There is little questioning of the basic contention that airports serve needs intercity and interstate and national in character. As brought out in the hearings:

Aviation is essentially an interstate activity (mail, passenger, and express) having a vital military aspect and it requires a more positive policy of Federal regulation, development, and assistance.

The extent to which even a medium-sized city is subsidizing the flow of air travel and the delivery of the mails is well illustrated by a report from a western municipality:

"A check on local business in this city shows that for the past 9 years every passenger that left, together with every one that arrived, by United Airlines, received a contribution of $10 toward his trip by the city taxpayers and, in addition, $100 was paid toward the cost of transporting each ton of mail and express, both going and coming."

Likewise, the civil airports of the country form an integral part of our national-defense needs. Aside from the fact that most all terminals are used for military maneuvers of one kind or another, there are permanently based on these airports over 40 component units of the military branches of our Government, as well as many units of the ancillary services of aviation operated by Federal Government.

The late Chief of the Army Air Corps stated: “The principal basis for defense against air attack is the network of civil airports, extending into all the strategic areas of the continental United States."

Realizing the national character of those airports fundamental to the Postal Service, civil air transportation, and the national defense, the problem presented, and the task required in the survey, may be stated as follows: To evaluate and appraise the contribution of municipal airports to commercial and military aviation, and, the adoption of a Federal program based on such evaluation and appraisal.

In the main, we find that the basis for such an evaluation as well as its actual application is contained in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 itself. The act clearly and squarely placed upon the Administrator this specific duty: "SEC. 302 (a) The Administrator is empowered to designate and establish civil airways, and, within the limits of available appropriations made by the Congress (1) to acquire, establish, operate, and maintain along such airways all necessary air-navigation facilities; (2) to chart such airways and arrange for the publication of maps of such airways, utilizing the facilities and assistance of existing agencies of the Government so far as practical; (3) to acquire, establish, operate, and maintain, in whole or in part, air-navigation facilities at and upon any municipally owned or other landing area approved for such installation, operation, or maintenance by the Administrator; (4) to provide necessary facilities and personnel for the regulation and protection of air traffic moving in air commerce."

And the act went further and, in a detailed manner, defined the exact meaning of "air navigational facilities":

"Air navigation facility' means any facility used in, available for use in, or designed for use in, aid of air navigation, including landing areas, lights, any apparatus or equipment for dissemination of weather information, for signaling, for radio-directional finding, or for radio or other electrical communication, and any other structure or mechanism having a similar purpose for guiding or controlling flight in the air or the landing and take-off of aircraft." Title I, Sec. 1 (7).

The congressional intent of these two provisions is apparent. Congress was insistent on providing for every possible item having to do with safety. It, therefore, following the precedent in other fields of transportation (as, for example, marine transportation), placed upon the Federal Government responsibility for all "air navigation facilities." Certain testimony introduced at the hearings is of interest and explanatory of this point:

"1. Aviation is essentially an interstate activity and with a definite military aspect, and is so recognized by the very fact of the Federal control and supervision always heretofore exercised and now to be more comprehensively established through the Civil Aeronautics Authority.

"II. Federal agencies now control and furnish navigation aids for both water and aircraft in motion or flight; such aid and control should not cease when an aircraft enters the zone of an airport. On the contrary, the same agency of control should function until the craft is at rest.

"III. The runways of an airport are not separate and disconnected entities t are essential parts of the airways and comprise perhaps the singly most

important 'facility to air navigation.' The Federal Government recognized the necessity of landings when it provided emergency fields all over the country; it should, in the further interest of safety for air navigation, be financially responsible for the more essential and continuously required terminal runways.

"IV. Lighting and traffic control facilities, including localizers and landing beams are similarly a part of the airway system and should be completely federalized. Airport control towers, where they are necessary, should be provided and operated by the Federal Government; it is incongruous and makes for confusion for these to be locally operated. An unnecessary and wasteful duplication of personnel can be avoided where the Civil Aeronautics Authority combines the airport and airway traffic control. At major airports it already maintains personnel for airways communication, range operation, airways lighting, etc., and could readily complete and coordinate the traffic control function as its own." The working subcommittee thus suggests that in our efforts to find a solution of this pressing problem of airports, we simply carry out the intent of the Congress as contained in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Let the Federal Government extend its responsibilitiy to all air navigational facilities as defined in the law instead of limiting, as it does at present, its jurisdictional and functioning to only certain aids. If this proposal is adopted, we would have the following division of financial responsibility as between the National Government and the local civic divisions.

