IN THIS RESPECT, H.R. 1659 WOULD PROVIDE THAT THE FAA ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRE ALL AIR CARRIERS TO INSTALL AND USE, AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT WHICH MEETS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REQUIRING APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY EQUIVALENT TO OR BETTER THAN THERMAL NEUTRON ANALYSIS TECHNOLOGY AT CERTAIN HIGH-THREAT FOREIGN AIRPORTS, AND AT SUCH OTHER FOREIGN OR U.S. AIRPORTS AS THE ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINES THAT THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF AIR CARRIER PASSENGERS.

WE SUPPORT THE INSTALLATION AND USE OF EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT AT THE 45 AIRPORTS IN EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE FAR EAST WHERE U.S. AIRLINES ARE REQUIRED TO USE EXTRAORDINARY SECURITY MEASURES. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE THREAT IS SO SEVERE AND THE NEED IS SO URGENT, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE INTERIM USE OF OTHER TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS VAPOR DETECTION, THAT DO NOT TODAY MEET THE HIGH STANDARDS ACHIEVED BY TNA, BUT STILL ARE CAPABLE OF DETECTING EXPLOSIVES. PROPER USE OF THIS EQUIPMENT WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE A STRONG

VISIBLE DETERRENT.

WE ALSO ENDORSE THE LIMITATION INCLUDED IN H.R. 1659 THAT INSTALLATION AND USE OF EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT IS NOT NOW REQUIRED AT U.S. AIRPORTS. WE BELIEVE THE FOCUS OF THE TERRORIST THREAT FACING U.S. AIRLINES IS AT THE 45 HIGH RISK AIRPORTS IN EUROPE, THE MID EAST AND THE FAR EAST. FORTUNATELY, THE SAME THREAT DOES NOT EXIST AT DOMESTIC AIRPORTS AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR INSTALLATION OF SUCH EQUIPMENT IN THE U.S. AT THIS TIME.

ATA'S PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE

SUBCOMMITTEE

PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED THE

IS THAT 66 THERMAL NEUTRON ANALYSIS UNITS AND 171

VAPOR DETECTION UNITS ARE NEEDED TO MEET THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF EIGHT U.S. AIRLINES AT 45 HIGH THREAT AIRPORTS IN EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE FAR EAST. COSTS ARE ESTIMATED AT $49,500,000 FOR THE THERMAL NEUTRON ANALYSIS UNITS AND $17,100,000 FOR THE VAPOR DETECTION UNITS, FOR A TOTAL PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE OF

$66,600,000.

WE BELIEVE THAT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THIS EQUIPMENT IS JUSTIFIED AND WARRANTED. IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECT ITS CITIZENS FROM CRIMINAL ATTACKS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THOSE ATTACKS ARE COMMITTED BY INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS WHOSE REAL TARGETS ARE U.S. GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND POLICIES. FAA FUNDED THE DEPLOYMENT OF METAL DETECTORS AT U.S. AIRPORTS IN 1973 TO MEET THE HIJACKING THREAT. CERTAINLY, FEDERAL FUNDING IS EVEN MORE APPROPRIATE AND MORE

URGENTLY NEEDED NOW TO COMBAT TERRORISM.

7

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOUND IT NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO

PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE OIL SHIPMENTS OF PRIVATE SECTOR
MARITIME OPERATIONS IN THE PERSIAN GULF. IT WOULD APPEAR EVEN
MORE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDE
SECURITY ASSISTANCE AND FUNDING TO PROTECT THE PASSENGER
OPERATIONS OF U.S. AIRLINES IN THE SAME PART OF THE WORLD.

IN THIS REGARD, WHILE WE SUPPORT THE AUTHORIZATION IN H.R. 1659 FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE GRANTS FROM THE TRUST FUND TO PAY FOR THE EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIPMENT THAT MAY BE REQUIRED, WE BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE THREAT AND THE NEED FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE AND INVOLVEMENT, FUNDING FROM GENERAL REVENUES

MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE.

