I am really sorry you cannot do that. We are going to conduct business. We approve of many things that Senator Mikulski recommends. She is a very good Senator, but our enthusiasm has to be contained in the actions we are going to take here. Thank you very much.

Senator Grassley.

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.

U.S. ROLE IN COMBATING TERRORISM

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Secretary, I applaud you for your statement and for-not for the action you have taken so far, but more in the spirit by which you are approaching this, and I sense-and tell me if I am wrong—that you see this as a process just beginning where you intend to show tremendous leadership in this area of getting these barbaric acts on the part of terrorists under control and if that is your approach, I compliment you very much for that. And in the reading of your statement you alluded in a couple of pages to what international action has been taken, and I have no fault to find with your analysis of the actions that are being taken or how you interpret them as being successful movements so far, but my question is along the line of asking you to be a little bit more specific of how the international arena, the parliamentary bodies that are working with this, the convention organizations, how you see the United States role.

Do you see us as in the paramount leadership role in the area of combating and detecting terrorist activity of this nature or in a consentual sort of relationship?

Secretary SKINNER. Senator, we called for the conference. We led the effort on the conference along with the transport minister from the United Kingdom. We have implemented steps on American flag carriers coming from abroad already. We are in the leadership role and we will continue to stay in the leadership role.

It is an extremely frustrating process for me personally because it requires changes in conventions, changes in agreements and bilateral treaties that we have had for years and years. There is nothing I would like to do more than to implement reasonable restrictions and requirements on all flights coming into the United States without regard to the flag that they carry.

The restrictions that we have in doing that are not insurmountable. But, they are large, and we must keep that effort going full speed ahead.

Senator GRASSLEY. What sorts of carrots and sticks do you have to help you fulfill your role or do you not have any? And if you said you did not have any, I mean, that is the answer. I want the most candid answer you can give me.

Secretary SKINNER. Senator, I would suggest rather than giving my hand away in public, I would be more than glad to share with the committee in executive session some of my suggestions. I do not want to play my hand before I have to play it if I can avoid it.

Senator GRASSLEY. But at least you have told us that you do see a part of your role speaking for our Government as one that is going to follow through and see that some of these things are car

ried out, even though you do not want to say what that specific action is.

Secretary SKINNER. Yes, sir; and I think that the executive session probably should have people from the State Department present as well because they are an integral partner in this situation.

I would also remind the Senator, our leadership role in the rulemaking which resulted in the modifications to Federal Aviation Regulation Part 129 that were announced today are further indications.

There is no question in the world community that the United States of America is serious about protecting its citizens on flights without regard to the flag of the carrier. I cannot believe anybody left that conference or has looked at what I have said and comes to any other conclusion.

FOREIGN SUPPORT OF REVISED SECURITY MEASURES

Senator GRASSLEY. Can I ask you if there are any of the nations that are involved in these conferences? Our suggestion to you either privately or publicly that maybe we are being too timid. In other words, are there some countries that want you to be more restrictive than what you have suggested so far?

Secretary SKINNER. No; they all are saying that we are at the cutting edge or we are pushing the edge with them. I think if anything, they have expressed frustrations that we are going too far too fast without a proper regard for treaty and convention. I do not think that is true, but that is the sense I get.

Senator GRASSLEY. In your statement where you say 159 countries have acceded to that convention-and I assume that means also to the changes that have been suggested-do you find that most of these countries willing to cooperate and administer the convention in the true spirit of the convention or is it a case of where you have people nitpicking about, you know, the technicalities of the convention?

Secretary SKINNER. Well, in 2 days, which is almost a record for a U.N. organization, we were able to get unanimous consent to revisit the procedures and the rules and process for security throughout the world.

So, while that progress does not look like much in the global world of U.N. organizations, it was a significant first step. I think they are all waiting to see the result of the effort that is ongoing right now and the discussion since that meeting to come up with the standards and the new convention treaty, hopefully by late

summer.

