1/ Actual June 30, 1973 employment includes 91 retirements effective COB June 30. Normal attrition averages approximately 100 per month or 300 for the first quarter. There was relatively little attrition backfill during the first quarter, pending resolution of funding increased pay costs.

2/ Preliminary

3/ The employment level is predicated on the funding level included in the supplemental in addition to funds previously appropriated.

4/ Reflects interim employment restrictions.

3/

National Capital Airports Planned

Employment of Law Enforcement Officers and Concurrent Withdrawal of Customs Security Officers Washington National and Dulles International

NOTE:

Monthly withdrawal Schedule of Customs Security Officers is based on Estimated dates that trained National Capital Airports Officers will be ready for duty.

U.N. CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

Mr. CONTE. There was a recent American proposal made at a meeting of the U.N.'s Civil Aviation Organization which stipulates that passengers may not open luggage until they are in the presence of a customs or inspections officer. This, of course, is meant to avert another incident such as the Lod Airport attack in Israel. Do you support this idea, and have we begun to implement it?

Mr. MURPHY. As you know, Mr. Conte, our system screens passengers before boarding the aircraft and we have a fairly good assurance that weapons are not contained in the carry-on luggage. However, this procedure has been recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) when it is thought that greater security is necessary. In the event it is necessary, we would consider taking this action in addition to other appropriate measures. We have consulted with the Bureau of Customs concerning this problem and we are pleased with the actions customs has taken to adopt procedures, where possible, to assure that the passenger only opens his checked luggage at the customs inspection point.

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr. CONTE. You mention that the job of the customs security officers at these three non-Federal airports will be taken over by local law enforcement agencies. Have you found these agencies to be generally receptive to this idea? Have you had any problems?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, we have found them generally receptive and have had no problems at these three locations.

TRAINING SECURITY OFFICERS

Mr. CONTE. Have these new local law enforcement officers received any special training to prepare them for their duties?

Mr. MURPHY. Local law enforcement officers are, on the whole, trained police officers. In addition, the FAA is conducting a special course at its Oklahoma City facility for training at least one member of each airport police contingent in the special techniques of airport and preboard screening procedures. These people, in turn, return to their airports and train the remaining officers there.

Mr. CONTE. Are all of these 366 custom security officers going to be replaced on a 1-to-1 basis? Are these enough people to handle the job? What would be the ideal number?

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, these 366 CSO's will be replaced on a 1-to-1 basis by local law enforcement officers. The number of officers required at each location has been approved by the FAA in the individual airport security programs. At our last count, there were 3,937 local law enforcement officers performing preboard screening duties in addition to the CSO's assigned to the three non-Federal airports and the two FAA airports.

Mr. CONTE. What type of work transition programs do you have planned for the customs security officers and the support staffs who will be phased out of their present jobs?

[The information follows:]

The Customs Service of the Department of Treasury is attempting to place every person being phased out and avoid a RIF. They have been successful in

placing these people to date. The following is a list of the number of CSO's placed in other positions since the phasedown began:

Special agents, 152.

Customs inspectors, 150.

Customs patrol officers, 407.

Import specialists, 7.

Other customs positions, 5.

Other Government agencies, 127.

WAGE SCALES

Mr. CONTE. It is obvious that the present low Federal wage scale for law enforcement personnel will hurt your recruiting efforts for customs security officers at Washington National and Dulles International Airports. What is the latest report on your efforts to correct the situation? If you do get relief, do you think there will be an acrossthe-board increase for Federal law enforcement personnel, or do you think that a special case will be made for Washington National and Dulles Airports?

Mr. MURPHY. A number of alternatives are being explored to accomplish increased police pay rates. The FAA has reviewed bills already introduced by the Congress which would remove police officers from the GSA pay scale and place them under the Metropolitan District of Columbia police scale. In addition, a draft position description has been prepared upgrading all police officers from GS-5 to GS-7. In this regard, exploratory talks have been held with the CSC regarding this possibility and special pay rates. Even so, 18 policemen have been hired since last spring and we do expect additional candidates will be obtained as a result of our current hiring efforts. We would not venture to guess what the across-the-board effect will be for other Federal law enforcement personnel if our efforts are successful.

Mr. McFALL. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HIGHWAY USERS FEDERATION

Mr. McFALL. We have received a letter of testimony from D. Grant Mickle of the Highway Users Federation with regard to supplemental appropriations for highway safety. We will insert that letter at this point in the record.

[The letter follows:]

Hon. JOHN J. MCFALL,

HIGHWAY USERS FEDERATION,
November 7, 1973.

Chairman, Transportation Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The increasing number of fatal and injury accidents on the Nation's highways each year prompts us to urge that the supplemental appropriations measure for the Department of Transportation before your committee include full funding for the vital new safety programs authorized in the Highway Safety Act of 1973.

In our testimony before the House and Senate Public Works Committees on safety legislation earlier this year, we pointed out that some highway safety programs need more evaluation of their effectiveness before substantial increases in funding can be justified. At the same time, we urged that Congress give special emphasis to a family of highway-related safety improvements that have demonstrated lifesaving potential. The Congress did so, authorizing $200 million in the current fiscal year for improvements at high-hazard accident locations, elimina

tion of roadside obstacles, bridge_reconstruction and replacement, protection of rail-highway grade crossings and pavement marking demonstrations.

A growing body of experience points to the accident reduction payoff that can be achieved from work of this nature.

To a substantial degree, of course, many of these programs are carried out as parts of basic highway development and modernization programs. But, as the House Public Works Subcommittee on Investigations and Review noted in a recent report, these programs need far more emphasis. The Congress attempted to address this point in establishing the new categorical action programs in this year's legislation.

Evidence of the effectiveness of special emphasis safety programs comes from the Federal Highway Administration's report, the "Cost Effectiveness of Safety Improvement Projects," and California's annual evaluations of its special safety improvement programs. Both studies show that it is possible to make real progress in highway safety through carefully planned action programs. Without full funding of these new programs, up to the levels authorized in the Highway Safety Act, the full benefits of this safety work will not be realized, because roadway safety action programs will be forced to compete for the limited funds now available for other basic highway construction and improvement work.

We also believe that the incentive grants authorized in the act deserve full funding in this supplemental appropriations measure.

With many concerned organizations, we have long favored incentives rather than penalties as a way of encouraging States to undertake worthy safety activities.

Of all the safety measures currently available, fuller use of safety belts by vehicle occupants is likely to have the greatest immediate effect on fatalities and injuries—at the least cost to the taxpayer.

Many campaigns aimed at voluntary safety belt use have had limited effect. Mandatory seatbelt use laws, on the other hand, while of obvious merit, face opposition for a variety of reasons. The provision of the Safety Act which establishes incentives for States which pass belt use legislation provides State officials with a useful tool to stimulate public support.

As the House Public Works Committee said of this provision, "an incentive awards approach to encourage the early adoption by the States of mandatory seatbelt laws, in combination with additional incentives for fatality rate reductions, could constitute the greatest boon to highway safety ever enacted by the Congress." Without specific appropriations to carry this program forward, an important early stimulus to State legislation will not be availiable.

We strongly encourage the Congress to provide funding for these incentive grants and for the special programs which have demonstrated lifesaving value.

Sincerely,

D. GRANT MICKLE.