Colonel GORRELL, I think that has enabled the Government to keep abreast and ahead, but there is one point of confusion that has risen all of the time, and I would like to mention it. It arose 20 years ago and arises again today. No one airplane will do everything best. All engineering is a compromise. If you want an airplane that will lift heavy loads, it will not climb rapidly. If you want one thing, you cannot always get the other thing. Some people say that England, for example, has a better pursuit plane than we have. Well, she ought to have, because we have to build our planes to fight over long distances, maybe fly over oceans or over Africa, or over Europe or Asia. The planes we have are just as good as the British, but the British have one other problem we do not have. They have the problem of taking off and climbing quickly above their own territory and fighting for a few minutes, and coming right down again, and consequently they can reduce the fuel load down to a very low point, not more than one and a half hours' supply from the time they take off until they return to their base. All excess weight is saved, and can be utilized in making the planes climb higher and faster. Of course, a specialized type can always be built better than a generalized type of airplane. So, England ought always to build the specialized type to keep the Germans from raiding London, let us say, and that ought to be better than any generalized type we might turn out. Mr. BOREN. Colonel, fundamentally, the policy that you refer to with reference to Government subsidy and Government encouragement and spurs, and various illustrations you have given, is really the advocacy of a continuation of the policies already established. Colonel GORRELL. Absolutely. Mr. BOREN. Even the C. P. T. program; the meteorological study program; the mechanical training program; all of which this committee and the Congress has authorized, those have been implemented in the form of an indirect subsidy by the Government. Colonel GORRELL. That is the next point I was going to make, in answer to a question by Mr. Wolverton. I think that you were chairman of a subcommittee, Mr. Boren, which provided for students to study in meteorology. That law expires at the close of the war. My judgement is that you should make that part of your permanent legislation so that you will not lose everything you have gained in that connection. That idea is true as to the training of pilots and mechanics, and so on. Mr. BOREN. That becomes a concrete suggestion in line with the thought pursued by Mr. Wolverton and to carry further the splendid thoughts brought out by his questioning a minute ago, fundamentally, the situation summarized is that the thing we should do, as a Congress, is maintain the policies we have established, plus, at this time, taking the recommendations outlined in this bill and in this C. A. B. 1942 Annual Report, with such other things as may work into such a specific suggestion as you have just made, and then these things represent all that can be done toward the solution of these war problems in the post-war period we are talking about at this very time. Is that not true? 83838-43- -10 Colonel GORRELL. Yes; they represent all we can think of now. I have no thought, other than what you have mentioned just now, until somebody else says something else first. Mr. BOREN. This bill is the concrete thing that we have been talking about, is it not? It covers what you have in mind? Colonel GORRELL. It looks to me like a piece of post-war legislation. Mr. BOREN. I think that is it. That is what I had in mind when I asked awhile ago about the directive, plus the citation I gave when I referred to page 23. That is one particular phase of the problem that looks to me like is covering concrete treatment of post-war problems, and I believe that we have that here, Mr. Wolverton. I will not pursue that line of thought any further. Mr. WOLVERTON. May I ask what report you refer to? Mr. BOREN. I am referring to the report of the Civil Aeronautics Board made to this committee at this committee's direction. Mr. WOLVERTON. I thought that that was the case. Colonel GORRELL. You are referring to lines 12 to 15 on page 23 of the bill? Mr. BOREN. I was, a moment ago. Colonel GORRELL. I think that is very important. America today is flying through Alaska on very vital missions by virtue of the air lines coming to you and suggesting that you should let some civilians do that. This bill tells a Government agency to see to it that progress of that kind is maintained in the future. Mr. BOREN. The thought I wanted to clarify here is that you have to tie that provision on to the directive we are giving the authority here for forward planning, to put those two provisions together. It is one of the things that amounts to concrete thinking that we are putting into this bill that heretofore we have left out such as we did the contract carrier proposition which we left partly unbuttoned, for the simple reason that it was not yet the right time to treat the problem. Such a right time is now approaching, in the essence of things. I thought that there was something concrete, in