SECURITY AT FEEDER AIRPORTS

Senator GRASSLEY. Let me change directions just a little bit here. In your statement you named several ways that you were planning to implement new programs or equipment to see what could be done to stop these terrorist acts. Do you plan to expand your program to the smaller airports that feed into the hubs?

Secretary SKINNER. Well, we have got to make sure that we have a program that ensures that the baggage and passengers that go on

a flight to or from the United States are screened. Right now it is not done by all air carriers at originating airports around the country. You check baggage, for instance, to O'Hare if you are coming in from a feeder airport in Iowa. There the carrier must identify your luggage, and check it through the security process.

Senator GRASSLEY. Do you have a timeframe for accomplishing this at the airport you just described?

Secretary SKINNER. Well, the six TNA units will be put into highest access airports, the high risk airports. As we indicated, we have to discuss the exact role the Federal Government is going to play, versus what role the carriers are going to play, versus what role the foreign governments are going to want to play in placing this technology in airports all over the world.

The baggage passenger reconciliation can be put in place much easier than the physical security equipment.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chairman.
Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici.

STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM VS. INDIVIDUAL TERRORIST

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I apologize for not being here sooner. I do not know why this year, even though it is early, we all seem to have three hearings at the same time, and we cannot always be where we would like to be. First, let me ask if any of the terrorism that we are talking about with reference to domestic and foreign air carriers is country-oriented in terms of its basic source, or is it essentially individuals acting independently?

Secretary SKINNER. Let me ask Mr. Salazar to address that.

Mr. SALAZAR. We do know, sir, that there are issues of statesponsored terrorism, and I believe in the next panel Ambassador McManaway, who is the Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism would be best qualified to respond to that.

COORDINATION OF RESEARCH ON SECURITY

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Secretary, in your remarks about new technology to take the place of the current generation of security systems, I note that you highlighted the fact in your statement that DOT has a $9.1 million budget for what is called research and development. I think you said it went up $500,000 from $8.6 to $9.1 million for fiscal year 1990.

It seems to me that most of the breakthroughs in this area have been made because there is a great similarity between the needs of the military in mine detection and the like, and the need for more significant x-ray capability for aviation security purposes.

I believe there are some new technologies in the marketplace that, if they work, will be far superior to cheaper than, and more environmentally sound than the technology DOT is going to test. I am not saying these technologies are ready, but they are out there being developed.

Interestingly enough, most of the funding for them is coming from the Defense Department. For example, mines are a serious problem in Afghanistan. There are mines all over the place, and

they are killing people. Somebody has to go out there and detect them, so money is being spent to develop the technology to do so. My question is whether there is any significant and organized coordination occurring between the Federal money being spent for that kind of research, and what DOT spends in an effort to make sure we do not have a big lull between the development of such technology and its application in this area.

Secretary SKINNER. Mr. Salazar can answer that best.

Mr. SALAZAR. In fact, yes, we do meet regularly with other Federal agencies to examine through technical exchanges the level of funding and activity of explosives detection and a variety of other security methods that may be developed. We also have working agreements with a number of countries where we provide and exchange this information as well, sir.

Senator DOMENICI. Are you satisfied with the degree of exchange and the degree of coordination without something more formal? Mr. SALAZAR. Well, sir, I believe we have wrung out very well the technology as it exists presently.

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CANCELED BOOKINGS ON PAN AM FLIGHT 103

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici. We are going to unfortunately have to excuse the Secretary and Mr. Salazar because we have other witnesses waiting to come.

I just want to ask one question and I will take the chairman's prerogative of having the microphone in his hand and ask you this, Mr. Salazar.

One of the questions that is often posed to me and to others here by the families of the 103 victims is whether certain passengers who had booked on that flight canceled out because they somehow or another knew that this flight was endangered. There were, I am told, bookings that were canceled in the last couple of weeks after this flight had been fully sold out for some time.

