.

(After discussion off the record :) Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. I have one other question in mind. It is rather fundamental I think, and I would like to know whether it is your thought that the Congress should simply furnish the legislation to permit the airplane manufacturers and the air lines to develop themselves, or whether it is your idea that the Government should subsidize—as I believe you mentioned the Government in connection with the development of engines.

Colonel GORRELL. I am guessing at what the post-war studies will produce for you, sir. If I may answer your question, as to the future, if I am able to do so, I will be glad to.

Congress has started all modes of transport by some form of subsidy through payments for the transportation of mail by the Post Office Department, whether pony express, the canal boats, or the railroads, or airlines. By that method they have built up modes of transport and trade.

You started the airlines with a form of subsidy in 1926. At that time the principal payment to them, 70 or 80 percent or more, was from the Post Office Department. They were subsidized. Today some of them have become self-supporting without the mail and truly are out of the subsidy class. Some of them are not yet in that category.

When the war is over, where you will have to compete with large airplanes against foreign nations seeking trade by airlines, as they do with their steamships today, you will probably have to go back temporarily into subsidy for the time being to start it. Thereafter, aviation will again get out of the subsidy class, just as some of the airlines today are out of the subsidy class. The whole thing is tied into what deal our Government makes at the end of the war. There is one type of deal you can make, the kind where you keep the other fellow out of the territory from which you are going to get your cargo and then control the number of bottoms-airplanes-so that there will not be so many ships available. In that case you would not have much subsidies.

Mr. BROWN. It might depend upon how many air bases were given or we would have courage to demand.

Colonel GORRELL. And it would depend upon who was at the peace table and what they did there, sir.

I think the studies by the Board as contemplated under the provisions of this bill would cover both sides of that question.

Mr. BROWN: I think these are fundamental questions, and I am interested in your reactions to them.

A fundamental question is whether the Government should assume the responsibility for developing air transportation and pay therefor, or whether we should simply pass legislation that will enable private industry, private enterprise, and private initiative, to develop the air transport system both in our own country, intracountry, and outside of our country, internationally.

Colonel GORRELL. Mr. Brown, I think the question propounded to you gentlemen is this: "Can America afford not to do it?"

As I said this morning, if all of the subsidy you have paid for civil aviation since the beginning were lumped together, and if the

airplane shortens this war by less than a week, maybe even a couple of days, you have got your money back.

Mr. BROWN. Your answer indicates then that we should follow the policy

Colonel GORRELL (interposing). I think that America cannot defend its future without a great fleet of aircraft, and that we had better use those aircraft in a way that we can get a return on the money so that it will not cost us so much.

For example-you should ask Mr. Hinshaw about this. I heard him talk on this. He knows more about it than I do, sir. For example, when our Army's Air Force was only about 400 airplanes as it was a few years ago, it was costing Uncle Sam about $50,000,000 to maintin about 400 or 500 airplanes. That was because you have to have the airports; you had to have quarters for the officers, barracks for the privates, and men to "whitewash the buildings," cut the lawns and all of those things. About $50,000,000 was your cost for maintaining around 400 Army airplanes. Yet at the same time the airlines had about that number of planes and the deficit to the Post Office Department's appropriation that year was only $400,000. So, it is infinitely cheaper if you must have them, to have some method of getting a return on the investment.

Mr. BROWN. I asked you this question, because as I said a moment ago, I think it is fundamental, and because I consider you to be the outstanding authority of the Nation on matters of air transportation, and I think it is one of the big questions we have to decide first before we proceed with the minor details of working out an air program.

Colonel GORRELL. I think, sir, your studies will bring you information on both sides and then you can make up your mind; but my own opinion as I stand here today is that no country can ever again neglect its Air Force. If we had had a proper Air Force, we might have stopped the beginning of this war-even before it began.

Mr. BROWN. Of course, I am talking now more about civil or commercial aviation, than I am of military aviation.

Colonel GORRELL. Civil aviation is an integral part of your fighting equipment; your airlines are your "merchant marine" of the air. Mr. BROWN. The airlines have been used to a great extent by the Army and Navy?

