to see that the bombs don't get on the planes it's clear how he is reporting. Is he reporting to an Assistant Secretary of Transportation? Is he reporting to an Administrator? Is he reporting to both? I think it's a little unclear. Is that Assistant Secretary a policy and staff adviser to the Secretary of Transportation or does he have some authority on an ongoing basis for security problems? Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. We won't go into all of how it's going to work but those are the questions that were discussed within the Commission and the operational matters will be spelled out a little further in legislation, but we wanted to get the concepts down in the legislation, concepts that the Commission enunciated down in the legislation and to fix a point at an Assistant Secretary level for accountability on security and direct access to the Secretary and direct contact with counterparts in other security agencies of the Federal Government. The Federal Security Manager concept Do either of you have any problem with that, at airports? Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. And your proposal, Mr. Hudson, for an independent aviation security oversight board you've spelled out in your testimony. You would have that established in some fashion outside of the Department of Transportation, apart from the FAA as an independent agency reporting to the President of the United States? Mr. HUDSON. Yes. The members would not be employees or certainly not full-time employees of the U.S. Government and this would be a body which would have a very small staff and its job would be to review on an ongoing basis and certainly to issue at least annual reports, to oversee the basic fixing of our aviation security system. It doesn't have to be anything large, it doesn't even have to be anything even permanent, although I think a sunset if there was one put in should be at least a number of years. Mr. OBERSTAR. I see. And what do you mean by removing air carrier security jurisdiction from the FAA? Is that something you recommend, establishing an entity similar to the National Transportation Safety Board? Mr. HUDSON. Yes. We believe we need a subagency within Transportation that is specifically dealing with aviation security, not to be within the FAA. Mr. OBERSTAR. Remove all the FAA security personnel in domestic and foreign security operations, remove them from the FAA and create a new independent agency but leave it within the Department of Transportation? Is that what you're recommending? Mr. HUDSON. That's correct. Mr. OBERSTAR. I see. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Your testimony is clear, I think you've enunciated your points of agreement and points of disagreement and we will take those into consideration in drafting the final legislation and try to accommodate all those points that we can. Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. And again, we deeply appreciate the genuine spirit of effort in recovery of this issue that has motivated both of you and those whom you represent in bringing your views to the Congress and earlier to the Commission. Our next panel will consist of Kenneth Hearst, Assistant Chief Postal Inspector for Criminal Investigations, accompanied by Mr. James Orlando and Mr. George Davis. You may proceed, Mr. Hearst. STATEMENT OF KENNETH M. HEARST, ASSISTANT CHIEF POSTAL INSPECTOR FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES E. ORLANDO, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND INTERNATIONAL SERVICES; AND GEORGE C. DAVIS, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION. Mr. HEARST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Kenneth M. Hearst, Assistant Chief Postal Inspector for Criminal Investigations. I am accompanied by Mr. James E. Orlando, Director of Transportation and International Services and George C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Consumer Protection Division. The Postal Inspection Service is the law enforcement and audit arm of the Postal Service. We are one of the oldest investigative agencies of the United States Government and, under legislation enacted by the last Congress, we also serve as Inspector General of the Postal Service. The security responsibility for one of the nations largest business entities and the worlds largest postal system rests with the Chief Postal Inspector. The Inspection Service is responsible for the safety of postal employees, customers, and the security of the mails. We investigate numerous federal law violations that involve the abuse of the mails, including illegal opening and delay such as obscenity, illegal narcotics and inhibiting the mailing of dangerous matter such as bombs. Broad authority to delay, screen or search the mail would certainly facilitate the performance of some of our law enforcement functions, but at the price of reducing mail privacy rights of the American public and impairing the quality of postal service. Sound policy requires a reasonable balance between the publics interest in mail privacy, expeditious mail service and public safety. Our study of H.R. 5200 has been limited to those provisions that would affect the mails. The Bill would mandate the adoption of new procedures for screening air mail in cargo to detect explosives. To the extent that these procedures envision wide spread screening of mail, we believe they are not balanced and are excessive. The Bill's specific screening requirements could cause invasion of privacy and substantial delay of unrestricted quantities of mail. In addition the Bill creates a conflict with provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act which placed the responsibility for reclassification of mail, not in the Post Master General, but in the Governors of the Postal Service and the Independent Postal Rate Commission. The Bill, in sum, would expose a substantial portion of mail now entitled to privacy to multiple demands for access, to delay and to increase costs without offering a commensurate increase in aviation security. Annual mail volume now exceeds 161 billion pieces. Each day more than 1,100,127 pieces of mail just weighing