advise the Senate of the great assistance rendered us in this task by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. McCarran. In my experience in the Senate, the action of a standing committee to direct its chairman to advise the Senate of the valuable assistance rendered to it by another Senator, who is not a member of that committee, is without precedent. But in this instance, it is peculiarly appropriate and well-deserved. On January 11 of this year, the senior Senator from Nevada introduced for the consideration of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce a complete revision of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. This bill, S. 2647, was the product of Senator McCarran's background and continuous study of the developments in aviation since the enactment in 1938 of the Civil Aeronautics Act. In my opinion, S. 2647 represented a monumental piece of legislative drafting which greatly facilitated the committee during the past session in focusing on the key issues concerning aviation which required study and review. Some idea of the magniture of the task can be gathered from the fact that the bill comprised 177 pages. It was presented to our committee by the Senator from Nevada with no pride of authorship but rather with the express wish that it be assessed carefully in light of the changing and expanding needs of the aviation industry of this country. Your committee held extensive hearings on this measure over a period of 4 months, extending from April 6 through July 22. The senior Senator from Nevada was the first witness heard by the committee and I wish that every Member of the Senate could read his statement given at that time, for it is a matchless summary of the progress of the civil-aviation industry under enlightened congressional legislation. As he suggested, the committee approached Senator McCarran's omnibus bill as a working document, and through the months which followed the opening of hearings found it an invaluable vehicle for reviewing the application of Federal laws and regulations to the air transport and general aviation industry. During the session your committee, in connection with its consideration of the McCarran bill, received testimony from every Government department and agency interested in aviation and from representatives from every phase of aviation. The witnesses represented not only the regulated air-transport industry but private flyers, charter operators, irregular carriers, specialist freight forwarders, manufacturers, State aviation officials, bar associations, and airport operators. The committee could not have asked for better cooperation than that which it received from these witnesses. This committee's hearings demonstrated that the original Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 is basically sound and further demonstrated, in the opinion of your committee, that commercial aviation should best continue to develop as a regulated public utility. No radical change in the basic organizations of the Government agencies concerned with the aviation industry seems to have been indicated by the weight of the testimony offered to our committee. However, as Senator McCarran himself predicted when hearings were launched, several serious gaps in the regulatory scheme and deficiencies in the regulations were revealed. Your committee is convinced there is a real need for some amendatory legislation. Your committee was eager to report out a bill at this session which would meet these deficiencies. Following the hearings, the staff of the committee made every effort to reduce the original S. 2647 and its 177 pages to an essential minima and to identify the more important and more noncontroversial amendments as presented at the hearings. Senator McCarran, in a final appearance before the committee, urged that a substitute bill be submitted to the Senate, expressing the opinion it would be of considerable assistance to the next Congress and to the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Commitee in 1955 when the committee again will consider amendatory legislation in the aviation field. Accordingly, a committee print was prepared as a substitute bill, containing numerous of the amendments to the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 originally included in S. 2647. At an executive meeting of the committee on August 4, your committee considered this substitute bill and the members of your committee discussed it thoroughly and endeavored to report out a revised measure. Unfortunately, so much testimony of a substantive nature was offered during the hearings that it was an impossible job to digest and present this material to the members for proper consideration in the days remaining before adjournment. It was at this August 4 meeting that your committee directed its chairman to make this statement to the Senate concerning the assistance rendered by the senior Senator from Nevada. At the same time, Republican and Democratic members of your committee agreed unanimously that the committee would be benefited in the next Congress if a report could be prepared after adjournment to accompany the substitute bill, together with a digest of the voluminous testimony and the individual views of those Senators who attended the hearings during the months' long hearings as well as a detailed staff analysis of the various proposals. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent for permission to file such a report after the adjournment of the Congress and to have such report printed as a committee document. In conclusion, Mr. President, your committee wishes to pay tribute to the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada and to advise the Senate that your committee appreciates the understanding and direction which he has given to its efforts to rewrite the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, and, further, that your committee regrets exceedingly that it could not complete this undertaking during this Congress, as so earnestly desired by the distinguished Senator from Nevada. DEFENSE TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION, Washington 25, January 15, 1954. Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: I have your letter of January 13 enclosing a copy of Senate bill 2647. You invite my comments concerning the proposed measure. The bill proposes to create an independent Civil Aeronautics Authority and an independent Air Saftey Board, to promote the development and safety and to provide for the regulation of civil aeronautics, and to promote world leadership by the United States in aviation, Inasmuch as the responsibilities of the Defense Transport Administration do not extend to air transport, I have no comments to offer. DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: I have your letter of January 13, 1954, enclosing copy of Senate bill 2647, 83d Congress, which has been referred to your committee for consideration. You ask for any comments the Tariff Commission may care to offer concerning the proposed measure. The purpose of the bill is to create an independent Civil Aeronautics Authority and Air Safety Board and to provide for the regulation of civil aeronautics. The subject matter of the proposed legislation does not fall within the sphere of special competence of the Tariff Commission and we therefore have no comments to offer. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of January 13, 1954, inviting the comments of this Office on S. 2647, 83d Congress, entitled "A bill to create an independent Civil Aeronautics Authority and an independent Air Safety Board, to promote the development and safety and to provide for the regulation of civil aeronautics, and to promote world leadership by the United States in aviation." The provisions of S. 2647 do not directly affect the functions of the General Accounting Office and this Office has no special information as to the need for or the desirability of the proposed legislation. Accordingly, I have no comment or recommendations to make with respect thereto. Sincerely yours, LINDSAY C. WARREN, Comptroller General of the United States. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D. C., June 2, 1954. Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: This will reply further to your request for the views of this Department on S. 2647, a bill to create an independent Civil Aeronautics Authority and an independent Air Safety Board, to promote the development and safety and to provide for the regulation of civil aeronautics, and to promote world leadership by the United States in aviation. Because S. 2647 deals with the general problem of the Federal regulation of air transportation, a matter with which this Department is not officially concerned, we are not in a position to give helpful information or advice with regard to the policies and purposes of the bill, and we therefore cannot recommend for or against enactment. But because the bill relates to air transportation activities to and within the noncontiguous areas of the United States within this Department's jurisdiction, we are, of course, interested in the matter of the application of the law. With one exception set forth below, S. 2647 appears generally to be applicable uniformly to the States, Territories, and possessions of the United States. That is, I think as it should be, and the bill would in this respect merely perpetuate the pattern established in the Air Commerce Act of 1926 and the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. With regard to the development of an adequate air transportation system and its regulation, I see no reason why noncontiguous areas of the United States should be treated differently from the mainland. I have, however, a few suggestions with respect to perfecting the bill with regard to its application to noncontiguous areas. There is attached a list of proposed amendments which would acc: mplish the purposes described below I suggest first that the definition of the term "citizen of the United States" in section 101 (15) be expanded to include nationals of the United States. The adoption of this amendment wou'd probably not result in any substantive modification in the bill, but it would be useful for purposes of clarification. The definition now states that the term "citizen of the United States" means a citizen of the United States or one of its possessions. The people of Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam are generally citizens of the United States. The people of American Samoa, however, are not. They are nationals, but not citizens. The concept of United States nationality is clearly set forth in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The concept of American Samoan citizenship is considerably less clear, for the term is not defined in the laws of either the United States or American Samoa. In order to assure, therefore, that all persons who are nationals of the United States will be included in the term "citizen" for purposes of the act, I recommend the adoption of the language proposed in the first of the attached amendments. In subsections (24) and (25) of section 101, the terms "interstate air commerce" and "interstate air transportation" are defined. In each case, such commerce or transportation wholly within a Territory or possession is included. The Philippine Islands, which are defined to be a possession of the United States, a matter about which I shall comment further below, are excluded from this portion of the definition. I believe that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico should also be excluded. In view of the establishment in July of 1952 of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, it seems to me appropriate for the Congress to exercise no greater authority in the case of Puerto Rico than it may constitutionally exercise in the case of a State of the Union. Therefore I recommend that air commerce and air transportation within Puerto Rico be excluded, just as air commerce and air transportation wholly within a State are excluded. The adoption of proposed amendments 2 and 3 would accomplish this result. Subsection (34) of section 101 defines the term "possessions of the United States." It specifically includes Puerto Rico, but in so doing refers to the 1917 Organic Act of Puerto Rico, without recognizing the two Federal statutes which gave rise to the establishment of the Commonwealth. There is, I think, no valid reason to refer to the 1917 act, particularly because comparable organic acts for other areas are not mentioned. But because the acts of July 3, 1950, and July 3, 1952, which resulted in the establishment of the Commonwealth, are susceptible of a construction which would exclude Puerto Rico from the term "possession" or "unincorporated territory," I suggest that a specific reference be made to such statutes. Proposed amendment No. 3 would accomplish this result. I believe further that the statute should be amended to be made generally applicable to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. In view of the United States responsibilities in the trust territory under our trusteeship agreement with the Security Council of the United Nations, it seems to me entirely appropriate that the Federal Government should undertake to regulate air commerce and transportation in the trust territory. The Federal Government in fact does so now, for existing air services in the trust territory connect with Guam, but a wholly intratrust territory service should also, I believe, be subject to Federal regulation. I therefore recommend the adoption of the fifth proposed amendment. The Congress has authority to take the action in question under article III of the trusteeship agreement, which authorizes the United States to make applicable to the trust territory "such of the laws of the United States as it may deem appropriate to local conditions and requirements." I assume that the Philippine Islands were unintentionally included in the definition of the term "possession." Because this Department has no official responsibility toward the Philippines, I do not recommend an amendment to delete the reference, but your committee may wish to give this matter its consideration. I suggest that the definition of the term "United States" be amended so that it will be clear that the broad definition applies only when the term is used in a geographical sense. Subsequent references in the bill to the laws of the United States and to the Government of the United States would appear to make this desirable. The sixth proposed amendment would accomplish this result. Finally, I recommend that the sections pertaining to an aerial approach protection program (sec. 212) and to a national airport development plan (sec. 213) be amended so that the Authority would be authorized to perform the activities outlined in those sections in the Territories and possessions, as well as in the States. Since undertaking the activities and making the grants authorzed by these sections would not be mandatory but would be within the Authority's discretion, I can see no reason why authorizing language for the Territories and possessions is not desirable. It appears that all other portions of the bill are uniformly applicable to the States, Territories, and possessions. I therefore recommend the adoption of the last two proposed amendments. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, ORME LEWIS, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 2647 1. Page 11, line 16, immediately following the word "citizen" insert the words "or national," and immediately following the words "United States or" insert the words "a citizen." 2. Page 14, line 2, immediately following the words “Philippine Islands” insert the words "and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." 3. Page 14, line 18, immediately following the word "Islands" insert the words "and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico." 4. Page 16, lines 8 through 11, strike out all of subpart (A) of subsection (34) and insert in lieu thereof the following: "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, notwithstanding the Act of July 3, 1950 (64 Stat. 319), and the Act of July 3, 1952 (66 Stat. 327) ;". 5. Page 16, lines 20 and 21, strike out the words "and (D) all other possessions of the United States" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(D) the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, but nothing in this Act shall be construed to imply that the United States claims or exercises sovereignty over such Trust Territory; and (E) all other possessions of the United States." 6. Page 17, line 15, immediately following the words "United States" insert the words ", when used in a geographical sense,”. 7. Page 33, lines 10 and 12, immediately following the word "States" insert the words ", Territories, and possessions,"; and line 14, strike out the words "State or local action" and insert in lieu thereof the words "action by a State, Territory, possession, or political subdivision thereof." 8. Page 34, line 1, and page 35, line 18, immediately following the word “States" insert the words ", Territories, and possessions,". THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Hon. JOHN W. BRICKER, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BRICKER: This letter is in response to your request of May 28, 1954, for our comments on the report of the Department of the Air Force on S. 2647, dated May 27, 1954. You make particular reference to the basic questions raised by the Department of the Air Force recommendations with respect to the control of military and civil air traffic. Our comments in this regard relate to item 12 of the Air Force recommendations which would add a proviso to section 609 (b) (5) of the McCarran bill to permit the operation of military aircraft contrary to the existing flight safety regulations covering off-airways operations. Section 609 (b) (5) is similar to section 610 (a) (5) of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended. Both sections apply to military as well as civil flights. The latter section provides : "(a) It shall be unlawful-(5) For any person to operate aircraft in air commerce in violation of any other rule, regulation, or certificate of the Authority under this title." The effect of the proposed proviso recommended by the Air Force would be to remove the power of the civil aviation authorities to require compliance by military aircraft with safety regulations necessary for the safe operation of all aircraft. Pursuant to section 601 (7) of the Civil Aeronautics Act (which is similar to section 601 (a) (1) of the McCarran Act) the Civil Aeronautics Board has adopted air traffic rules essential to the safe operation of all aircraft conducting off-airways operations. These rules relate to visibility, altitude, and terrain clearance limitations. The need for deviations from such flight rules by the military organizations to permit certain essential operations has long been recognized by the Civil Aeronautics Board. Under existing section 60.1 (a) of the Civil Air Regulations military operations are authorized to be conducted in noncompliance with air traffic rules, providing prior notice thereof is given to the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics. We are not aware of any occasions in which this procedure has adversely affected essential military operations. The enactment of the recommended proviso would give the military blanket authority, without the requirement of giving any notice, to deviate from the safety rules applicable to off-airways flights. Such authority could adversely affect the safe operation of a substantial amount of civil aircraft operations, particularly since such military operations could be conducted without prior notice, thus making it impossible for us to take timely precautionary measures. Approximately 30 percent of air-carrier operations, the majority of route-miles flown by such air carriers, and a substantial amount of business-type and other civil operations are conducted off-airways. Flight safety rules for such flights presently in effect provide the minimum level of safety for all air traffic. Any authority to permit deviation from such rules, without any restrictions whatsoever, by one class of traffic could completely eliminate all safeguards to all other aircraft operations in this area. The Air Force proposal does not add anything to its operational authority as presently exercised, except that it would eliminate the required notice of deviation. Such notice provides opportunity to establish the minimum safeguard to civil aircraft operations when notice of noncompliance is given, as the Civil Aeronautics Administration immediately communicates the contents of the notice to all users of the airspace. Such notice is highly desirable in the interest of safety, as, for example, an air-carrier dispatcher would avoid dispatching an aircraft through an area which he had notice would be occupied by military |