Mr. JACKSON. Much of the information has already been shared with the airports and with the air carriers as we go along.

It is now at the point where physical projects are beginning to take place. The building of special security screening points at the access points of two of the five piers at the airport is due to get under way in a matter of just a month or so. A different fencing arrangement will be put up. Some sensors will be put in place. Those things will be tested as thoroughly as possible and that information will be made available to the FAA, to the air carriers, and to other airports as the project progresses. It is not going to be a "final report," it is going to be a sharing of information as the project continues through its full run.

Mr. GILMAN. Well, I would hope that the industry would take a closer look at the proposals here and not take such a negative attitude. And I regret to say that I define your approach to some of these major suggestions as somewhat negative, recognizing how tragic this last incident was, and it could happen again tonight, tomorrow, anyplace, hopefully not. But I do not think we are doing the kinds of things that should be done to prevent it from happening in the future. And I would hope that you might take another look at all of these proposals.

Mr. JACKSON. We do not really intend to take a negative approach

Mr. GILMAN. Well, you shot this proposal full of holes already. Mr. JACKSON. We feel this is a step in the right direction and we can work within this framework to perfect some of the points that were brought up.

Mr. GILMAN. What is left in this measure that you do not criticize, that you do not take a negative approach to. The only thing I saw that you did not attack was establishing some construction standards in the bill. That was not touched on. The other major areas you have shot down.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, gentlemen, for those very intense observations.

I do want to clarify a matter that was the subject of the gentlemen's exchange and subject of the testimony by both Mr. Lally and Mr. Jackson, with respect to the Foreign Security Liaison Officer. Within the U.S., the President's Commission recommended establishment of a Federal Security Manager for domestic airports. Since it is not possible to establish the same position in the same way at foreign airports, the Commission recommended the concept which is expressed in the legislation of a Foreign Security Liaison Officer who is the counterpart to the domestic manager.

There is no contradiction between that position and the Coordinator of International Aviation Security because that is the person who does negotiations. That is a negotiating position to negotiate on behalf of carriers and that is something I think you want and recommend. And I think that is the distinction between those two. In our legislation last year, our security legislation, there was a provision in the bill that directed the Secretary of Transportation to list those foreign carriers that are in compliance with Û.S. security regulations. And we had quite a bit of discussion, Mr. Lally, as you may recall, on how to do that. On how to impose some regula

tions on foreign carriers who were not under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.

So we came up with this idea of listing and I think ATA was in support of that and AOCI and AAAE. How about if we turn that around a little bit and require the Secretary to list those who are not in compliance. That puts a whole different pressure on carriers and it sends a more direct signal to U.S. travelers. "These carriers are not in compliance with U.S. security requirements," and something goes off in their minds saying, “Well, maybe I won't fly with

Mr. LALLY. Yes, sir. I think it probably would have that effect, but the distinction is that the complying with the U.S. law that you are talking about does not meet the same standard expected of U.S. carriers.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is what I am saying. Is that the Secretary of Transportation would say, would publish a list of those periodically-those foreign carriers who are not in compliance, were not meeting in their security program standards that we have set for U.S. carriers. It is the only way to get at the level playing field that we are trying to do.

Mr. LALLY. Yes, sir. That would be a desirable step in the right direction. That would put the pressure in the right direction. The step that I see that perhaps would be necessary to precede, that is for the United States Government to tell the foreign carriers that they must elevate their standards to meet the standards applied by U.S. carriers. That would seem to me to be a desirable preliminary step.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I think there are many considerations there that we will pursue. I think the FAA needs to be tougher. I think the State Department needs to be tougher in our negotiations with foreign governments on these matters.

I just made a note for myself of foreign carriers who offer luggage check-in at your hotel or at the curb side at your hotel. And that bag is never checked again until it reaches its destination. U.S. carriers are not allowed to do that.

Mr. JACKSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR. And that would be another major difference between U.S. and foreign carriers――

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. It is.

Mr. OBERSTAR. And it is also a competitive advantage for foreign carriers.

Mr. JACKSON. It definitely is.

