relate the common problems of the Department of Defense with an independent Federal Aviation Agency than to operate with the many facets of a Department of Transportation. In addition to the problems that the Civil Aeronautics Administration faced when it was a part of the Department of Commerce may we cite the present plight of the Weather Bureau as an example of how service can suffer when a specialized organization is absorbed within a large department. Although the Weather Bureau has been transferred to a larger agency, the Environmental Science Services Administration, and this group within the Department of Commerce, the weather service for general aviation continues to deteriorate in quality and is failing to keep pace with the expanding needs of general aviation. The lack of funding for the Weather Bureau personnel has made it necessary for the flight service stations of the Federal Aviation Agency to take over the task of distribution of weather information to pilots. The flight service station personnel have been given weather indoctrination courses but they are not meteorologists and can do little more than read weather reports to the pilots. When the weather is unusual or changing rapidly, experienced pilots need to talk directly to trained meteorologists. Until the Weather Bureau is given sufficient funds to employ and train more meteorologists in support of general aviation comparable to that provided for air carriers we believe that general aviation will be seriously inhibited in reaching its full growth potential. The National Pilots Association has advocated for several years the creation of a weather bureau independent of the Department of Commerce. We again reiterate our beliefs that such an agency should be established rather than consolidated within another large department. Last spring we were told by the administration that it was difficult to find a proper administrator for the Federal Aviation Agency. If it was difficult to find a civilian to head up the Federal Aviation Agency, in 1965, it will be even more difficult to find an independent minded administrator to serve within the confines of a large department subject to the supervision of a Secretary of Transportation. The job of being the head of an independent agency that reports only to the President of the United States carries not only prestige and authority but also economic benefits. CORRELATION OF TRANSPORTATION FUNCTION One of the aims of the new Department of Transportation is to correlate the policies of all transportation functions of the Federal Government. If the regulatory functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Federal Maritime Commission remain outside the Department of Transportation we do not see how effective control and policymaking over all transportation in the United States can be achieved. Incidentally, we note that the present duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation provide for "the development of overall transportation policy within the executive branch of the Government, including the mobilization aspects." Perhaps the solution for this problem of a uniform transportation policy lies merely in the exercise of powers already given to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation. The proposed legislation provides for the creation of a National Transportation Safety Board to investigate and report on causes of accidents and review on appeal of the suspension, amendment, modification, revocation, or denial of certificates or licenses issued by the Secretary of Transportation. Even though the five members of the Board are appointed independently by the President we feel that it is unwise to have such a board with its power of review of certificate action operating within the Department. We do not feel it proper that any board, no matter what mechanism was used to insure its "independence," could ever be wholly objective in an accident investigation in which their department or agency was involved. The separation of the accident investigation functions under the CAB is, in our opinion, one of the reasons for the outstanding safety record of U.S. aviation. There are obvious areas of potential exposure to this situation, incidents due to inadequate ATC handling (separation, aerial collision, and so forth), incompetent certification (of aircraft, engines, airmen, and so forth), inadequate or deficient regulation, and so forth. 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 (H.R. 13200) S. 3010 which is unwise. The CAB has the finest and 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. FAA SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED 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. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Do you wish the chart to be printed in the record?" Mr. LEE. Yes; it may. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Let it be printed in the record. (The chart referred to follows:) The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, you are opposed to this Department as proposed in this bill. Mr. LEE. Not completely so, sir. We just feel that the Federal Aviation Agency should remain as it is. The CHAIRMAN. You don't want it changed? Mr. LEE. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. You don't object to creating a new department, so long as we don't change this. Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is what it amounts to. Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I am sure you are very sincere about it. You feel that the cause of aviation safety and other aspects of it-progress that is needed and its anticipated growth-that some of these things would be neglected and would not be cared for, the responsibilities would not be met in a big department as they would in an independent agency. That is the way you truly feel about it. Mr. LEE. Yes, sir. FORMER ADMINISTRATOR OF CAA The CHAIRMAN. You were, for a time, Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, were you? Mr. LEE. Yes, sir; I served in the CAA for almost 10 years, from 1946 to 1955. The CHAIRMAN. You were head of it? Mr. LEE. I was the head of it from 1952 to 1955. The CHAIRMAN. So you are speaking with experience. You are no longer in the Government, are you? Mr. LEE. No, sir. I am in private industry. The CHAIRMAN. You have been out of it since 1955, for 10 years? Mr. LEE. Well, for 1 year I worked with the Senate Committee on Commerce in connection with aviation matters, and then I went with private industry. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Anything further that you think of? Mr. LEE. No, sir. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Does the gentleman with you want to make any comments? Mr. SCOTT. No, sir. I have no additional comment. Mr. LEE. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Wager here? I understand that he is testifying over in the House. Mr. Clerk, you may reschedule him for some future date if he wishes to appear. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. (Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene Wednesday, May 4, 1966, 10 a.m.) ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1966 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 3302, New Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators McClellan, Harris, Mundt, and Simpson. Also present: James R. Calloway, chief clerk and staff director; Ann M. Grickis, assistant chief clerk; Eli E. Nobleman and W. E. O'Brien, professional staff members; and Arthur A. Sharp, staff editor. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to welcome you this morning. This is a bill, as I have said before, which is rather far reaching, one that needs real study. We appreciate your interest in it. We are glad to have you come and give us the benefit of your views, especially because of your interest in aviation, and also, I know, in river transportation. So you have a special interest in at least two aspects of this bill. STATEMENT OF HON. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator MONRONEY. I want to particularly thank the committee for the exhaustive hearings that it is holding on the creation of a Department of Transportation-because it is a very important step, and one that must be taken with full knowledge of what it involves in the efficient operation of the various agencies and departments that it absorbs. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on this matter. The proposal to establish a new Cabinet office in this age of proliferating Government agencies, boards, and commissions necessarily entails a drastic change in the status quo. It requires the rearrangement or consolidation of many Government organizations and functions which, over the years, have sunk strong roots across the Nation. I do not envy you your task, because I know the tugs and pulls to which you have been and will be subjected in your deliberations on this proposal. I am here today to do a little tugging and pulling myself. The President has decided that he needs a department to oversee, coordinate, and supervise the vast and various activities of the Federal 61-552-66-pt. 2 |