sponsor terrorism? We are talking about state-sponsored terrorism. We are not even talking about individual terrorism groups. We are talking about government-sponsored terrorism. There is a major difference.

Can you explain to me their attitude with that issue?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I share your views, but I would suggest to you that, again, they are our allies; and to attack them will not encourage them to make further steps in fighting terrorism. We must do it in partnership, and one does not attack one's partners, at least not in public. The enemy is Qadhafi.

But let me speak more specifically to your question. Some of these countries have a more difficult job in terminating their relationships with Libya than we do. We must be understanding of that, and we must not expect them to react instantly to our requests and our demands.

For example, Italy, has been very forthcoming in its progress toward reducing and terminating its relationships with Libya although Libya and Italy were each other's largest trading partners. They had a longstanding close relationship. All of Italy's oil, for all of its energy, came from Libya. Much of Italy's manufactured goods went to Libya. They had close trading relationships.

Those are things that cannot be terminated overnight; it is very difficult for Italy to do that. And yet, Prime Minister Craxi has been very tough on gradually closing down those activities. There were 20,000 Italians in Libya in January. There are now less than one-half that number. And many of the other countries have taken substantial steps in the 2 months since I appeared before the committee and brought you up to date on the situation.

So, progress has been made. Not enough progress, and we are pressing for more; but some progress has been made.

Ms. SNOWE. Well, Mr. Whitehead, I guess I sort of disagree with your assessment. I am pleased they are doing something. Clearly, it is not enough. Some of it is too little, too late.

We are having incidents every day, targets being American Embassies, American personnel, Americans traveling abroad, that is what we are talking about; I don't think that we have had a partnership with the European Community, not because of the fault of this administration. This administration has done everything it could to unite the alliance in that regard.

Unfortunately, they are not willing to understand that. So, in the meantime, it seems to me Mr. Qadhafi is emboldened by the support he is getting from other countries, and that is why we are seeing the kind of radicalism and terrorism being energized in recent days.

If the European Community had united itself in a public way rather than private conversations, perhaps we would not have these kinds of attacks occurring now. And we can expect dramatic escalation in the days and weeks ahead as a result.

While they are deliberating, slowly, tentatively, secretively, we are going to be attacked as Americans, particularly those who represent this country abroad. From that standpoint, I don't think we can afford to make the quiet congratulatory statements about their slow progress.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. We would like to focus for a minute on the fact it is the terrorists that are the enemy. It is not the allies that are the enemy. We need their cooperation. If we indict them too much, we will not get their cooperation. We desperately need their cooperation, as you have indicated.

We focus our attack on the people committing these acts against our citizens. They are the people to blame. We do seek the cooperation of all countries in the world to achieve that objective.

Ms. SNOWE. Do they recognize the serious problem that statesponsored terrorism represents; or is it because of the cutoff of tourism that has prompted their response, or the fact the United States engaged in a military response to Libya because they failed to join us in economic and political sanctions?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. It is all of those things. I wish it were just the first one, but the fact is that it is all of those things.

But, whatever the reason that brings them to the conclusion that they must fight terrorism, I believe they are beginning to join with us now and beginning to take actual measures, and we will do everything we can to press them to continue to do that.

Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Whitehead.

I have just one other question, Mr. Chairman.

LIMITING CARRY-ON LUGGAGE AND REQUIRING REDUNDANCY CHECKS Mr. Scocozza, Mr. Broderick, I wanted to ask you about carry-on luggage. We had individuals representing the aviation industry here last week. Captain Duffy, representing the Pilots Association, suggested this is a mandate that must come directly from the FAA.

I am concerned about carry-on luggage, and I think it should be limited to the degree possible. I think it does represent a security threat to commercial aviation, and I would like to have you address yourself to that.

Second, why aren't we requiring airlines to impose redundancy checks? El Al was only able to detect the bomb that the woman was carrying onto the plane because El Al has very stringent security measures. In fact, it is probably the most stringent security measures of any airline in the world. I think that is the direction the airlines should take.

I would like to have both of you address those two issues now. Mr. Scocozza. Congresswoman, I would like to cover it very briefly and hand it over to Mr. Broderick, who is an expert in the

area.

