The airport operator, the other key player in the United States system, is responsible for establishing and maintaining a secure ground environment into which the aircraft come and go, and they are also responsible for arranging for the presence of local law enforcement to put some muscle behind the programs as needed. So I think that arrangement has worked well.

When we are talking about today's threat, though, I think it is important to note that the major threat is sabotage, and the major threat is overseas. That's where we need the additional help of our Government in the form of FAA security inspectors, who are very, very talented and can really be of major assistance. We're not talking about the FAA inspector performing the duties of the airline in terms of conducting screening and baggage inspection, but the airlines operate overseas in a foreign environment. They operate at the pleasure of host governments and airport authorities. The FAA presence at those locations can provide a great service in dealing with the host governments and making sure that the security programs at that airport are adequate and proper so that that chore is not left to the individual airlines to do one-on-one with the foreign governments.

The mere fact that the FAA is there will communicate a very, very significant deterrent. It will communicate to those nations, and hopefully to terrorists, that where U.S. flag carriers fly they fly with the full protection of the United States Government. So their presence is a significant deterrent and their activities can be of great benefit to oversee the adequacy of and necessity for security programs to protect U.S. airline operations.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Then in the overseas role you would see the intelligence-gathering agencies and the FAA together as a front line of defense, providing information and guidance for the airline companies and the airport operators overseas who can act on that information?

Mr. LALLY. Yes, sir, but I think it can go beyond that. Again, it's not to assume the airlines' responsibilities, but if we have a threat that is identified and a threat that is being responded to, then if there is a "hit," so to speak, in responding to that threat where something is found, something is suspicious, I think that the presence of the FAA people can help in responding to that specific threat not only individually as FAA inspectors, but jointly with the airlines and with the host governments.

I see more of not only technical assistance, not only intelligence, not only international liaison, but I see some hands on, shoulder-toshoulder kind of activities that can be conducted with the airlines. Mr. OBERSTAR. Very good.

How much of investment are the carriers making in security? And how much of an investment-if the Airport Operators Council could tell us this-are the airports themselves making in security? I know that each has a unique role, each fits into the security picture in a different way, that each is making substantial investments.

Mr. LALLY. I can only give you an industry estimate that is based, really, on two figures. One, the costs associated with the passenger screening process in the United States alone is estimated at approximately $250 million. If were to add the costs beyond passen

ger screening, particularly with the extraordinary measures being conducted abroad, I would estimate that the cost is at least in the $500 million range. I can't provide a more precise estimate and I doubt that anyone could provide it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do the airport operators have a separate comment?

Mr. JACKSON. The airport operators also have a considerable amount involved in airport security. Although we do not become involved with passenger screening per se, we are responsible for supplying and furnishing the location for that screening. The overall airport security program belongs to the airport operator and costs many thousands of dollars per year to operate, as well as the initial cost of implementation and facilities.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do the airport operators and the airline companies play a role with the FAA in developing technology to deal with the security threats, such as magnetometers and the thermal neutron analysis and vapor detection systems and others? Are you called in for counsel or in some kind of advisory role with the FAA in this respect?

Mr. FITZGERALD. I could speak to that for the situation at Kennedy Airport.

We have established our own Airport Security Council that addresses these issues on a monthly basis. It brings together all of the interested agencies on the airport, the FAA included, the airlines, and the Port Authority, and we address issues of security.

I think in terms of the R&D effort, however, we do rely on the FAA to spend the bulk of the funds to develop the product, but I feel we have had a very adequate opportunity to comment on those and to offer our opinions as to what we think the airport operating problems would be as those kinds of products are developed.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. I think that's very important.

My time has expired.

At this point, as I indicated at the outset of the hearing, we will take testimony from our colleague, Congressman Burton, who is here after breaking other committee responsibilities. We would like you to take your place at the witness table.

