The identification of those nations will be a refreshing shot of honesty in the mendacious world of international politics. Is there any one in this room who could not identify at least a couple of such nations right now? There is no question that they do exist; the odor they produce is, however, tastefully ignored. Legitimate armed conflict between nations is, unfortunately, an acceptable practice. There are few among us who have not personally experienced the scourge of war. There are, however, international limits set on such legal carnage. They are referred to as the Rules of War. Terrorist attacks on innocent people, citizens of non-involved nations and international air commerce should not be targets for military action. American citizens flying in U.S. registered aircraft are not legitimate targets. Those who consider them such are outlaws and should be branded as such. They should not enjoy the benefits of friendship and trade with decent nations. We believe that the stigma of being labeled an offending nation, an outlaw, may have a salutary effect upon the decent people within such nations who may be motivated to expunge such a slur.

The mere identification of offending nations is obviously not enough. In our society we not only identify criminals, we also provide appropriate punishments for their crimes. Mr. Chairman, this matter before you is no different and the sanctions proposed in the bill provide appropriate punishment which in our view is neither "cruel or unusual."

We are cognizant though that the application of sanctions is a serious and sometimes awesome act, an act which must be authorized and carried out with

great deliberation and care. There are concerns being expressed that "automaticallyimposed sanctions" might prove to be precipitous, and not in the best interests of

the United States.

We would hope that this concern which we have heard expressed will be thoughtfully considered by this Committee and that you will diligently seek some middle ground between "automatic" sanctions and "no" sanctions.

In dealing with other provisions of S. 2236, I would offer the following

Comments:

1) We welcome the provision which establishes a high priority for
negotiating international agreements on the control of terrorism.

we stated earlier, bilateral action is perhaps the most effective
manner to combat terrorism. Such bilateral agreements have the
effect of obliging a nation to declare its position publicly.

As

2) The creation of a permanent international working group to combat
terrorism is a very practical and useful step. We suggest, however,
that were this group formed under the auspices of the United Nations,
it would become yet another forum for political banditry and thus, be
doomed from the outset. Instead, we would hope that such a working
group be initiated by the State Department, inviting participation from
those nations known to be responsibly concerned with the subject.

3) While we applaud the emphasis placed on obtaining compliance with
existing international conventions, we suggest that serious attempts to
obtain compliance through the process of diplomatic persuasion and bilateral
agreements may accelerate the attainment of the goals stated in this bill.
4) The establishment of safety standards for U.S. nuclear exports, supplies,
technology, and fuel, and the establishment of a formal mechanism to deal
with physical safety and protection of nuclear facilities and materials is
long overdue. The safety and security of nuclear supplies and technology
has long been of deep concern to our Association. Our members have had first

hand experience of how poorly this has been accomplished in the past. We have seen more attention given to the security of valuable cargo, such as bullion or paintings, the value and importance of which pales into insignificance when compared to the mass destruction one small package of plutonium in the wrong hands represents.

5) The provision which calls for establishing the taking of hostages as an international crime is the briefest part of the bill. It only requires ten words to state it. Those ten words may be the heart of this proposed legislation, for international agreement on this point would delete the greatest weapon from the arsenal of terrorists.

Obviously, there are a few who are prepared to sacrifice themselves, but experience has shown that most seek sanctuary to escape the lawful consequences of their crimes. Although this is the simplest part of the bill, we do fear that it will be the most difficult to accomplish.

This should

not deter us, however, from striving to attain that objective. 6) The requirement for restrictions on the sale and transfer of arms or munitions and the tagging of explosives during manufacture are sound practical steps, long overdue. Were such tags in existence on all explosives right now, we would be much closer to solving the problem of aircraft sabotage.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would like to add our strong endorsement to the provision of S. 2236 designed to extend existing safety and security requirements to supplemental carriers and charter operations. We have repeatedly pressed for one level of security for all commercial

s within the United States.

Charters, inter- and intrastate

enger operations should all be subject to the same rules, for

t only are they equally vulnerable to attack, they can also introduce uncleared passengers into "sterile" flight operations areas in which scheduled airline operations are conducted. We are aware of the vehement protests made by many charter and commuter operations who argue that they cannot afford security. It is an unhappy fact of life that if one operates almost any kind of business, security has become another cost of doing business. We must not permit feeble economic arguments to jeopardize and contaminate the carefully constructed security system we have in place at our airports. Too many people labored too long to achieve this proven effective system to permit this to happen.

Mr. Chairman, by now you no doubt recognize that we are in favor of the kinds of tough provisions proposed in this bill. As airline pilots, we are pleased with the positive effect it will have upon the security of our passengers, crews and aircraft. We are also pleased, because it goes further into the broader and even more dangerous area of rule by terror. We are fortunate to live in a great and free country, something we will fight to maintain. We would like to fly throughout the world in the same great, free environment.

we will fight to obtain.

That's something

We thank you sincerely for your initatives in presenting this bill and for giving us the opportunity to speak to it. We are available for any questions you may wish to ask.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Mr. James Landry, accompanied by Harry J. Murphy and John Steele, please.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. LANDRY, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY J. MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY AND JOHN H. STEELE, CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF SECURITY, TRANSWORLD AIRLINES

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Clausen, I will attempt to summarize my statement. I would appreciate it very much if the full statement is put in the record.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Without objection, the entire statement will go in the record at the conclusion of your testimony.

Mr. LANDRY. I'm James Landry and I'm vice president and general counsel of the Air Transport Association of America, a trade association representing virtually all of the scheduled airlines of the United States. I'm accompanied here this morning by Mr. Harry J. Murphy, the association's director of security, and Mr. John Steele, director of security at TWA.

I should mention, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. John Willis, the director of security of Pan American is here in the hearing room and should the committee have any questions directed to Pan American security procedures, he will be happy to respond.

These airline officials, and their counterparts throughout the scheduled airline industry, have dedicated their efforts over the last several years to achieving the highest possible level of security for U.S. airline operations worldwide. Most importantly, they have not been alone in striving toward that goal; they have worked side by side with equally dedicated security experts in our Government, with the strong encouragement of the Congress and every administration, in what has been described as one of the finest examples of Government-industry cooperation in many years.

This common task, unfortunately, appears destined to be an unending one in today's society. That is why we are pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the Omnibus Antiterrorism Act of 1977, and we commend the Committee on Governmental Affairs for calling these hearings and focusing on legislative changes "to strengthen Federal programs and policies for combating international and domestic terrorism."

The member carriers of ATA have consistently supported several of the measures embodied in provisions of S. 2236 and we are grateful to see their proposed enactment into law.

In my statement, we dwell at some length on the scope of the problem that is before you and express our continuing determination to see these acts brought to an end. For that reason we appreciate this particular hearing. I think it would be desirable for the record also to focus on what has been done to date.

The aviation-related aspects of terrorism represent a matter of serious concern to the airline industry as well as governments. The deterrent programs in place today were developed by the aviation industry in conjunction with governments. All U.S. carriers operate.