In terms of carry-on baggage, there is a very clear responsibility, not only with our new procedures that went into place, not only to make it go through electronic checking, but also to make a relatively discretionary physical search after it has gone through the electronic procedures.

As I mentioned, we do have enhanced security procedures for carry-on baggage, which I would be delighted to provide the committee today, that go a little bit more into detail in specific measures and procedures we are requiring, in Europe.

With respect to carry-on baggage, I might make just a small comment about the airlines' position about carry-on baggage. They have said that they have bought larger planes with more space,

more capacity, the overhead bins. I am sure everyone in this room has probably suffered through a bag falling on their head, like I have in the past. But that is one of the arguments: convenience to the passengers.

Our position is, if we can be absolutely sure that whatever is carried on does go through mechanical screening and is the subject of a physical search as well, then we would be prepared to monitor the situation very carefully.

I am sorry. The second part of your question?
Ms. SNOWE. The redundancy checks.

Mr. Scocozza. We do require redundant checks in certain highrisk airports where we feel that the electronic and security checks that are there are just unsatisfactory. As I mentioned earlier, it does in fact occur in Athens. It does, in fact, occur in several other European and Middle Eastern points.

I would like to turn it over to Mr. Broderick to go into detail into the carry-on baggage area and redundant screening.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, ASSOCIATE ADMINIS TRATOR FOR AVIATION STANDARDS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. BRODERICK. Yes, ma'am. We have, in fact, recently significantly tightened security at a number of European, Middle East, and South Asian airports. Those measures will be outlined in some detail in the material that we leave with you.

Let me just say there isn't one single answer at every airport. You have to apply the threat in the local situation and the availability of trained people and electronic equipment, all in a system, and make sure that that system achieves the objective that you seek.

The objective that we want is, of course, to prevent the unauthorized carriage of weapons and explosive devices. If we have to resort to elimination of carry-on baggage, we will do so.

Right now, we have in place extraordinary measures at a number of airports, most of the ones-in fact, all of the ones we have talked about today, which we are confident will be very effective not only in terms of examining carry-on luggage, but in a number of other things in terms of access to aircraft, screening of people who have access to the aircraft, and in fact searching the aircraft itself. They will be outlined here.

We will be happy to discuss it in more detail in another session. Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include my statement in the record.

Chairman FASCELL. Without objection, it will be included. [Ms. Snowe's statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE

Mr. Chairman, the hearing today comes at a true watershed in the international fight against terrorism. Last week, the United States demonstrated a new activism that I believe was necessary.

International terrorism has increasingly dominated the deliberations and actions of the International Operations Subcommittee ever since I became ranking Republican a year and a half ago. During that time, we have passed landmark legislation on foreign airport security, embassy security, and relief for victims of terrorism and

their families. But the underlying threat that has necessitated these legislative actions has dramatically increased.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the action taken by the President a week ago. And it would be difficult as well to overstate the admiration and gratitude of Americans for the support of the British when it most counted.

It is often said that terrorism is an international phenomenon that requires an international effort to defeat. This is true, but unfortunately the unanswered question still remains: how best can we build international cooperation? We worked for several years to bring the western nations together to develop a coherent policy to combat terrorism, to no avail. It has proven extremely difficult to solve this problem, even with irrefutable evidence of state sponsored terrorism. The European nations have consistently opposed all effective forms of economic and political sanctions. Had they joined us in these measures, the military action against Libya would not have been necessary.

In many ways the outcome was similar to the U.S. capture of the hijackers of the Achille Lauro. Both actions were technically successful, but the resulting factionalism within the alliance could only serve to further encourage acts of terrorism. Where was the moral outrage of the Europeans with the Berlin and TWA flight 840 bombings expressed in the same strong terms that many of them are condemning the U.S. today in its military response to Libya.

The Europeans must eventually face the reality that cowardice and passive submission to terrorists only leads to more terrorism. And to countenance countless acts of terrorists only leads to more terrorism. And to countenance countless acts of terrorism against Americans and others is to countenance these acts against all humanity, only with a clear and public demonstration of international resolve across the land can we change the political climate that allows terrorism to grow.