We thank you very much for being with us today and for interrupting your schedule to rejoin the committee. We welcome your testimony. We know that you have introduced legislation dealing with this matter, and this is your opportunity to discuss it with us.

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM INDIANA

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee very much for giving me an opportunity to discuss my legislation and the reasons for it.

Mr. Chairman, terrorist attacks against civilian airlines have increased dramatically in the last decade. Plastic explosives have become the weapon of choice for international terrorists in the 1980s. The horrible explosion that killed 273 passengers on Pan Am Flight 103 last December over Scotland was widely believed to be caused by plastic explosives concealed in a radio.

Plastic explosives were also blamed for previous air disasters, including Korean Flight 858 in November, 1987, which killed 115 people; a TWA Athens-bound airliner in 1985, which killed 3; and an Air India jet that same year which killed 329.

Earlier this month the brutality of terrorism was brought home. The wife of the Commander of the U.S.S. Vincennes narrowly escaped death when a pipe bomb exploded in her van. This explosion shattered the myth that terrorists won't attack within the continental United States.

Plastic explosives have increasingly created a terrifying dilemma for American airport officials. Although new technology is being developed, plastic explosives can be easily concealed from current x-ray machines used to screen carry-on luggage and passengers. Explosives such as the widely-used Semtex can be camouflaged in everyday possessions like cans of shaving cream or tubes of toothpaste. Semtex can be set off by a detonator no bigger than a matchstick. These detonators are very difficult to identify and can easily escape unnoticed.

Fortunately, Semtex gives off an odor that can be detected by trained dogs. My legislation would amend the Federal Aviation Act to require the use of so-called "sniffer dogs" at major international airports in the United States to detect plastic explosives. The dogs would be available to check all baggage on any airline which has received a recent terrorist threat, or for random use throughout the airport security area.

Obviously, there are not enough dogs to check every single piece of luggage, but the mere presence and I want to emphasize that, Mr. Chairman-the mere presence of these dogs, especially if given a high profile, would help deter terrorists from placing explosives in carry-on luggage.

The FAA is now developing more sophisticated instruments, as you have heard today, to detect plastic explosives. A Thermal Neutron Analysis System, commonly known as TNA, has been invented to uncover sophisticated plastic explosives in checked luggage. However, according to the FAA, it will take at least one year before TNAs are available to all major airports, and they will cost approximately $750,000 each.

Screening passengers and their carry-on luggage is a more pressing need. A vapor detector is now being devised for this purpose but it is still another two to three years away. Each vapor detector will cost approximately $125,000.

Covering all 25 major international airports will eventually require 66 TNAs and about 200 vapor detectors. The total estimated cost of this would be around $74.5 million.

What will be used to detect plastic explosives until these machines can be fully implemented? Dog teams would be a practical way to fill the current security void in a cost-efficient manner. I might add that the FAA is using sniffer dogs to some degree right

now.

The total cost of providing two teams for each of the 25 major airports would be roughly $2 million. This takes into account the initial $10,000 cost of training each dog team, the salaries of the officers who will handle the dogs, and the upkeep of the dogs. This is substantially less than the $75 million which will be spent on the

new systems. I'm not saying we don't need the new systems, but as an interim measure, Mr. Chairman, I think this would be very beneficial and would deter many terrorists.

The bottom line is this, Mr. Chairman. We must take preventive measures now before more Americans are murdered. The new technology being developed is reassuring for the future, but we cannot leave ourselves vulnerable to terrorist attacks while we wait. We need sniffer dogs, and we need them now.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for that recommendation and for the time and effort he has devoted to this subject. We welcome all the counsel and guidance that we can get on this issue. As I understand it, your legislation is a directive to the airport operators. Is that correct?

Mr. BURTON. Yes, and the FAA. Yes, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR. And you include the FAA in this. I think the FAA probably has all the authority they need to institute that procedure. They probably would tell us, but we will ask them in executive session later today whether they need any more money to do

so.