Colonel GORRELL. Oh, yes. You could not have a Navy without the merchant marine to supply it, the tankers to carry oil, and all of those things. Yould could not have a Navy without a merchant marine. You cannot have an air force without its merchant marine of the air.

Mr. BROWN. For a great many years we did not support our merchant marine by any subsidy.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes, sir; I remember the merchant marine days, and the way we fell behind after the Civil War.

Mr. BROWN. That is exactly what I want to bring out here in connection with your testimony.

Colonel GORRELL. Here, we have considerations such as this. Just a few months ago the air line industry was notified to get ready for an attempt at an invasion of America. The Army used a number of our air transport planes and moved things from one coast to the other, and were ready for the threat. Our country met the enemy

on very short notice and stopped and licked him and if it had not been for the airplane, because the enemy was thousands and thousands of miles away. America might never have gotten there in time.

As a fundamental part of our war plans, the Government has decided that this country must always keep within the country a certain quantity of transport planes of the DC-3 type we use every day, carrying military and passenger cargo, so that just such emergencies can be met.

Mr. BROWN. Of course, your idea is that it would be cheaper to have those transports used for commercial business and subject to Government call than it would be to have the Government own them.

Colonel GORRELL. Because you get a major return on the taxpayer's money; it costs so much less.

I gave a comparison for 1938 or 1939 when I was speaking a moment ago, indicating that it cost $50,000,000 for the armed forces to operate around 400 airplanes, and the air lines operated approximately that number, through the payments by the Post Office Office Department, at a cost of only around $400,000 to the taxpayer.

Mr. BROWN. Back in the days which Major Bulwinkle referred to a moment ago, when we invaded Mexico on that punitive expedition, we did it by renting our trucks from private industry, but now we own our own trucks in the Army and the Navy.

Colonel GORRELL. No; in 1936, you all too late bought your trucks. Some day in the future you may own your transport airplanes, but I doubt it. It is quite a different proposition. Trucks cost $1,500, or $700, depending upon what you are going to buy, and the future airplanes we are talking about may cost as much as $1,000,000 or more apiece. You will always need a merchant marine of the air as an adjunct for your Air Force.

Mr. BROWN. Having read some of these aviation magazines lately, I seem to see the promise that we are going to be able to buy them for about two for a quarter.

Colonel GORRELL. We may from Germany, when they are licked; we may be able to get them for nothing.

Mr. BROWN. I wanted your opinion.

Colonel GORRELL. I think that the proposition comes down to the fact that America should never subsidize anything that it does not have to have; but you have got to have some things; there are some things that you have got to get and sometimes it takes a subsidy to do it. Some things America cannot do without regardless of cost. Mr. BROWN. The basis for that is they are a necessary part of the defense policy or the war policy.

Colonel GORRELL. Absolutely. I do not think that the country can live unless we can transport our supplies and equipment from coast to coast and from place to place very quickly.

Mr. BROWN. Do you think that the subsidy should go any further than that?

Colonel GORRELL. It is all connected with that as the ultimate answer. You may have to subsidize some portion of it from time to time. For example, suppose that your potential enemy has a 6,000-horsepower engine and you have not been able to develop anything like that. You may possibly have to offer a prize or put up some cash in order to develop or design a 6,000-horsepower engine. Mr. BROWN. Of course, we do have those laboratories now.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes. On the other hand, there is no monopoly on brains and your best results usually come by competitive devices. If you give the money to one spot only, that is best sometimes for experimental work. At other times you get best results by having two companies using stuff that they cannot get along without and competing, one to get ahead of the other. That is how we designed some of our four-engine equipment so well.

Mr. BROWN. Is that not true in all endeavors?

Colonel GORRELL. Yes. Competition is the spur behind develop

ment.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. Colonel, referring to the earlier question and a supplemental one by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] is there any legislative lagging at the present time; is there any lag of legislation essential to implement our air program beyond our shores?

