sure to this situation, incidents due to inadequate ATC handlingseparation, aerial collision, et cetera-incompetent certification of aircraft, engines, airmen, et cetera-inadequate or deficient regulations, et cetera. The basic policy is that no one agency can be wholly objective in its evaluation or investigation of another component of the same department. We have found no clearer statement of this point than that made by your distinguished colleague, Senator A. S. Mike Monroney, of Oklahoma, who said:

The transfer of the accident investigating function of the CAB and its responsibility for determining probable cause of aircraft accidents under title VII of the Federal Aviation Act is another feature of S. 3010

the companion bill to H.R. 13200—

which is unwise. The CAB has the finest and the most skilled team of accident investigators in the world, who perform a highly specialized task. Aviation safety problems have little relationship to safety problems of other modes of transportation. Aviation accident investigations require skills seldom related to railroad, automobile, or maritime accidents. I think that those personnel in the Government who are given the responsibility for investigating these other types of accidents could learn a great deal from the CAB about methods and techniques of accident investigation. I am sure the Board would cooperate in making such information and training available; for example, at the Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, the CAB and the FAA have a joint accident investigation school. It is absolutely essential to air safety, however, to continue the accident investigation and probable cause determination functions in the CAB if we are to maintain the high level of skill and expertness which the CAB Bureau of Safety now has.

We recommend that such a board should be completely independent of the Department whose actions it is to review. Only in this way can it have the impartial judgment on the Department's actions.

In summary, the National Pilots Association feels that there is a need for the coordination of surface transportation policy in the executive branch of the Federal Government. But we feel this can be accomplished by simpler means than the creation of a huge Department of Transportation. We would not oppose the consolidation of many bureaus and agencies dealing with ground and/or water transportation, but we feel that aviation with its unique problems of growth and rapid technological change should be a separate agency with the Administrator reporting directly to the President of the United States.

May I express our sincere appreciation for being given this opportunity to express our views before your distinguished committee.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. You are aware, of course, that General McKee testified in support of the bill?

Mr. LEE. Yes.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I notice in your statement you state there are two things the Department, or the establishment of this Department would hope to accomplish. One is better coordination of transportation policy, and the second, more economical operations of the various groups that deal with the forms of our national transportation.

Don't you think there is also a third objective of this Department, and that is the establishment of a national policy relating to transportation as well as the coordination of that policy?

Mr. LEE. Yes. I would take that amendment, yes, sir.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I think you also suggested later in your statement that the establishment and coordination of such a policy is somewhat difficult to achieve if the regulatory bodies are not involved in this establishment and coordination as part of the new Department? Mr. LEE. That is very correct, but the ratemaking, the route powers of the various agencies are perhaps the predominant economic factor in transportation in this country.

Mr. ERLENBORN. What the regulatory agencies do certainly can. favor one mode of transportation over another, and what they do can help to advance one mode of transportation more than another, is that correct?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Bearing this in mind, how would you feel about the merger of all transportation regulatory agencies, including air transportation, in the new Department? Do you think this would be desirable?

Mr. LEE. Well, Mr. Erlenborn, as the National Pilots Association, naturally we don't have the problem of certificated air carriers. So this would be a problem which would only impinge indirectly on our form of aviation.

I do think, as you stated when the previous witness was at the table, that this was left out in order to get a bill that would pass I think that was a very cogent statement, and any attempt to merge these functions would run into very severe opposition.

Mr. ERLENBORN. It could be the kiss of death?

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you feel that we can have a true formulation of national policy and coordination or implementation of this national policy relating to transportation generally if we don't involve all modes of transportation? In other words, don't we have a decision to make as a nation as to how to invest the dollars that we have available for promoting transportation, a decision to make as between ground and air transportation, between air transportation and water transportation? We can't have a policy as to the investment of our funds for promotion or improvements of transportation that doesn't coordinate among all of the various modes of transportation, can we? Mr. LEE. Well, I think when you are considering such vastly different forms of transportation as we have, say comparing waterways and aviation, that it is very difficult to coordinate them strictly by dollar figures.

I think everyone agrees we are just on the threshold of some tremendous developments in aviation, not only through the larger new transports that will bring down rates, but the supersonic transport and maybe 10 years from now the hypersonic transport, which would be at mach 10. We are dealing with a form of transportation that has entirely different connotations from any surface transportation.

Mr. ERLENBORN. But at the same time these great advances are approaching in the field of air transportation we may also have the investment of national tax dollars in the improvement of other modes of transportation such as the demonstration rail project in the northeast corridor, the possibility of hydrofoil craft, hover-craft in water and ground transportation. Doesn't the executive department working

with Congress have to make a determination as to which of these improvements we will proceed with first, or which one will get the emphasis or whether we can move ahead in all of these fields at the same time?

Mr. LEE. Yes. I think the Bureau of the Budget and the executive branch and the Congress all have a responsibility in this respect.