AIRPORT ACCESS DOORS

H.R. 1659 WOULD ALSO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE GRANTS FROM THE TRUST FUND TO SPONSORS OF AIRPORTS TO PAY FOR THE COST OF ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING EQUIPMENT USED TO COMPLY WITH FAA REGULATIONS FOR CONTROLLING ACCESS TO SECURED AREAS OF AIRPORTS. UP TO $170,000,000 WOULD BE AUTHORIZED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WE SUPPORT THE OBJECTIVE OF IMPROVING ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS AT MAJOR U.S. AIRPORTS; HOWEVER, WE SHARE THE CONCERN EXPRESSED BY THE TOTAL U.S. CIVIL AVIATION COMMUNITY THAT THE FAA RULE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN AN UNSATISFACTORY MANNER BECAUSE OF ITS COMPLEXITY AND SHORT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.

FOR THAT REASON ATA JOINED THE AIRPORT OPERATORS AND OTHER
INDUSTRY GROUPS IN PETITIONING SECRETARY SKINNER MARCH 15, 1989 TO
POSTPONE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULE SO THAT INTERESTED AVIATION
GROUPS CAN MEET WITH THE FAA TO FORMULATE A PLAN THAT WILL RESULT
IN THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW AIRPORT ACCESS CONTROL MEASURES IN THE
MOST EFFECTUAL MANNER. WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT SECRETARY SKINNER WILL
RESPOND FAVORABLY TO THAT REQUEST.

MOREOVER, AS NOTED EARLIER, WE BELIEVE THAT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM POSES THE MORE SEVERE THREAT TO CIVIL AVIATION AND THAT THAT THREAT IS FOCUSED AT THE 45 HIGH RISK AIRPORTS IN EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST AND FAR EAST. WE DO NOT MEAN TO MINIMIZE THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF U.S. AIRPORTS, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT IN THIS PERIOD OF FISCAL AUSTERITY SCARCE RESOURCES WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN RESPONDING TO THE PRIMARY THREAT AND UNDERTAKING THE MORE STUDIED APPROACH TO ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS RECOMMENDED TO THE SECRETARY.

AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR VIEWS ON H.R. 1659 AND ON THE GENERAL TOPIC OF AVIATION SECURITY, WE APPLAUD THE INITIATIVE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN THIS IMPORTANT SUBJECT AND WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Next, we will hear from a panel, Mr. Charles Barclay, Executive Vice President of the American Association of Airport Executives, and then Mr. Robert Wigington, Vice President, Governmental Affairs, for the Airport Operators Council International. The Chair would like to note for the record that Mr. Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director, Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airport Commission was to have testified, but he had a previous commitment in Minnesota with the State legislature, and that may be a much more exhausting experience than testifying here, since there are some very lively issues that the State legislature is engaged in right now.

We welcome you gentleman, and greatly apreciate your participation. The complete statement of the AAAE will be included in the record, and you may summarize, as you choose. I have already read it. It is a fine statement. It raises some very important questions.

TESTIMONY OF A PANEL CONSISTING OF CHARLES M. BARCLAY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES, AND ROBERT WIGINGTON, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL

Mr. BARCLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to just summarize our statement, and we appreciate it being put in the record.

The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that airport executives support the Aviation Security Act of 1989. We applaud the purpose and the intent of the legislation, and we appreciate the recognition that you have made for the airport needs, and the need for dedicated funding for the new security access rule.

I do have to mention, Mr. Chairman, that we have a future concern about the necessity of separate funding for these items. It is very important that we cannot pretend, that if we trade off safety and capacity needs for new security items, and we live under the current budget ceilings, that we have somehow improved the system with that slight of hand.

We just have made our problems compete with each other more vigorously. There is currently over at FAA over $7 billion in requests for capacity, safety, security, noise kinds of items that are needed by the system. These are for grant items such as firefighting and rescue vehicles, some for security systems, some very large capacity items that we all know about, that are affecting the system greatly. We cannot trade off those needs for security systems because today, security is on the front page, and safety and capacity are now in the back page of the current news.

So our key point, Mr. Chairman, is that we do need separate, distinct new funding, over and above current ceiling levels. We would ask the committee, that if it becomes apparent in the future, that we are just not going to be able to get ceilings raised from current budget levels, that Congress come back and reexamine the issue, or the possibility of a security surcharge to be mandated on all tickets, to pay for the needs of both airlines and airports for these new security items.