Federal responsibility:

1. All communications and required radio devices.

2. Weather control facilities.

3. Landing area proper (runways, including such costs of construction and reconstruction involved in providing and maintaining a safe landing area).

4. All costs of lights and other facilities or devices necessary for safety. Local responsibility:

1. To provide the land.1

2. All buildings required.2

3. Management of the airport.

4. Routine maintenance of landing area.

This is a division of responsibility which can be upheld on the basis (1) of the law of the land as it stands today, (2) of the economics of the problem, (3) of the feasibility of its efficient administration, and (4) of the responsibility of the whole economy to assume the burden of facilities necessary to the whole economy.

In the evaluation of the extent to which airports render a national service, and the application of Federal financial responsibility for such costs as are properly chargeable to the Nation, we, in effect, are simply presenting a plan under which the 1938 act can be properly carried out. The working subcommittee is not proposing a Federal-aid plan such as is involved in Federal-aid highways. This is a plan for sharing certain responsibilities and represents solely an extension of the present system under which it is the national duty to establish airways and provide aids to navigation. In this respect, the proposal is similar to the traditional principles embodied in the rivers and harbors program of the Government.

Of course, adoption of this recommendation involves appropriations. The amount of such appropriations as may be authorized is dependent upon future action of the Congress. On the assumption that Federal appropriations for all types of air navigation aids are made, our suggestion is simply that the Civil Aeronautics Authority be empowered to distribute such funds on the basis of the best interests of aviation from the standpoint of the Nation. In the past, airways and other navigation aids have been developed by the Government in this manner. We must deal with all air navigation aid requirements from this standpoint. In the final analysis, the Civil Aeronautics Authority and the Administrator are responsible for the development of aviation and discretion must be vested in them with regard to the application of such Federal funds as are authorized by the Congress. We are sure that in this task the Authority and the Administrator will seek the active cooperation of all agencies and groups concerned, including the many State aviation commissions which are in existence.

1 Except in such cases where, because of national requirements, the Civil Aeronautics Authority finds it necessary to provide land.

But all agencies using floor and office space, including Federal, commercial, and private agencies, should and would be expected to pay reasonable rentals.

It is assumed, of course, that prior to the allocation of any funds which may be made available to the Civil Aeronautics Authority for the purpose of providing adequate air navigational facilities, the Authority will adopt a national airport plan wherein each community will know the status of its airport in the national network. This is the crying need at the moment. In our judgment the same factors which make aviation and airports largely an interstate and national problem should determine the national network, namely, the needs of (1) the Postal Service, (2) civil air transport, and (3) national defense. In this connection it may well develop that certain private terminals, as distinct from public airports, as well as certain fields used primarily for miscellaneous flying, must be given consideration. As an example, reference might be made to those airport facilities which would be needed and used should the Government undertake a national program of training pilots and mechanics.

In conclusion, the working subcommittee wishes to call to the attention of those concerned that the program outlined above is nothing new or novel. Even before the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 had been enacted, a committee of the United States Senate had formally recommended this approach to the problem.

In the report of the Senate Committee on Commerce, entitled "Safety in the Air" (pursuant to S. Res. 146, 74th Cong.), dated March 17, 1937, these recommendations were made:

"City pride results frequently in a municipality assuming an unjustified obligation to provide facilities which keep its terminal in satisfactory condition for interstate air commerce. The ownership, operation, and maintenance of an airport used in interstate commerce should be assumed by the largest possible political division enjoying the benefits from the facility, just as is the case now with our inland waterways. The present and future construction and maintenance of the inland waterways and the facilities for coastwise shipping is assumed by the public at large. A similar arrangement should exist for air navigation facilities used in interstate air commerce. A further and supporting reason for suggesting Federal control and support of such landing areas along Federal airways is the growing use of municipal air terminals by military aircraft. The necessity for centralized control of every part of our Federal airways system, including air terminals, as is indicated by the rapid development of radio control over all airplane movements on our Federal airways.