I think we can show by history that coordination within one department, which may be biased in favor of surface transportation, can result in an absolute curtailment of the technological and scientific growth of aviation. That is our fear. It isn't a fear which I think is unbased, not based on history. We have seen it in the past. We see it at the present time with the Weather Bureau. We are not just talking about a pipedream. This was an actuality in the past.

You see, the Department of Commerce, prior to 1955, did have many transportation responsibilities, as it has now; the Under Secretary for Transportation had a general policy responsibility, the Maritime Administration was and is there, the Public Roads Administration was and is there. And at that time the Civil Aeronautics Administration was there.

You can just see by the budget figures, which are symbolic of the general attitude, that aviation was held down. This resulted in a serious compromise of air safety and serious holding back of aviation growth.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I was also interested in your statement concerning the Weather Bureau, and the apparent inadequate funding that they presently have.

Now the change you referred to, the merger with the Environmental Science Services Administration is quite new, is it not? That was accomplished last year through a reorganization plan?

Mr. LEE. That is correct.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Is it your impression that just in this short period of time, since that merger was effected last year, that the services of the Weather Bureau, as they affect general aviation, have deterioriated?

Mr. LEE. I wouldn't say deterioriated, Mr. Erlenborn. I say they have not improved. The level of funding is about the same as it was before.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I have no further questions. I guess I am acting chairman at the moment. Mr. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Lee, do you have any statistics you could furnish us on the growth of general aviation, and some projections for its future?

Mr. LEE. Yes, we can. I will be glad to furnish them. (The information referred to is as follows:)

1953.

1954.

1955.

1956

1957.

1958.

Total aircraft operations at FAA-operated airport traffic control towers

Mr. HENDERSON. We would be glad to have those. Then just one
question along the line of Mr. Erlenborn's last questions relating to
ESSA. That has only recently been set up. I wonder if it is fair to
make a judgment about the Weather Bureau functions just yet, or
should it be given a little more time to work out whatever problems the
Weather Bureau is having?

Mr. LEE. Well, the Department of Commerce and the Environmen-
tal Sciences Services Administration have had the chance to submit
one budget. And it doesn't contain the type of increase for meteorolo-
gists that we think is demanded to serve aviation.

However, naturally we are hoping for better things in the future.
But it is only a short time, and possibly things will work out.
Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you.

Mr. ROBACK. Mr. Lee, is the purport of your testimony that you are
opposed to the Department of Transportation, but if it were decided to
set it up, you would just as leave see the Federal Aviation Agency
outside of it? Is that the sense of it?

Mr. LEE. Yes. We think it is absolutely essential the Federal Avia-
tion Agency remain as it is at present.

Mr. ROBACK. Excuse me, I couldn't hear you.

Mr. LEE. That the Federal Aviation Agency remain as it is at pres-
ent, reporting directly to the President.

Mr. ROBACK. In the event such a Department were set up, don't you
think the Federal Aviation Agency would be disadvantaged by being
outside it?

Mr. LEE. No. I think it would be disadvantaged by being inside it,
as past history has shown.

Mr. ROBACK. You think departmental status, Cabinet-level depart-
ment, confers no advantage?

with Congress have to make a determination as to which of these im-
provements we will proceed with first, or which one will get the em-
phasis or whether we can move ahead in all of these fields at the same
time?

Mr. LEE. Yes. I think the Bureau of the Budget and the executive
branch and the Congress all have a responsibility in this respect.

I think we can show by history that coordination within one depart-
ment, which may be biased in favor of surface transportation, can
result in an absolute curtailment of the technological and scientific
growth of aviation. That is our fear. It isn't a fear which I think
is unbased, not based on history. We have seen it in the past. We see
it at the present time with the Weather Bureau. We are not just
talking about a pipedream. This was an actuality in the past.

You see, the Department of Commerce, prior to 1955, did have many
transportation responsibilities, as it has now; the Under Secretary for
Transportation had a general policy responsibility, the Maritime Ad-
ministration was and is there, the Public Roads Administration was
and is there. And at that time the Civil Aeronautics Administration
was there.

You can just see by the budget figures, which are symbolic of the
general attitude, that aviation was held down. This resulted in a seri-
ous compromise of air safety and serious holding back of aviation.
growth.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I was also interested in your statement concerning
the Weather Bureau, and the apparent inadequate funding that they
presently have.

Now the change you referred to, the merger with the Environmental
Science Services Administration is quite new, is it not? That was
accomplished last year through a reorganization plan?

Mr. LEE. That is correct.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Is it your impression that just in this short period
of time, since that merger was effected last year, that the services
of the Weather Bureau, as they affect general aviation, have
deterioriated?

Mr. LEE. I wouldn't say deterioriated, Mr. Erlenborn. I say they
have not improved. The level of funding is about the same as it was

before.

Mr. ERLENBORN. I have no further questions. I guess I am acting
chairman at the moment. Mr. Henderson?

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Lee, do you have any statistics you could fur-
nish us on the growth of general aviation, and some projections for
its future?

Mr. LEE. Yes, we can. I will be glad to furnish them.

(The information referred to is as follows:)