I look forward to Deputy Secretary Whitehead's comments on the current state of U.S. anti-terrorism policy, and particularly on the status of efforts to gain the cooperation of other European nations.

I hope that our witnesses from the FAA and Department of Transportation will explain exactly how we are addressing the heightened threat to commercial aviation. At last week's hearing, representatives of the U.S. airline industry staunchly defended the adequacy of existing security procedures. These procedures, I might say, are the same procedures that failed to detect the bomb that went off in TWA flight 840. And they almost certainly would have failed to detect the bomb that nearly got aboard an El Al flight out of London last Thursday.

It is clear that the industry will not voluntarily make any improvements on their own. Therefore, we look to you for leadership in thwarting this new threat to commercial aviation. I hope you will specifically comment on increased use of redundancy checks and tight limitations on carry on baggage.

I look forward to all of your comments.

Chairman FASCELL. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, let me personally commend you, Mr. Secretary, for your persistent and very effective action along these lines, as well as Secretary Shultz and the President.

Last Tuesday, I was the first Member on the floor commending our Government's action. I feel more strongly about it now than I did a week ago.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Thank you.

Mr. LANTOS. I have an observation and a question. Before I make the observation, I would like to respond to a question raised by my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Snowe.

LACK OF SUPPORT FOR U.S. ANTITERRORIST ACTIONS

The underlying reason why the action of our European allies and friends has been on the whole so profoundly disappointing is because Europe, in its leadership, has always had a tremendous surplus of Neville Chamberlains, and an incredible shortage of Sir Winston Churchills. We are again seeing the most recent manifestation of this tragic imbalance.

I would like to pursue the question of consistency and linkage in dealing with international terrorism. Yesterday, at the United Nations, a pro-Libyan resolution viciously denouncing us, saying nothing about the terrorist provocation, was passed 9 to 5. Several of the people representing countries who voted for the Libyan resolution are significant recipients of U.S. economic aid, including Thailand, Trinidad, Tobago, and others.

My hope is the administration will take strong action. I can assure you I will initiate strong action in the Foreign Affairs Committee to express in concrete terms our outrage at American aid recipients criticizing the United States for taking self-defensive action when its own citizens are assassinated.

I would like to pursue this a bit. To this date, Japan has not opened its mouth on international terrorism, or on the specific Libyan attempt to kill American citizens. I find it very distressing that when Prime Minister Nakasone was here at the very time this action took place, he has not yet seen fit, nor has the Foreign Minister, to voice the slightest criticism of Libya or the slightest support of our action.

I am sick and tired of Japan sitting on the fence on all of these issues. I hope that the upcoming summit will give the President an opportunity to express his views forcefully.

But I also must say, Mr. Secretary, that to be taken seriously, we ourselves have to be consistent. Our chairman talked earlier about the continuing permission given to oil companies to operate in Libya. I agree with Chairman Fascell-that we will watch very carefully how long these permits will be allowed to run and at what point will American citizens be told to get out.

I am disturbed that in a couple of hours your colleague, Secretary Murphy, will testify to the Europe and Middle East Subcommittee supporting major highly sophisticated arms sales to Saudi Arabia, when in fact Saudi Arabia is among the very nations that denounced our action and has given not the slightest recognition to the fact that American citizens are assassinated and threatened around the globe, partly by people funded by Saudi Arabia.

I hope you will carry back to the Secretary the plea that some of us have for consistency. If, in fact, international terrorism is as severe a threat as you and I agree it is, it is important for us to be consistent in not rewarding people who support it, finance it, or are acquiescing in it.

My only question, Mr. Secretary, is a very simple one. I hope you will comment on my observations.

Tomorrow, my colleague and I are introducing legislation to deny tax benefits to American citizens who continue working in countries which the Government has designated as countries that are engaged in state-supported terrorism.

Will the administration support our legislation, or will we continue to condone people who strengthen the Government of Libya by providing them with technical services, getting tax-free income up to $80,000 a year?

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Lantos, for some very thoughtful comments. You raised several issues, and I would like to comment on each of them, if I may.

H