As a matter of fact, I am further told by victims' families and friends that there was an inducement offered by Pan Am at reduced rates to students to buy the trip to America. Do you have any knowledge about that?

Mr. SALAZAR. None whatsoever, sir. I do not know of any inducements, and I do not believe that there were any. I do not have any information to substantiate that.

I would point out as well, sir, that among the victims who died on that particular flight, a variety of them represented the U.S. Government in either a military capacity or State Department capacity. I do not believe there were some overt attempts to circumvent that flight.

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would appreciate it if you could just check the records on that to either confirm or put to rest the concerns that people had that suddenly a whole bunch of seats opened up when this flight had been booked for months before it took off. Thank you very much.

Secretary SKINNER. Thank you very much, Senator, for the attention you have given this and the committee as well.

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAUTENBERG

THE THREAT AGAINST PAN AM FLIGHTS

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Salazar, I want to make sure that the record is very clear regarding the threat made specifically against Pan Am prior to December 21 that was the basis for the security bulletin sent to our embassies. Was the threat made directly against Pan Am flights from Frankfurt to JFK for a certain time period? When was the threat received?

ANSWER. The threat against Pan Am flights from Frankfurt was received at the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki on December 5, 1988. The U.S. Embassy in Helsinki sent a cable to the State Department in Washington on December 7, 1988, detailing the threat information. FAA received that cable the same day. FAA issued FAA Security Bulletin ACS-88-22 on that same day-December 7th.

The threat information was very specific as to the time period of the threat. The caller said, on December 5th, that "within the next two weeks" a Finnish woman would attempt to carry a bomb on to a Pan Am flight from Frankfurt to the U.S. That two-week period would have ended on Monday, December 19, 1988.

Senator LAUTENBERG. In previous testimony, it was stated that three governments determined that the Helsinki threat was actually a hoax. Is that correct? When was it concluded by all that the threat was a hoax?

ANSWER. The United States, Germany, and Finland were aware that the threat was a hoax. FAA was informed that the Finnish police had investigated the matter and determined that it was a hoax. FAA received some preliminary details of the police inquiry in Helsinki from the State Department on December 22nd, the day after the bombing. On December 29th, FAA received a more complete synopsis from the State Department which detailed investigative activity in Helsinki. The December 29th State Department information made it clear to FAA that the threat had been a hoax.

Senator LAUTENBERG. After that, was the security bulletin withdrawn? If not, why not? ANSWER. FAA did not specifically rescind that security bulletin since the period of time identified in the threat had already expired. The information that the Helsinki threat was a hoax was widely reported in the international press.

Senator LAUTENBERG. Did Pan Am know that the threat was a hoax?

ANSWER. We are not fully aware of what information Pan Am was privy to at all times during the aftermath of the crash. To our knowledge, Pan Am was not aware that the December 5th threat was a hoax.

Senator LAUTENBERG. What additional security actions did Pan Am take in the wake of the security bulletin, and did they change after December 10?

ANSWER. Upon receiving the security bulletin from FAA, the Pan Am security manager in the U.K. called the Pan Am security manager in Frankfurt to ensure that he was aware of the threat. He then flew to Helsinki, which is in his area of responsibility, to establish procedures which were directed at the identification of any single female departing the airport who might be the innocent dupe that the anonymous caller had warned about. Once identified, the individual and her bags were to be subjected to increased scrutiny. The same procedures were reportedly in place at Frankfurt, where Pan Am security personnel were instructed by Pan Am to be especially watchful for a female traveling from Finland. They were further instructed to dump-search the bags of any passenger that fit that profile. According to the Pan Am security manager in London, the Pan Am staffs in Helsinki, Frankfurt and London were advised that the procedures were to remain in place until further notice.

FLIGHT 103 PASSENGER BOOKINGS AND CANCELLATIONS

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Salazar, one of the questions posed by the families of the Flight 103 victims is whether certain passengers who had booked on that flight cancelled out because they somehow knew that the flight was endangered. Would you please address this matter to the extent that you can?