any air-expansion program which may be promulgated; first, for the safety of the United States in national defense, and second (fortunately) because every airport facility provided for national defense purposes will be of ever-increasing value to peacetime commerce.

May I point out that, in the wisdom of the appropriations that are now asked for, a great deal of money will be required, and if this project of the extension of a national system of airports is carried out, it is one item in such appropriations which will continue throughout the years to serve this Nation. The improvements will be permanent and they will be timely. It is not a new idea. Fortunately this matter has been studied by the proper agencies for years, and recommendations made to Congress. Though it comes up now as an emergency at an emergency period, it has the backing of careful thought and consideration.

I trust that before these hearings are over, that the private flyers will be heard from because those people are to be seriously considered. From their ranks we expect to get many commercial as well as military pilots. A representative of the private flyers who was here was forced to leave, and hoped that the hearings would be. continued tomorrow. These airports are hard put to serve private flyers at the present time, particularly airports where interstate commerce is being carried on.

In Detroit we have probably one of the busiest airports in the Nation. Yesterday it was raining, but a week ago yesterday, on Sunday, we handled 983 movements of airplanes in a 24-hour period, only a small percentage of which, some 60 in number, of course, were interstate-commerce schedules, on scheduled lines.

In many communities the local pilots are being forced off the airports because of lack of proper control and there again, as I pointed out, the municipalities have had to step in and furnish something which the Federal Government should furnish, not merely because it is its responsibility, but because that control should be so standardized throughout the United States that any itinerant flyer would expect the same routine, the same handling, at any airport as he does at any other airport.

May I point out one other thing which occurred to me in listening to the other testimony, and that is that while we are considering this somewhat in the light of national defense, we do have an interior of these United States and we have other borders on our coasts, and if I am properly informed on tactics it is just as necessary that we use those interior points and protect our other borders for that purpose alone.

Another point is this. If we are going to train any tremendous number of pilots, in all probability that will be done near the urban centers where the population is the greatest. It would be logical to assume that the training would be in proportion to the population, and for that reason our urban centers deserve unusual consideration. Thank you.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Burnett.

Does anybody else wish to be heard?

Mr. WILSON. Senator, if I might supplement what I said, I was just a little curious as to where the gentleman arrived at his figures and I suddenly realized that we were talking about two different things. I was talking about personnel actually manning 50,000 airplanes, and

the gentleman whose figures you quoted was thinking of a ground force for airport maintenance and that sort of thing.

Senator CLARK. He said it would take 300,000 ground force for 10,000 airplanes, and that was on the front page of the New York Times yesterday-that is all I know about it.

Mr. WILSON. I was talking about equipment to man aircraft, and he was talking about the entire thing.

I think this should be brought in, Senator, that in the use of modern aircraft, while we have 40,000 pilots today, certainly not 10,000 of those pilots would be capable of flying modern aircraft, and by "modern aircraft" I mean high-speed, high-performance aircraft.

Senator CLARK. But that hasn't got anything to do with this bill, has it?

Mr. WILSON. To say we have 40,000 pilots trained

Senator CLARK (interposing). This is not a pilot-training bill.

Mr. WILSON. That might infer that we do have that many trained pilots. As a matter of fact, we don't have 10,000 pilots trained, and the training of the force would necessitate all these airports. We don't have that backlog already trained.

Senator CLARK. The committee will be adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 11: 15 a. m. the committee adjourned subject to call.)

FEDERAL COOPERATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF AIRPORTS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1940

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p. m., in_the_Commerce Committee room. Capitol Building, Senator Josiah W. Bailey (chairman, Committee on Commerce) presiding.

Present: Senators Bailey (chairman, Committee on Commerce), Clark (chairman of subcommittee), Barbour, Mead, Vandenberg, and McCarran.

Chairman BAILEY. We have this afternoon before the subcommittee Senator McCarran's bill. S. 3620. It appears that there are a great many people here and I judge there will be a number that will wish to be heard. I take it, though, that it is appropriate to hear Senator McCarran first.

Senator MCCARRAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, when the subcommittee commenced its hearings some days ago I made a preliminary statement, and at that time I think there were some other statements taken.

I don't care to take up the time of the committee now with a further statement, because there a number here before your honorable committee who are from out of town, and I would like very much if the committee would call on them, by name, and have them make their statement. I make this suggestion to you, Mr. Chairman, because of the number that I would like to have heard, that if there are those who have prepared statements, if they would simply give their name and address and their affiliation, and then file their statements because the committee will have to read the record afterwards and it will afford a greater number the opportunity to be heard by your committee.

I am very anxious-in view of what is going on here during this week, the Aviation Forum-to have as many give their version or views as to the pending bill, as may be possible.

Chairman BAILEY. Your bill proposes to authorize $125,000,000 to be expended for the development of landing areas in accordance with the provisions of this act. Now how much is required to be put up by the local subdivisions?

