the question asked by the Congressman, a chart showing the organization of the Administrator's Office, with a very brief functional description of what the different divisions do and with the name of the person at the head of the division inserted, and the same information with respect to the Board, and I have copies of that chart so that if the committee members desire them they may have them if they do not wish to wait for the record to come out.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. I take it that this bill, H. R. 1012, is in the nature of a departmental bill?

Mr. POGUE. No; not so far as we are concerned. We had nothing to do with it and did not see the bill before it was introduced. The only suggestions we made thus far about legislation are those in our annual report, although as I said yesterday, due to the comprehensive scope of this ball, there may be some additional suggestions we will have to make now when we comment on the bill, because it covers lots of territory and opens the field up a good deal.

Mr. HINSHAW. I notice that the bill covers three subjects in which I, for one, have been very much interested.

One of them is the declaration on the part of the Congress that the Federal Government should have jurisdiction over the navigable air space; and, secondly, that there should be some control over the use of the air space leading into airports, a very important thing which has developed in the course of the investigations I have been connected with; and, thirdly, the charter aircraft, herein called contract carriers, are also brought under regulation.

Does the Department believe that the legislation as drawn will accomplish the purposes desired?

Mr. POGUE. Well, on that, Congressman, as I indicated yesterday, our formal comment on that is in process of being prepared, so that if you would permit me to do so, I would rather wait until that formal comment is supplied.

However, I could point this out now, that in our annual report we made recommendations with respect to enlarging the authority for regulation in air commerce and in interstate air transportation. We also made recommendations with respect to contract carriers., We did not, in our annual report include any recommendations on the zoning problem.

Mr. HINSHAW. Now, that problem of zoning is a very complicated legal one, a technical legal question, and I was just wondering if some one is going to present a discussion of it from the constitutional standpoint.

Mr. POGUE. It does involve a great many questions. We are studying it. No doubt the Administrator is also studying it, because the draft of the bill lodges large functions in him in that field and I assume possibly others. We will be prepared to discuss our part of it-I mean, we will tell you anything we can on it, when you want us to, although the way it is drafted it is primarily the Administrator's jurisdiction.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I note that in the drafting of the bill, reference is made to the Civil Aeronautics Authority. May I inquire as to whether the reorganization Plan No. 4 so changes things that there ought to be some redrafting of the entire Civil Aeronautics Act to take into acount the effect of the reorganization plan?

Mr. POGUE. I am glad you asked that question, because I think a very simple statement will show the present lines and clarify what is meant by the words "Civil Aeronautics Authority" today.

Under the reorganization plan-there were two plans-reorganization plan No. 3 and reorganization plan No. 4, certain functions that were vested by the Civil Aeronautics Act in the Authority, the five-member Authority, were transferred to the Administrator.

Both the Administrator and the Board were transferred to the Department of Commerce; the Administrator to exercise his functions under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Commerce and the Civil Aeronautics Board to exercise its functions over economic regulation, safety regulations, and accident investigations, independently of the Secretary of Commerce.

The reorganization plan went on to describe the Civil Aeronautics Authority. I think the easiest way to make that clear is to read this language:

The Administrator of Civil Aeronautics whose functions shall be administered under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of Commerce, and the Civil Aeronautics Board, which shall report to the Congress and to the President through the Secretary of Commerce, shall constitute the Civil Aeronautics Authority within the Department of Commerce.

Now, the Authority as such is not an operating unit; it does not do anything as a separate organization. Its functions are vested either in the Administrator, or in the Board, and to some extent in the Secretary of Commerce.

Mr. HINSHAW. I presume that a little careful study would separate the functions that are referred to here as assigned to the Civil Aeronautics Authority, and to the Civil Aeronautics Board but, I presume study has been given as to whether or not direct reference should be made through the rewriting of the act, using the proper terms that are in force today, by virtue of the reorganization plan, so that there would be no possiblity of mistakes as to who was referred to.

Mr. POGUE. That could be done, and if it were done completely it would be a clarification. Actually it has been some time now since the reorganization plan was made effective, something over 2 years, and in the course of that time we have administratively worked it out so that we know what the respective lines of authority and responsibilities are; but it would clarify the situation, of course.

Mr. HINSHAW. It would be very helpful, I should think, if it were redrafted in accordance with the present set-up so that everyone would know; not only those in the Authority, but others who are interested, the demarcation of functions.

Mr. POGUE. Yes. Outside people, unless they have lived with it a great deal, naturally have some problems when they are trying to separate the functions and have some trouble in determining just where to go with their questions.

Mr. HINSHAW. Then, you referred to leaving the discussion of the various sections of the bill to other members of the Board or the Administrator.

Mr. POGUE. Yes, or if it is agreeable with the committee, when our formal report comes in, I would be delighted to be called again and answer anything with respect to particular sections that you want to ask me. I suggest that, because the Board formally has not taken its position on a number of these questions and they are very important, and I just thought that it would be better if it is agreeable to you, that I withhold comment until that time.

Mr. HINSHAW. Then, there is no departmental report available on the bill as yet? Mr. POGUE. Not as yet, no. It is a large undertaking and we are working vigorously at it but we have not reported as yet.

Mr. HINSHAW. That is all.
Mr. REECE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reece.

Mr. REECE. As a member of the Military Affairs Committee durthe twenties, at the time when that committee had chief jurisdiction over aeronautical matters, and later as a member of this committee, which has exercised jurisdiction over civil aeronautical matters, I have been in reasonably close touch with the problem over the years, and the Military Committee tried to recognize the importance of this question, and I have been impressed that this committee likewise has recognized it, as a question of the greatest importance, both from a commercial and national defense standpoint, and I have been impressed that both committees have tried to keep abreast of the problem in a legislative way so as to open the door to a full development of the industry, and I am wondering what your views may be from the studies that you have made in recent years of the problems growing out of your very intimate association with it, as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, as to whether there has been any noticeable lag so to speak in legislation that has had a tendency to retard the development of civil aviation. Mr. POGUE. NO. I have noticed no lag by this committee in dealing with aviation legislation.