We are talking about this international picture which Mr. Winter brought up a moment ago and we are talking about post-war planning. There is a provision in this bill on page 23, lines 12 to 15, which is forward looking in that direction.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes

Mr. BOREN. Page 23, lines 12 to 15. That is a forward looking provision, but my question specifically is, Is there any current legislative lagging to implement our air program beyond our shores?

Colonel GORRELL. I think this bill in front of you is a step in the right direction and if you enact this bill it will be a fit running mate to your Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

After you make up your minds on what you are going to strive for when we win the war, when the war is over you probably will first implement the peace with a treaty of some kind. Then thereafter you will need legislation to carry out the treaty.

Mr. BOREN. But this bill in addition to the section referred to directs the study of the essential elements to be put into the legislation in the future.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes; directs a study of the subject so that you will know at what target you are shooting when the peace comes. Mr. BOREN. That is coupled with this provision and predicated upon future legislation; but up to date, looking backward from this present moment and considering the present moment too, is there any lack of legislation essential to implement our program?

Colonel GORRELL. No. I trust that the general principles in this bill will be enacted, because now is the time to do it while you have the time to do it and get ready to prevent things from happening later on which would and could be destructive.

But, your major post-war legislation will come after you know what your peace treaty is going to contain.

Mr. BOREN. And from a legislative standpoint, up to date, the situation has been met adequately?

Colonel GORRELL. It has; yes, sir.

Mr. BOREN. And with this forward looking running gear to build the body of the future legislation upon, there is not any loophole left out of post-war planning which can be made up to date, is there?

Colonel GORRELL. I think you are on the right track in this bill. I do not see what else you can do except study the questions and know what your target is desired to be.

Mr. BOREN. We have, of course, in addition to knowing what we are shooting at, we have to have a provision for laying down the track to run the thing on, and that is found on page 23, lines 12 to 15.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes. I think that this is an essential provision.
Mr. BOREN. Do you not think that is as far as we can go at this time?
Colonel GORRELL. So far as I know it is, sir, for the moment.
Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. While I appreciate the very kind remarks of the gentleman

Colonel GORRELL. I had the pleasure of hearing you one Sunday, sir, so I know that you have given a lot of study to the subject.

Mr. HINSHAW. You made reference a few moments ago, Colonel, to research, particularly in the matter of basic research in connection with the prime mover, which is the engine of the airplane itself. Colonel GORRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. By virtue of the fact that any development in the airplane engine is of, probably, greater advantage to the military than it is to the ordinary transport, although it is of great value to the transport, do you not think it would be a proper thing and quite cheap for the United States to appropriate some considerable sum of money, perhaps $10,000,000, for the purpose of aiding in the scientific research and development of prime movers?

Colonel GORRELL. I certainly do, sir. Incidentally, the Baker Board which sat here in 1934, under the chairmanship of Newton D. Baker, the former Secretary of War during the last World War, found that one of our biggest needs was an engine of around 4,000 horsepower and tried to get done something like what we are now discussing.

Mr. HINSHAW. We also have, as I understand, the possibility of having to run aircraft in sections of the world where there is a distinct lack of petroleum products.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. HINSHAW. And, considerable research has been done in Italy and elsewhere on engines that operate on different fuels.

Colonel GORRELL. Yes, sir. That is what I meant by my reference to "fuel."

Mr. HINSHAW. Yes. It seems to me that it would be cheap for the United States to subsidize such research in order to go just as far as is humanly possible in the direction of developing proper prime movers for the future.

Colonel GORRELL. I think so, sir; and that is the quickest way to take it out of the future subsidy class. For example, I look forward, when the war is over, to making airplanes out of magnesium, perhaps, instead of aluminum-saving weight that way-making certain things out of plastics and not glass and saving weight that way and make that saving of weight available for pay load.

The biggest parasite load we have today is gasoline. I am looking forward to the fuel perhaps being atmospheric instead of gasoline, with the wings sealed, and not having to carry gasoline tanks containing liquid gas at 6 pounds per gallon of weight of fuel.