On February 8th I introduced legislation, H.R. 1986, that would bring airport police officers employed by the Federal Aviation Administration under the provisions of Section 1114, Title 18, United States Code.

As you know, FAA airport police are federal law enforcement
officers charged with the protection of life and property, as well as the
enforcement of federal laws and agency regulations, within the boundaries
of Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport.
The scope
of their work is similar to a city police department. However, they also
perform additional, specialized, duties unique to the aviation industry.

The FAA currently employs approximately 200 airport police officers
at Dulles International and Washington National Airports. Although many
other officers and employees of the federal government are covered under
the provisions of Section 1114, including guards at Washington National Zoo,
FAA airport police officers are not, and this is a cause of some concern to
them.

The functions performed by these officers are certainly important enough to warrant inclusion. Major functions they are called upon to perform include traffic control; investigation of crimes committed at the airports; detention and processing of prisoners; testifying in court; preflight screening coverage; handling situations involving hijackings, hostages, and stowaways; and coordinating law enforcement efforts with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. The following statistics are illustrative:

1) Figures on assaults cover the period between 12/18/76
and 7/31/77 only for Dulles, and between 1/7/76 and
6/20/77 for Washington National.

2) Data Source: Federal Aviation Administration

Moreover, because of the concentration of people at these airports, FAA airport police officers must also devote time to public relations, aiding the injured, handling mentally disturbed and intoxicated individuals, locating lost people and their possessions, settling disputes between merchants and patrons, aiding the handicapped, and accommodating VIP traffic.

For all of these reasons, it is apparent that airport police officers employed by the FAA perform a range of functions at least comparable to other Federal employees covered under Section 1114, and therefore deserve the protection afforded to other employees.

As you may recall, I introduced the same bill during the 95th Congress. Although there appears to be no opposition to extending the coverage of Section 1114 to FAA airport police officers, the bill was never acted on, primarily because of the subcommittee's desire to consider it in conjunction with proposals for an overall revision of Title 18.

I have no objection to this approach in principle. However, should it appear that your subcommittee will not be able to report such legislation, I would appreciate it if you could expedite the passage of this noncontroversial measure. As you know, the bill would cost nothing, has the support

of those affected, and has been endorsed by the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget.

Many thanks for your consideration.

Best regards.

MFM: gb1

Sincerely,

Matthew F. McHugh

It has come to our attention that your Subcommittee on Criminal Justice is
considering the deletion of Section 1314 (c), Page 28, Lines 17-20, of H.R.6233,
that provides a defense for persons who because of "bona fide religious belief" do
not perform alternative service.

Mennonite Central Committee, the service agency for the various Mennonite religious
bodies, would strongly discourage your Subcommittee from deleting this section of
the Criminal Code Revision Act of 1980.

It is entirely possible that some of our constituents, including those of more
conservative religious persuasion, e.g. the Old Order Amish, would not be able, for
reasons of religious conviction, to accept some civilian alternative work
assignments, if and when the draft is reactivated. If for example, federal work
projects, rather than private agency church-related assignments were the only
option, a significant number of our constituents might feel compelled to decline
alternative service induction.

We believe it is only just that such persons be able to offer as their defense,
should they be prosecuted, their legitimate religious belief.

We are writing to you on behalf of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin concerning H.R. 6915, a bill to revise the United States Criminal Code. We wish to bring to the Committee's attention an apparently inadvertent error in the bill which adversely affects the Menominee Tribe, and is contrary to existing law, and we ask that the error be corrected.

Section 114 of the bill, entitled Indian country
jurisdiction, identifies which Indian land is within the
criminal jurisdiction of the United States. In subpart
(b) (1) (A) of that section, a table lists the P.L. 280
states in which Indian country is not within the Indian
country jurisdiction of the United States, but rather is
subject to the criminal laws of the state.

The table in § 114 (b) (1) (A) states that, for Wis-
consin, "All Indian country within the State" is not subject
to the Indian country jurisdiction of the United States.
This statement is incorrect as to the Menominee Indian Re-
servation, which under existing law is subject to the crimi-
nal jurisdiction of the United States and the Tribe, not the
State of Wisconsin. Effective March 31, 1976, the United