screening of mail initiated first at extraordinary security locations.

However, the remaining recommendations which call for the airlines to assume the responsibility for screening mail and all freight that is tendered in air transportation present issues of significant

concern.

U.S. airlines believe that the responsibility for assuring the security of mail must rest with the postal authorities while the function of air freight forwarders must be made to include responsibility for the freight they tender.

With respect to the earlier dialog, I recall the Chairman eliciting the statistic that annually 1 billion pieces of parcel mail are delivered to the air carriers for transportation and that volume would present a tremendous inspection burden.

I would just point out that the U.S. airlines annually screen more than 1 billion people a year and almost 2 billion pieces of carry on baggage. Certainly the complexities of screening people and carry on baggage are, at least, as complex as screening parcel mail. Moreover, the facilities needed are no more than the facilities that exist at the entrance of this building where there is a line scan x-ray and in your offices or your mail room where there is xray equipment.

And the training required need not be any more than the training your personnel receive. So the complexities of the inspection process for parcel mail are not unduly burdensome when compared to the screening of people, we think.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Lally, if the Rayburn building could fly, we would probably improve the screening.

Mr. LALLY. On the other hand, Mr. Orlando mentioned the limitations of air mail facilities at airports in terms of space.

Well the airlines themselves do not have the space and facilities at airports for mail screening-people with carry on and checked