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is also a security hole.

Mr. JACKSON. Correct.

Mr. OBERSTAR. In our judgment, and in your judgment. So that is a matter that we can deal with.

Should the bill, Mr. Jackson, direct the FAA to establish standards or promulgate security standards for construction of new airport terminals?

Mr. JACKSON. I think that standards for construction would certainly be helpful, not necessarily to direct them but more to make them available to the airport for the purpose of design and construction. We have asked for assistance from the FAA in a number

of areas in the past. We would accept those-be delighted to accept them.

However, a set of generic standards does not always fit every airport's construction needs, and therefore, there should be some leeway for the final decision to be made at the local level, taking into consideration the standards as forwarded by the FAA as compared to the requirements of the airport at the time of their construction.

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the FAA is directed to promulgate a rulemaking, that rulemaking can provide the flexibility you are suggesting. Mr. JACKSON. If there is flexibility there, we would certain accept that.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Certainly. Very good.

The Electronic Bulletin Board. That is now available to U.S. businesses overseas. It is not classified, and it does contain information often that appears in the news media. Why should it not be made available to individuals?

Mr. JACKSON. We feel that to be of any real benefit, some information would have to be posted on that that would be perhaps classified. Certainly it would give the terrorist groups an opportunity to see exactly what the air carriers and the United States Government knew about prospective activities or planned activities. It might very well, as I have heard the intelligence community so often state, they are very protective of the information that they have gathered and forwarded both to the FAA and to the Federal Government because in very many cases, the size of terrorist groups is very small and to have a leak, it is very obvious from time to time who might have caused that, and they lose a lot of good informants that way.

So as a result, they would like that kind of information not to be made public and to be held very closely.

We just feel that a public bulletin board like that would cause undue stress on our system. It would certainly tell the terrorist group what we knew and from that, they could be very reasonably sure of knowing what our next steps or our counteractions might be.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have a few other questions that we may submit to you in writing. Our time is expiring on this vote on the House Floor and I am going to have to get over there and vote.

I do want to thank you for your thorough responses to the questions raised by my colleagues on the committee. And for the very comprehensive testimony both of you have submitted to the committee and for your continuing efforts with us and with the Executive Branch agencies to fashion an effective security program to provide the greatest degree of security to U.S. travelers.

Thank you very much for being with us throughout a very long day.

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. It is our pleasure.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The subcommittee and the Committee on Foreign Affairs stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]

THE AVIATION SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

OF 1990

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1990

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met in open markup session at 10:22 a.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dante B. Fascell (chairman) presiding.

Chairman FASCELL. The committee will come to order. We meet today to consider several important pieces of legislation. The first order of business is consideration of H.R. 5200, the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990 which was jointly referred to this committee and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation. The Committee on Public Works ordered reported their version of H.R. 5200 yesterday.

Before each member is a committee print which incorporates the actions of the Public Works Committee on H.R. 5200. The chief of staff will report the committee print.

Before we get into the consideration of the bill, let me express my deep appreciation to our colleagues on the Public Works Committee, in particular, Jim Oberstar, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee and member of the Pan Am 103 Commission, and his ranking member Bill Clinger, as well as, the chairman of the full Public Works Committee, Glenn Anderson and his ranking member, John Paul Hammerschmidt, also a member of the Pan Am Commission. I would also like to commend the chairperson of the Pan Am Commission, Ann McLaughlin and whose testimony before our two committees contributed immeasurably to the development of this legislation. In addition, the following members of this committee have made important contributions to this process: Bill Broomfield, Steve Solarz, Olympia Snowe, Larry Smith, Ted Weiss, Ben Gilman, and Dan Burton.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103. Their tireless efforts to effect changes and to improve aviation security were a driving force behind this legislation. We can never replace their tremendous loss, but we can make a difference by changing the prevailing "business as usual" attitude toward aviation security.

The text of the action taken by the Public Works Committee before members represents countless hours of negotiation between Members and staff of the two committees, the executive branch, and representatives of the families of the victims of Pan Am 103. (189)