connection with the questions that Mr. Wolverton was asking you, and the conclusion as I see it, and the reason that I bring it up is that I wanted to ask you if there were any more conclusions than we have here presented in these two docouments. If so, that is what we want to hear about. But, these are the conclusions that are bound to come out of the trend of thought he had in mind in his examination. Colonel GORRELL. I would suggest that you have a provision in your bill somewhere where you provide that the Government men responsible must come to you annually or otherwise and tell you their views on air navigation facilities instead of letting someone else stop them off. You have obtained progress in the islands of the Pacific, only because of the fact that some civilian came up and talked to you and the same is true of Alaska. Your own Government experts should take the initiative in these matters. Mr. BOREN. We provided that very avenue in the act of 1938 to prevent certain circumventions and that may have been overcome, so far as effective control is concerned, by the reorganization. I think that that is treated here. Colonel GORRELL. On pages 9 and 10 of H. R. 1012 you spell it out pretty well. Mr. BOREN. That is what I thought. One specific question, Colonel, and I will have concluded. Mr. Pogue, when he was on the stand, referred to the recommendation that the Civil Aeronautic Board makes on page 15 with reference to the power to initiate new routes, and that, it appears to me, is related both to domestic and to the international picture so far as what policy we might adopt is concerned, and I believe that he limited his statement up to date to the suggestion of the authorization of new routes, and I wanted to ask you if you could see any reason why we should not go a step further than that, in this legislation, and authorize the Government through the Civil Aeronautics Board, to compel the establishment of a new route when such study had been made and it was found to be in the national interest to establish such a route. I am thinking rather than expressing a studied thought, so I may not have expressed it well, but if the point is clear, I would like to have you discuss that. Colonel GORRELL. I wish that you had asked Mr. Pogue that question, sir. I have not thought of the possible implications, but I will give you an offhand personal reaction. Sometimes somebody has to take action to make one do something he doesn't want to do. I will illustrate that to you. For example, suppose a few years ago you had heard about these Japanese fishing parties up in Bristol Bay. It would have been a wise thing for our Government to put a new route in say from Nome to Bethel and then down past Bristol Bay. Now, maybe not so very many people would have wanted to fly that route, because the weather is bad. The autumns and springs are bad, and there is no traffic. But if we had had those routes we might have stopped the Japanese from doing some of the things that later on we found out they were doing. Mr. BOREN. If we leave it entirely to the mercy of the domestic or international carriers, as this thing is here expressed, it is only on the basis of an authorization. Of course, any power to compel should be carefully limited on the point of recompense and compensation, and other things; but it seems to me that perhaps going that other step would be very vital in the whole subject of post-war planning. Mr. BOREN. But then you would not find any real objections from the industry standpoint, provided the policy was laid down as a proper policy, with proper safeguards, to adding the word "compel," would you? Colonel GORRELL. I would assume there ought to be proper safeguards, such as the right to judicial review. And, as I say, I have not thought through all the possible implications of the suggestion. Speaking internationally, the idea might contain grave complications. Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, may I say Mr. Pogue is apparently interesting himself in this question to the point apparently of wishing to say something, and if agreeable, I would like for us to hear him. Colonel GORRELL. May I say that I have never discussed this with Mr. Pogue. I do not know how the Board feels about it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have something to suggest, Mr. Pogue? Mr. POUGE. I will just take one word. I am trying to say exactly what Congressman Boren has said and would mention that the additional authorization which we are requesting is the power to compel, because we have, since 1938, had the power not only to authorize upon application but also the power to amend an application on our own initiative, without an application for the amendment. This goes further and says when a brand new route seems, from the point of view of the Government, to be required, the Government should be in a position to compel its establishment with, of course, a proper provision for recompense. Mr. BOREN. The language in your recommendation, page 15, I believe it is, plus the language in the bill does not quite make that clear to me. I can see the conditions of authorization, but I was just wondering if we should not push it right on to the point of compelling. Mr. POGUE. I think that is quite right. It is not in the bill. I recommended that in my testimony a day or two ago, because I thought it should be in the bill. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'HARA. That would be, Mr. Pogue, an entirely new thought in common carrier regulation, would it not? Mr. POGUE. To a limited extent it would. In the railroad field there has been authority to compel reasonable extensions. That, it has been held, has definite limits in the railroad field, but there the situation is somewhat different, because in the railroad field they do it at their own expense, and if it is a losing proposition it is just too bad. Under the Civil Aeronautics Act, the Board is directed to fix air mail rates at whatever level may be necessary to see the carrier through. Mr. O'HARA. Just following that up a step further, of course that must necessarily couple up with the Government subsidy? Mr. POGUE. That is correct. That is just what I meant to indicate by my last remark. Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren. Mr. BOREN. The point I wanted to emphasize in this trend of questioning around what I conceive to be an important authority there, relates back to their recommendations with reference to the power to negotiate new routes, is again getting into the meat of this question of post-war planning and when you think of it in connection with this power to negotiate new routes and implement them, with the policies we are here directing to meet our future needs, domestically and internationally, does not that become an extremely vital part of what we have been referring to as post-war planning and the postwar problem? Is not that concrete? Do we not have here brought out a concrete matter that might well be vital internationally as well as nationally? Colonel GORRELL. As to that last point you made, I do not say this will be probable, but it is conceivable that, if you continue with reciprocal trade treaties, America might say to some other country, "We will take your merchandise, and in return give you air lines." Then you would have to have somebody willing to fly the air lines. That is a condition where the problem you speak of might arise. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Winter. Mr. WINTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boren made the inquiry that I had in mind. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Colonel. Colonel GORRELL. Mr. Chairman, the next point that I would like to take up is this matter of intrastate commerce. INTRASTATE COMMERCE In sections 3, 6, and 7 of the bill there are included changes in the definitions of the terms "air commerce," "interstate, overseas, and foreign air commerce," and "interstate, overseas, and foreign air transportation," as set forth in the Civil Aeronautics Act. The effect of the proposed change in definitions is to extend the Civil Aeronautics Act, with respect both to safety and economic_regulation, to include all operations within a given State as well as between States or with other countries. This problem should be considered along with the proposed new section 802 (a) of the Civil Aeronautics Act which appears on page 43 of the bill. The new section 802 (a) would prohibit a State from regulating or impeding air commerce as defined in the act. I am not a lawyer, but later on if you want legal testimony, I would be glad to have some one go on the stand-and I shall not endeavor to discuss the constitutional problems, if any, involved in this proposal. I will, however, address myself to the desirability and, indeed, necessity for amending the act along these lines. The question whether the Federal Government should regulate all activities in the air space to the exclusion of the States has long been discussed. Interestingly enough, the very first bill, so far as I know, providing for regulation of flight proposed regulation of all flight everywhere in the air space by the Federal Government. I refer to a bill introduced on April 21, 1913, in the Sixty-Third Congress by Senator Penrose, S. 1295, and a companion bill introduced by Congressman Vare, H. R. 3916. That was in 1913. Then during the discussions in the country at large and in the Congress which finally led to the Air Commerce Act of 1926, there were repeated references to the possibility and to the desirability of regulation by the Federal Government of all aeronautical activity. As a matter of fact, while the point was never, so far as I know, authoritatively decided, it appears that in sections 3 (e), 10 and 11 (a) (5) of the Air Commerce Act of 1926, Congress intended that the Secretary of Commerce adopt and enforce air traffic rules throughout the navigable air space. And in hearings on one of the civil aeronautics bills in 1938, before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, there is a very interesting colloquy between Senators McCarran, Truman, and Schwartz which will bear repeating here: Senator MCCARRAN. * * I believe, gentlemen of the committee, that if not now, very shortly in this science and in this industry we will come to a |