though that is, and I am sure that in any given case this involves many, many technical questions, and the very careful consideration of the facts that can be introduced into the record.

I don't see how I can say more than I have already, that generally speaking I think this is a desirable development that has been taking place, where the feeder carriers extend their service with their better equipment.

I think the principal test ought to be when we get through looking at the whole picture, does it provide better service for the traveling public?

Senator MONRONEY. With reference to the subsidization, which is required of our helicopter lines, which are now swinging in the balance between sudden death and maybe a continuation, if Congress chooses to rescue them from their termination.

V/STOL type of aircraft and the transportation via V/STOL offers possibilities of starting new breakthroughs, now that we have turbinepowered equipment coming in to eliminate him of the old hazards and many of the older service problems that we once had with the oldfashioned gearbox, reciprocating engine helicopters.

Generally speaking, would you be in favor of continuing the helicopter service if Congress so determines?

Mr. MURPHY. Certainly, if Congress so determined, this would be a settlement of the matter so far as I am concerned.

Senator MONRONEY. We are having difficulty now getting Congress to determine it. There is a division between the House and Senate. The Senate has put helicopter subsidies in and the House has refused to go along with this addition, and the Appropriations Committee is taking jurisdiction away from the Aviation Subcommittees of the two Houses in determining that they shall not be allowed to fly, shall not have the subsidies which are required to allow them to fly.

Mr. MURPHY. In view of my límited knowledge about this particular subject in conference, and in view of the fact that there is division of opinion in the Congress on it, I am in no position to express a view as to how Congress should decide the matter.

I can simply say, if Congress does decide it, that will settle it as far as I am concerned.

Senator MONRONEY. Let me ask you a philosophical question, then. Are you in favor of the permission where need is demonstrated for service, where ready and willing and capable carriers are able to qualify, to have new entrance into the field of aviation transport and airline operation?

In other words, is this to be a closed operation so that nobody ever need aspire because it is going to be shut off from all little guys seeking to become big guys, or little supplementals seeking to stay in the business and carry more and more on charter, and things of that kind, which is a policy of some of our giant airlines to say this is a closed corporation-nobody but us guys that were subsidized years ago can be in it, or are you in favor of keeping open opportunities for small aviation segments to find their way into profitable levels of the aviation field?

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I am in favor of keeping the way open for new entry into the field, as a philosophical matter. I think it is true at the same time that the primary considerations must be the best

service for the public, and healthy and strong air transportation system in the public interest.

I don't think this would permit, what would you say, altogether unrestricted entry, so that anyone who wanted to get into the business could get into the business. I think in each case

Senator MONRONEY. I am saying competent people wishing to get into the business, finding a niche that they think they can serve, should not be automatically barred because of the desire of certain giant carriers to keep the field exclusively for those who were in under grandfather clauses.

Mr. MURPHY. I don't think they should be automatically barred, Senator. On the other hand, I don't think they should be automatically permitted because they apply.

Senator MONRONEY. Some of these giant lines, both foreign and domestic have tried to express an attitude before this committee, and I think before the Civil Aeronautics Board, that this is sort of a quasi-monopoly. I am against monopoly, and I don't think we ever intended to create a monopoly in the airline business, and the fact that small supplemental carriers have a right to live, if they can find ways and means of fitting into the carriage of cargo or charter passengers or all-expense tours, I think they should have a right to find their way in, and we didn't intend to protect our giant carriers with any monopolistic control that forever afterward they will be barred from having competition, which they particularly didn't like.

Mr. MURPHY. I think, certainly I am not prejudiced against the idea of entry of new carriers into the business. It does happen that in my limited practice in this field, that I represented carriers who were seeking entry into the business. I trust that if I get to the Civil Aeronautics Board, I will go without preconceived notions as to how cases should be decided before the record has been made and before it has been considered by the Board.

I repeat only what I have said earlier, that philosophically, that I think I tend toward new entry into the business, but again the primary consideration should be the best service for the public and maintaining a strong industry.

Senator MONRONEY. In other words your attitude would be, if you are confirmed, and I am sure you will be, to go on as Chairman of the Board, and this is a very important, key position, as you well know in the development of aviation, it would be that the important thing is the service to the public.

Mr. MURPHY. That is right.

Senator MONRONEY. And not to necessarily be the guardian angel of the airlines who have been certificated over the years.