more than one pound or more are tended to air carriers. Mr. OBERSTAR. Only a relatively small portion can be examined without inordinate delay of the mail. To date the mails have not been used by terrorists to attack U.S. air carriers. Postal and air line operations and dispatch procedures virtually preclude a mailer from knowing whether a parcel will be carried by a particular air carrier, on a particular flight, or by a passenger aircraft. Mail bombs have heretofore been aimed at the addressee, designed detonate after delivery and upon opening rather than in transit. Prudence, nevertheless suggests that we develop bomb interdiction procedures. The legal constraints discussed in Appendix B of our written statement leads us to believe that a screening procedure, narrowly tailored to minimize invasion of privacy and delay of mail would more likely withstand constitutional challenge than a procedure that is indiscriminate and reflects less sensitivity to these interests. The cost in terms of personnel, equipment or delay of the mails and loss of privacy involved in screening that portion of air mail weighing one pound or more would be substantial. Existing technology is inadequate to perform generalized screening of mail without substantial delay. Except for the most dilatory procedure, opening mail and examining its contents, none of the screening procedures presently available is fully effective for reasons detailed in our prepared statement. Taking all of these factors into account, we believe the best course to follow at present is that proposed in the Invitation for Comment we published in last Friday's Federal Register. If adopted, it would provide that where the Chief Postal Inspector finds there is a credible threat, he may authorize any screening method that does not involve warrantless or non consensual opening of mail sealed against inspection or the disclosure of correspondence in the mail. In doing so he would take into account the varying degrees of threat as well as the effectiveness, legal risk, cost, delay and practical ability to implement the available screening procedures and initiate a tailored response to each threat situation. Rather than divide mail security responsibility between two different federal agencies and thus risk mishandling and mistreatment, the authority to determine when mail should be screened should continue to reside in the Postal Service. While the Postal Service might be able to screen very limited amounts of mail, we would expect that in many cases the volume of mail involved or the equipment needed would be such that we could not perform the screening as effectively as an air carrier. In such cases, we agree with the President's Commission that air carriers should perform the screening of mail to be flown pursuant, of course, to postal regulations and with Postal Service over sight. Accordingly, it may be useful to explore the need for legislation that would require the air carriers to assist in safeguarding air mail security. Because our legal opinions in these areas are not totally free from doubt, we have recommended that you consider enacting legislation that would authorize the types of limited screening envisioned in our Invitation for Comment. We also recommend that you consider legislation that would give the Postal Service clear temporary emergency contracting authority to divert international, civil and U.S. military mail involved in a threat situation to any feasible means of transportation. It is not clear to use whether the mail and cargo screening provisions of the Bill would apply to cargo aircraft. As the PanAm 103 tragedy demonstrated, the destruction of an aircraft in flight poses a life threatening situation to persons on the ground as well as to the flying public. In our view, an effort also should be made to keep bombs off cargo flights. In concluding, let me say that the Postal Service is deeply concerned about aviation and mail security. Over the past 2 years and particularly since the terrible tragedy at Lockerbie, we have been working closely with the FAA and the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, other aviation organizations, the military and representatives of the Administration to improve security. We have participated in the efforts of the President's Commission, strengthened our intelligence capabilities and performed security surveys at airports to improve mail security. We have also been working with other postal administrations throughout the world to increase awareness in this area and strengthen mail handling security, particularly at airports. Finally, we have developed what we believe is a reasoned, rational and doable approach to improve mail and aviation security and invited public comment upon it. In our judgment we, and the other agencies with whom we share a responsibility in this area have made significant progress in approving mail and aviation security. As we continue to refine our efforts, we expect to confront situations where changes in the law would be helpful, if not essential, to make further progress possible. H.R. 5200, for the reasons we have we have noted, would require substantial change to meet the needs we presently can identify. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hearst follows:] TESTIMONY OF KENNETH M. HEARST BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 5200 Mr. Chairman, I am Kenneth M. Hearst, Assistant Chief Postal Inspector for Criminal Investigations. I am accompanied by Mr. James E. Orlando, Director Office of Transportation and International Services and George C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, Consumer Protection Division. We are pleased to participate in your efforts to enhance the security of air travel and to provide you with our comments on H.R. 5200, the proposed Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990. The Postal Inspection Service is the law enforcement and audit arm of the Postal Service. We are one of the oldest investigative agencies of the United States Government and, under legislation enacted by the last Congress, we also serve as the Inspector General of the Postal Service. |