Senator MCCARRAN. Twenty percent by the States. I may state in that respect, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very decided division of opinion as to whether or not it should be cooperation between the Federal Government and the States, or between the Federal Government and the municipalities. I introduced the bill providing for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States. I am not at all wedded to the provisions of the bill in that respect. I

33

would like the committee to have the very best advice possible so that the committee might bring out a bill that would have the accord and views of those who have made a careful study of the subject.

With that in mind I introduced, and asked to have inserted in the record, and it was inserted in the record, a proposed bill carrying out all of the lines of my printed bill, but providing for cooperation between the Federal Government and municipalities, rather than between the Federal Government and the States. And may I say in that respect, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very forceful argument in favor of the plan for cooperation between the Federal Government and the municipalities.

Now there are arguments pro and con, but I figured that the committee, out of its abundance of judgment and with the guidance of those who know, would bring out a bill that would be for the best interests of this country.

There is one thing, Mr. Chairman, that is uppermost in this measure, and that is that we should provide for landing fields by whatever method may be thought proper by the Congress. In other words, if we are going to produce 8,000 planes per year, or 50,000 planes per year, or anywhere between the two, we must have landing fields. A plane must go up; it must must come down. It must have a safe place from whence to go and a safe place in which to land. A landing field is just as much a part, of aviation as the plane or the engine. You can't put an engine into a plane, no matter how fine it is, and have that engine protected, or the plane protected, unless it has a safe place from which to go and a safe place to which to go. So that aviation, whether it be commercial, whether it be military, must have landing fields.

The Federal Government is interested in this because it is a part of national defense and it is a part of commercial development-we work hand in hand in this respect.

But as regards the question of whether it should be a contribution by the Federal Government to a municipality, to bring about a proper landing field, or whether it should be a contribution from the Federal Government to the State, to bring about a landing field within the State, to my mind that is a matter that the committee should receive the best advice possible upon.

Senator BARBOUR. May I ask a question right there, Mr. Chairman? Would the Senator's feelings contemplate possibly both? I have in mind where States have an aviation authority which is a part of their State government, a department of the government.

Senator MCCARRAN. I didn't understand that.

Senator BARBOUR. I have in mind States who have, as part of their State government, a department of aviation.

Now, I am just visualizing the situation in a State of that kind, where, we will say, the contact is not alone with the municipalities. I am not arguing for or against, but I am wondering if there would be, in addition to what you say, the possibility of there being either one or the other.

Senator MCCARRAN. The answer to that, Senator, is this-it is an economic question. Through what agency will the Government or the people of this country receive the greatest value out of the taxpayer's dollar? Now, if you say it shall be through cooperation between the Federal Government and the States, then the States

must cooperate with the municipalities within the State. So then you have a tripartite organization. Whereas, if the Federal Government-this is really arguing against my own bill now-cooperates with the municipality, then you have a minimized organization. I make myself clear in that respect? In other words, there are only two organizations, the Federal Government and the municipality.

Do

After all, the municipality must support the airport, as I view it, from observation and from experience. The municipalities, the cities, must support the airports. It will come down to a time when municipalities must take over these airports and find a way to support them. Chairman BAILEY. You don't think the traffic will support them? Senator MCCARRAN. The traffic will eventually, but not now. The traffic will, eventually, with an economic program, support the airports. They must be brought to a frame of mind where they will support the airports, because they are all essential.

Now, that is the view I have. I hope I have answered you in a way, at least, Senator Barbour.

Senator BARBOUR. Well, I think you have, Senator, in a way, because of course that objective would be the objective of us all, I am sure, as far as elimination of waste is concerned. God knows that is very necessary now.

Senator VANDENBERG. Are there not such things as county airports? Senator MCCARRAN. I don't know of any; there may be. This is a broad field and one's study must necessarily be limited. In other words, I understand that there are places where the airport is so far remote from the municipality that it is in another county; I have heard of instances of that kind.

Senator MEAD. As a rule, Senator, the development of the airport has been a municipal activity from the very beginning.

Senator MCCARRAN. Indeed that is largely true; in fact, it is very much true.

Senator MEAD. And there is very little activity on the part of state governments in the promotion of aviation, compared with our municipal and Federal Governments.

Senator MCCARRAN. In would answer that by saying not enough. In other words it hasn't been so promoted as to be a state activity, but you have organizations in several States, as for instance your road-building organizations, that could be conformed into an organization to participate with the Federal Government for the building of municipal airports.

We have today a contribution made by the Federal Government to the building of highways. That contribution is made through the State organizations set up by the respective States. It has worked out to my mind very efficiently.

The thought that I had behind my bill as it is now printed was that either the road building organizations of the States could serve as a link between the Federal Government and the building of airports, or they would at least be promotional of a system that would be economical.

Senator MEAD. Yes.

Senator MCCARRAN. Please understand, Senator Mead, that this matter is one for development and I am not going to take up the time of the committee here because there are here those from far remote places, and I have taken advantage-and the Senator from