Mr. MURPHY. Certainly not.

Senator MONRONEY. That is what I was wondering, and I felt sure this was the attitude you had, and that the public is to be protected in its desire for service and where it can be improved, then the consideration first should go to the public.

Mr. MURPHY. I would not want it said, however, that I have no interest in the welfare and financial condition of the airlines. I think it is important in the public interest that we have a strong air transportation industry, and that if there is a possibility for this to be done profitably by airlines in the industry, I think this is a very fine thing.

Senator BASS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question there. Probably the chairman can answer this. I don't expect Mr. Murphy to know. How long has it been since we have had a major interstate airline certificated?

Senator MONRONEY. We have fewer, I would say. I don't know whether you know it or not, and I will answer it for you if you don't. We have fewer interstate trunklines, classified trunklines now than when the Civil Aeronautics Board Act was written.

There have been mergers and consolidations and more discontin

uance

Senator BASS. Have any new ones been certificated in the past 10 years?

Senator MONRONEY. None. They have been divided, of course, and the trunklines have remained what they are, and grown larger. And the trunk and the feeder lines have expanded their territory, within their regions, but none have become trunk lines, and we have fewer trunklines today than we had 10 years ago.

Was there any further question, Senator Bass?

Senator BASS. No.

Senator MONRONEY. We know from your past experience and the long years you have had in the Government service, and it is in the biography, but I think it should be restated, that Mr. Murphy in 1934 became a law assistant in the Office of the U.S. Senate Legislative Counsel and served in that post for 2 years. Then for the next 11 years, Assistant Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senate. That gave him 13 years in immediate service to the Senate, and I can attest to the value of that, because he and Mr. Boots were the principal draftsmen who wrote the reorganization draft of the law that operates our entire legislation organization and with such great diligence and acumen of law, that no parts of this act have been declared unconstitutional, and aside from those things we haven't quite observed, the act still stands as prepared by Mr. Murphy and Mr. Boots.

And so with that, plus his 4 years' service to President Truman in the White House, he has had intimate knowledge of the Congress and would know and understand our attitudes toward the service as Chairman of a branch which is an arm of Congress.

I don't think we need to lecture him as to what an arm of Congress is supposed to do after 13 years as a staff member of the Senate.

One thing I would ask you to do, I ask if you have any investments of any kind that would be incompatible with your service as a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board and its Chairman?

Mr. MURPHY. No, I do not. I have virtually no investments at all. I have submitted a financial statement which included in addition to my own financial condition a statement of my wife's financial condition, and attached to this is a list of stocks which she owns.

The only one that could possibly raise any question, I think, is she owns a small number of shares of stock in the Bendix Corp. I have talked with the committee's counsel about this. It is certainly my judgment, and I believe it is his judgment, that this does not raise any problem.

Senator MONRONEY. We have under date of May 1965 a voluntary statement by Mr. Murphy, stating the holdings he has, the financial arrangements, which will be on file with the committee, as is customary for candidates being confirmed by this committee.

I would also like to say that Mr. Boyd has also sent to the committee, and to the Bureau of the Budget downtown, a list of his holdings. So we have those both before us.

So, in conclusion, you know of no impediment to your service as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board?

Mr. MURPHY. None except my rather limited abilities.

Senator MONRONEY. This would be, of course, to the judgment of the committee and not to you, and I think the committee is rather well impressed with your general ability.

I doubt if you knew too much about farming as a career when you took the important job of Under Secretary of Agriculture in which you have made a distinguished record.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you.

Senator MONRONEY. Do you feel that you could give adequate justice to the small as well as the large, and protect the public in all phases of aviation matters coming before you?

Mr. MURPHY. I do. I don't think I have any conflict of interest or prejudice or preconceived notions.

Senator MONRONEY. For any types? And if cargo carriers are to be certified for a job, to do a specialized job in aviation, and if the record shows that they are competent to do this, there is no closed entry that would deny them the rights to serve in this new field of aviation?

Mr. MURPHY. I certainly have no preconceived notions that would deny them the right of entry into the field.

Senator MONRONEY. If there are no further questions, this committee will stand in adjournment.

Mr. MURPHY. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee, and Senator Jordan, for your very kind and considerate treatment and for your general statements. Thank you.

Senator MONRONEY. We wish you good luck in your future job. The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.) (List of members of Civil Aeronautics Board follows:)