But you are proposing a much less costly alternative or option, and one that we certainly shall pursue.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I talked with the FAA people in my office last week. As I said before, it would cost approximately $2 million for this initial phase of sniffer dogs.

I don't suggest or recommend that this take the place of the new technology being developed, but as I said in my statement, it is going to be one to three years before this new technology is actually put into place in these various airports.

It is my contention that during this one to three year period we need to be doing something. Sniffer dogs do work. They are being used to some degree by the FAA right now, and I think they should be used more extensively-not only to catch terrorists, but as a deterrent. If you see those dogs in these airports, even though they work on a limited scale, I think it would be a real deterrent to terrorists who might try to put those explosives on planes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Earlier today we raised the issue and explored the deterrent effect of taking all those precautionary measures that are wise and prudent and sensible, some of which are visible to the public, that in and of themselves operate as deterrents. So we shall pursue this matter further.

Are there questions of our witness? The gentleman from California?

Mr. PACKARD. One quick question, Mr. Chairman.

Much of our problem is overseas airports. Would you suggest that we put our own dogs there, or that we cooperate with foreign airport operators? Or how do you suggest we deal with that? Or are you only looking at domestic problems?

Mr. BURTON. My legislation, Representative Packard, is for airports within the continental United States. But I would suggest that we should seek to work with foreign governments to use sniffer dogs in those airports which are considered high risk, and there are many of them overseas, during the interim period between now and when we get this new technology on line.

So yes, I would suggest that the committee pursue negotiations with foreign governments to use the same type of operation there as well as in the United States.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman from Tennessee?

Mr. CLEMENT. You mentioned, concerning these sniffer dogs_and relating that to the McCurdy bill, how much it would cost. As I understand it you are only talking about using those sniffer dogs in 25 major airports where, I believe, Congressman McCurdy was talking about 71 hubs in the United States. So we're not necessarily talking about the same territory that would be covered.

Mr. BURTON. Well, the 25 airports to which I referred are involved primarily with international flights. They are the major international airports in the United States. But I have no objection to using sniffer dogs at many of our domestic airports because I believe that terrorists in the future might very well attack a domestic flight flying people to and from major cities within the continental United States.

So in the short run, the next one to three years, I think we should have them at least at these 25 major international airports, but I would not object to spending an extra $2 million to $4 million to have them at the other airports, as well.

Mr. CLEMENT. Now, for what purposes are these sniffer dogs going to be used?

Mr. BURTON. Well, they would be where the metal detector device is at the gate when the luggage goes through there. They would be there to sniff, if you will, the various pieces of luggage coming through there to try to detect plastic explosives that may be concealed in those bags.

Mr. CLEMENT. What about these pipe bombs?

Mr. BURTON. We have been told that the sensitivity of the sniffer dogs to these plastic explosives is such that they can be detected even within metal containers.

Mr. CLEMENT. But you are also saying that just by the presence of the dog, being there in itself would deter-▬

Mr. BURTON. I think it's a two-fold deterrent. These dogs only work for given periods of time; I won't go into the exact time because you may want to talk about that in closed testimony, but some of these dogs work for a limited period of time. But the very presence of the dogs, or dogs on a leash at the airport that may not be doing the sniffing, would be a deterrent. If you were a terrorist and you were going to put a plastic explosive on a plane and you knew that there were sniffer dogs at many of our airports, and you saw a dog on a leash with a security guard, I think you would be a little reluctant to take that device through the entrance to that plane.

Mr. CLEMENT. Now, when you were talking to the FAA did they say they were going to do this at the 24 airports?

Mr. BURTON. No. The FAA indicated that they use sniffer dogs now, but not for carry-on baggage. They use them to spot-check international flights behind the scenes when the bags are brought down to be put on the plane.

I was urging them to use the sniffer dogs in a highly visible way to deter terrorists, as well as to pick up terrorist bombs that might be getting through these devices.