If there is any further angle to that question you would like to have me expand, I will be glad to do it.

Mr. REECE. You have referred to it in a general way, and it is a matter which I had in mind.

I have been impressed myself that there has been no phase of our whole transportation problem that has been anticipated as completely in a legislative way as has been the case with aviation and although it may have been dealt with somewhat inadequately, but provision made in some way to make possible the development of the industry without any serious pitfalls being encountered, as was the case in a good many other modes of transportation in development and expansion and requirements to meet new conditions.

Mr. POGUE. I would certainly say this, Congressman: I think that Congress showed broad vision in enacting the Civil Aeronautics Act, and the standards it set up, namely, national defense and the development of commerce, and the provisions in the compensation clause of the act which authorized whatever was necessary to meet the neces

sary development of the system for the country as a whole. The act was a real charter, I do not think that there is any country in the world where commercial transportation showed anything like the development before the war that it showed in the United States.

Mr. REECE. There is now some agitation for the establishment of a separate legislative committee to deal with this problem of aviation. There are some who feel that it is part of our whole transportation system and that the legislative aspects of the problem should be centered, legislative aspects, of our whole transportation problem, should be centered in one legislative committee, and I think this committee and the Congress, anticipating the importance of civil aviation, undertook to meet in a way the questions which have been raised as a basis for establishing a separate legislative committee in the Civil Aeronautics Act, and setting up an independent commission which would concern itself altogether with this problem.

And, in that legislation was an undertaking to meet the views which are now being expressed in regard to a legislative committee, by setting up an independent agency that would be concerned only with this problem, and it was with some disappointment to some of us-I probably should say to some of us, I know it was to me, that in the reorganization that the independence of this board may have been somewhat jeopardized by making it an agency of one of the executive departments of the Government. My feeling was that it should have been continued as an independent agency and that in the board and in the administration is the point where the independence and singleness of purpose should be set up to deal with this problem, even more than in connection with the Congress or a legislative committee of the Congress, because after all, the responsibility of this committee so far, and of the Congress, is to coordinate in a legislative way our entire legislative program dealing with this question involved.

My observations are somewhat beside the point in the consideration of this bill but I did feel like saying that, as I understand this committee in the enactment of the Civil Aeronautics Act, undertook to recognize the importance of the problem and set up the Civil Aeronautics Board charged solely with the responsibility, as an independent agency, to deal with it, and to develop the problem and in due time. make appropriate recommendations to this committee and to the Congress for any additional legislation that might be needed to enable it to better do so.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think perhaps I may say a word in connection with the Safety Board. Of course, I was opposed to the change that was made in the reorganization. The House voted against that change, but the Senate approved it, with the result that the reorganization stood.

I had the idea that the chief merit of that Safety Board was that we did everything we could to make it independent of your Board or anybody else. For instance, when it came to the question of reporting on the responsibility for accidents, we wanted to leave that Safety Board so that it could be free to criticize even your Board, if your Board might be thought to be responsible, or the regulations that you had made, for instance; but the Congress in the action that it

83838-43--5

took approved the reorganization order. So, in view of that situation I did not feel that I should bring it into this bill. I left it out of the bill just because I thought perhaps Congress having in that method prescribed for and acted upon the matter that maybe it would be an appropriate thing for me to leave it out of the bill.

So the question now, as I look at it is in the first place, whether we should immediately, by law, carry out the policy now involved in the reorganization order or whether we should change and go back to a different system from what the reorganization order provides.

It would seem to me quite clear that one or the other thing should be done.

If the reorganization order should probably be put into legislative form, if we intend to follow that, it would be, I think, a convenient way to have the law established as an act of Congress, if we want to do that. Of course that still leaves that question as to whether we should go back to the original policy. It would be a comparatively simple matter, of course, from a legislative standpoint, if we determine what the policy is.

That is just incidental here.

Mr. HINSHAW. It may interest you and the chairman for me to say that the original theory held in the passage of the legislation establishing the Air Safety Board as an independent agency was entirely upheld by the findings of the Select Committee to Investigate Air Accidents.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course we now have the question of the established policy and that in itself, and the maintenance of stability, is an element to be considered, of course.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. I would like to ask about some things here which possibly will have to be developed later on. But, historically, I would like to ask the witness under what law you are now operating, whether under the 1938 aeronautics law or under the amendment of 1940.

Mr. POGUE. Well, it is under the 1938 Civil Aeronautics Act, as amended by the reorganization plans No. 3 and No. 4, which gained their validity from the Reorganization Act.

Mr. O'HARA. Executive orders were they?

Mr. POGUE. Yes; Executive orders under the Reorganization Statue.

The Congress had passed a reorganization statute, under which such Executive orders were permitted and these two Executive orders amended the act.

Mr. O'HARA. Well, in the operation of your Board as such you deal with the problems of rates and tariffs, as well as all of the rami fications of aeronautics; that is, civil aeronautics.

Mr. POGUE. Yes; that is true, Congressman, with the exception of the Administrator's functions.

Mr. O'HARA. As I understood it from your statement of yesterday you are further subject to the control of the Secretary of Commerce. Mr. POGUE. Not the Board. The reorganization order specifically provided that the Board should exercise its economic regulatory functions; its safety regulatory powers, and its accident investigation functions independently of the Secretary of Commerce.