pendent Federal aviation agency which will embrace the common military and civil aspect of aviation. If that is set up, that agency should absorb the functions of this Board. We are always going to need research and development work, we are never going to arrive at an ultimate system and say "this is it." It is going to be this way for at least the next 20 years. Senator MONRONEY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead. Senator MONRONEY. When will your final report be made public, General? Mr. CURTIS. Sir, you have a copy of it in your office right this minute. Senator MONRONEY. Just delivered? Mr. CURTIS. Yes, we have just been able to release it. Senator MONRONEY. It will provide for a Secretary of Air. Mr. CURTIS. No, sir, it does not provide for a Secretary for Air. It provides for an independent Federal aviation agency which would absorb the present functions of CAA, plus some other functions, plus a piece of the military operation involved in the common system. But I am not recommending that it have Cabinet status. Senator MONRONEY. It does not have Cabinet status? Mr. CURTIS. No, sir. Senator MONRONEY. It will be more of an independent CAA Mr. CURTIS. A little more than that. Because it would have considerably more authority and cover considerably more ground than the present CAA organization. Senator MONRONEY. That is right. But if you remove CAA from the satellite position and give it back some of its powers, why it becomes a much more important agency. I was glad to hear you say that the separation of development and operations over a long period of time is bad organization. Mr. CURTIS. That is right. Senator MONRONEY. Because that is what I have been critical of in this separation or holding out, an agency without the power to throw the operational part into gear. But I just wonder if this new single Federal aviation agency embraces the military. Since Mr. Rothschild testified that you have to have this board with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Commerce and an independent chairman appointed to keep the military from feeling left out on the thing, how the new Department of Air or Bureau of Air, whatever the title may be, will be able to solve that same fundamental question about the military being properly represented in the civilian agency. Mr. CURTIS. By the assignments of military personnel to the agency in those fields where the military and civil have common interests. This is one reason, Senator, why I Senator MONRONEY. You are talking about your board now? Mr. CURTIS. No, I am talking about the federal aviation agency. Senator MONRONEY. You are talking about the agency? Mr. CURTIS. I am talking about the permanent agency. I would also assign military personnel to that agency in those areas involving the common system and where the military are directly concerned. 92641-57——3 Senator MONRONEY. How long do you think it would be before we could get this single Federal aviation agency coordinated? Mr. CURTIS. Well, I should think, assuming that it had the blessing of the executive branches concerned and the Congress were generally favorable toward it, that it would take at least a year or maybe longer to do this. We must be very careful about how you put that together. Senator MONRONEY. I realize that, you don't rush into those things. Mr. CURTIS. It isn't something we can do quickly. We must be very careful about what bits and pieces you put into this agency. That is why I think it is important to establish the Airways Modernization Board in the interim. The CHAIRMAN. By that time we will probably have a bureau of outer space established. [Laughter.] There is how these costs rise. We were told here not over a month ago that we were going to spend $17 million on that satellite, not over a month ago. And Wilson today says they are going to spend $57 million to get it in the air. So we have to watch that. If this can cut those down, and that fiasco we had on the other thing, why it will serve some purpose, surely, even a temporary board. I don't like to complicate your problems any further, but there is another little matter here, I don't know whether you have considered it, but there is a great shortage in the radio spectrum. Is the FCC going to have anything to say about this? All these devices contemplate the use of the spectrum. Mr. CURTIS. Certainly that is one of the fundamental problems we are up against in this whole job. I don't believe the FCC as such should be represented on the Board as a voting member. The Board, of course, has got to work in the closest cooperation with the FCC and they have to be absolutely sure that what they are developing is going to have some space in the radio spectrum available for it. The CHAIRMAN. They will have to be in the picture in a lot of these matters. Mr. CURTIS. Surely. The CHAIRMAN. In the new developments, because they are faced with pressure now on the shortage of the spectrum. Senator SMATHERS. Why would it not be a good idea to get them in this picture now in this proposed organization? Mr. CURTIS. Well, Senator, I think the reason for not doing that is primarily the fact that the FCC is a regulating body, not an operating body. Normally bodies of that kind do not engage in development and research work as such. I think they have to be kept very closely in touch, of course, with what the Board is doing, the Board is going to have that as one of its primary responsibilities. They must be sure that what they develop will have room in the spectrum somewhere or else it may be no good. Senator SMATHERS. Has the FCC been consulted about this bill? Mr. CURTIS. They coordinated this bill. This bill has been formally coordinated with all the executive agencies of the Government and CAB besides. The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from New Hampshire had a question. Senator COTTON. Somebody asked it. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions from the general? If not, thank you very much. Mr. CURTIS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that your final report will be ready. Mr. CURTIS. Right now. I think the deadline is noon today. The CHAIRMAN. Noon today, all right. All right, Dr. Skifter, special assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. Glad to hear from you. The Senator from Florida will take over. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Senator SMATHERS. Doctor, you go right ahead. The CHAIRMAN. I want to state the doctor has testified on many and frequent occasions about the problem of VOR and TACAN, and he knows the subject pretty well. Senator SMATHERS. All right, sir. Dr. SKIFTER. I have a written statement of the Defense's position which I will read if you wish. I might also say that not being a normal employee of the Department, I am here in that sense to transmit this position and comment on such things as I feel I know the Defense's position well enough to comment on. I have with me some representatives of the Department if there is anything we want to go into. And I might say that in view of the fact that I have been associated with this problem for now getting to be 12 years, I was part of the committee that formed the emasculated agency that we called ANDB. I was, as Senator Magnuson said, consultant on the VOR-TACAN controversy. I also consulted with the Harding Committee which set up Mr. Curtis' operation. So by and large, I have naturally followed this quite closely. If you feel you want any of my personal comments, particularly of a technical nature, I would be glad to give them. If you wish, I will first read this report from the Department of the Air Force. Senator SMATHERS. Yes, you go right ahead with that statement. STATEMENT OF HECTOR R. SKIFTER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING Dr. SKIFTER. Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Dear Mr. Chairman: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of Defense on S. 1856, 85th Congress, a bill to provide for the development and modernization of the national system of navigation and traffic control facilities to serve present and future needs of civil and military aviation, and for other purposes. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to this Department the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense on this matter. The proposed legislation would establish an Airways Modernization Board, to consist of a Chairman, to be appointed by the President, and the Secretaries of Commerce and Defense. The Board would be authorized to develop, modify, test, and evaluate systems, procedures, facilities, and devices for safe and efficient navigation and traffic control of aviation, and to select such systems, procedures, facilities, and devices as will serve the navigation and traffic control needs of all civil and military aviation, "except for those needs of military agen cies which are peculiar to air warfare and primarily of military concern." Upon unanimous consent of the Board, and with approval of the President, the Board would be authorized to transfer to itself any functions (including powers, duties, activities, facilities, and parts of functions) of the Departments of Commerce or Defense which relate primarily to selecting, developing, testing or evaluating systems, procedures or devices for safe and efficient air navigation and air traffic control. The draft bill contains additional provisions relating to the organization and powers of the Board, within its functional area. The proposed Board would function until the close of June 30, 1960. The Department of Defense concurs in the concept of placing statutory responsibility in such a Board for selecting and developing systems, procedures, and facilities for navigation and traffic control of both civil and military aviation, except those requirements peculiar to air warfare. Enactment of S. 1856 is urged by the Department of Defense. However, it is felt that certain technical amendments, of a clarifying nature, should be made to the bill. (a) The Department of Defense believes that it should be made clear that the Board should define performance characteristics, as well as perform the other functions outlined in section 2 (b) of the bill. Hence it is recommended that the following be inserted after the comma following the word "devices" in line 11, page 2 of S. 1856: adding "as well as define the performance characteristics thereof,”". This has been discussed some with Mr. Curtis' people and I think it is agreed that that was the intention and maybe there was even a feeling that was already covered. But anyway we have called this out. Senator SCHOEPPEL. What specifically would that do, now? Dr. SKIFTER. It tends to help clarify the early decision as to what you actually need. That is now a mixed function, again, between CAA and the military and the Air Coordinating Committee. And it was felt that this would give the Board a little bit clearer base on which to plan its work. As I say, some people think the language already covers that. So I don't think it is terrifically important. We suggest it, however. The second recommendation, and this is strictly a legalistic one, the words, "uniformed personnel" have no legally defined meaning, whereas the word "members" is defined by statute. Therefore, it is recommended that lines 9 through 11, page 5 of S. 1856 be stricken and the following substituted in lieu thereof: "(d) With the approval of the President, members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may be de-". This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, James H. Douglas. Senator SMATHERS. Thank you, Doctor. Are there any questions? Senator MONRONEY. The Department of Defense would not be willing to permit this Board to be run by a single administrator, Doctor? Dr. SKIFTER. I don't suppose that I can use the words, "would not permit." Senator MONRONEY. Would not recommend. Dr. SKIFTER. I feel fairly sure they would not recommend and I kind of think that if all of us in the room here finally thought it over, we wouldn't recommend it either. There is a very serious division and sharing of interest in this problem of movement of aircraft. And remember also, that it is not confined to the continental United States. The military has problems outside of the United States that are just like they are within. And I don't believe after you would study it, say, to the extent Mr. Curtis has, that you would do that either. In fact that is in a sense what we have today. We are in general admitting that that isn't working. Senator MONRONEY. I don't think we have that today. I think you have today the fact that we try to hold together by consultation and committees and things like that, a joint control and a joint agreement on the use of our airspace without any one single individual having authority to break that contest when the military and the civilian sides are arriving at opposite views. Do you think that the Dr. SKIFTER. I will make the observation that I think that we have all gotten too much impressed by this TACAN controversy. Goodness knows, it was a bad one. But in the same period we have resolved an awful lot of other ones. Senator MONRONEY. Such as? Dr. SKIFTER. Oh, just daily things that come up all the time. The development of the whole installation of radar is just a good example, it has gone on very smoothly. CAA is getting along very well with it. I think you do have to recognize that if you please, we are approaching this problem in desperation. We started out 10 years ago to settle it via the ANDB, and didn't; 10 years slipped by, the problem is on us right now, and use the words that we are approaching it now in a period of desperation. And I think that this proposal of Mr. Curtis is doing what we all recognized in 1948 we ought to have done, but didn't believe that the time was ripe for legislation and we thought we could do a patched-up job without the stature that this bill gives that Board and get away with it. And experience has shown that we couldn't. Senator MONRONEY. Have you had a chance to see General Curtis' recommendation on the single department for air? Dr. SKIFTER. Yes. Senator MONRONEY. Does that generally meet the ideas of the Department of Defense and would that be fair Dr. SKIFTER. On that I cannot speak for the Department because it has not been coordinated over there. I have seen it, myself. Yes, speaking personally, I think it is the kind of thing we have to come toward. Senator MONRONEY. Wouldn't that run contrary to what you said a moment ago, that the Air Force and military could not possibly live under any system that would deny them an equal voice with the civilian control? Dr. SKIFTER. While Mr. Curtis hasn't spelled it out, I am assuming that in building this thing he will have built in both military and civilian feed-in's Senator MONRONEY. Of their needs? |