"The present system of airway traffic control has in it a missing link, caused by the fact that the control of the Federal Government does not reach within the boundaries of the air terminals. The complete control of the Federal Government along the Federal airways should not be jeopardized by breaks in the system. The navigation of the airplane should be controlled not only while the airplane is in the air along the airways but also during its maneuvering on or about air terminals. There is every evidence that such a development is mandatory and should not be delayed."

On the basis of our studies and the statutory mandage of the present law, we urge adoption of what the Senate committee recommended nearly 2 years ago. This plan is one on which practically every aviation group in the United States is agreed. It does not propose placing the Government in any landbuying scheme. It does not place on the shoulders of the Government actual management of the air terminals-this remains a local responsibility. It does not involve the Government in construction or operation of airport buildings. It simply gives to the Civil Aeronautics Authority the job which Congress intended it to do, namely, to accept and carry out full and complete responsibility for the development of American aviation, and insure safety in its operation.

Senator MCCARRAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I present this bill to this committee, as I presented the Civil Aeronautics Authority Act to the various committees that considered it. I am not wedded to lines nor to expressions nor to subdivisions. I am wedded to a principle, and I bespeak the careful study of the committee to the end that the principle be eventually worked out.

There is a division of opinion here that is a legitimate division and should be given careful consideration. The bill before the committee provdes for Federal cooperation with the States in the development of aircraft-landing areas.

There are a goodly number in this country who have spoken to me on this subject, with the idea that it should not be Federal cooperation with the States, but that it should rather be Federal cooperation with municipalities.

Senator CLARK. Let me ask you, Senator, why is it, from your point of view, desirable to set up an additional agency in cooperating with the States which amounts to and puts another unit between the Civil Aeronautics Authority and the people who will have to do the work and put up the money? I say that because in my State, for instance, the State has never done anything on the subject of aviation, and there is no reason to believe that they would do anything on the subject of aviation; where, on the other hand, some of the municipalities, notably St. Louis and Kansas City, and, to a lesser degree, the smaller cities, have done a great deal and spent considerable money.

Now, my observation and experience has been that where you simply set up another State agency, certainly unless we pass the Hatch law, it simply means an additional number of supernumeraries in the State political machine without accomplishing anything. Why shouldn't the municipalities who are vitally interested in this matter, and are willing to put up money and effective service, have a right to go directly to the Civil Aeronautics Authority without going through a supernumerary agency, the State capitol?

Senator MCCARRAN. That is something on which there is wide. discussion from both angles.

Senator CLARK. I am anxious to get your opinion on it, because I have the very highest respect for your opinions on aviation matters. Senator MCCARRAN. This that I hold in my hand at this time, which is the Federal-airport program, the report to the Civil Aeronautics Authority by the working subcommittee of the Airport Advisory Committee, just came into my hands this morning, and I read it over hurriedly, and I want to say that the reasons set out there impressed me when I was drafting this bill as being reasons very worthy of consideration, although I did not have this before me. May I read them; they are short?

Senator CLARK. Certainly.

Senator MCCARRAN (reading):

1. Most municipalities are financially unable properly to maintain present facilities, and to make necessary extensions.

2. Cities have limited tax-levying and debt-incurring powers. Relief expenditures have exhausted the resources of many communities.

3. Local taxpayers are increasingly opposed to further airport expenditures for the reason that their purposes and services and utility extend beyond the jurisdictional scope of tax-levying power of the community.

4. Owing to increasing traffic, larger aircraft, stricter Federal standards, and air-line requirements, many communities will lose their present airport investments unless further expenditures are made for expansion and improvement. 5. Lacking increased Federal participation, communities will have to defray expenditures by increased changes on the transport industry, private flying, and on various military and civil branches of the Federal Government, and thus discourage increased usage and development of aircraft.

6. Units of the Federal Government that use municipal airports seldom pay adequate rental and other charges. The cities are therefore, in effect, subsidizing the National Government. The proposed development of schools of instruction for civilian flyers and mechanicians will require further expenditures at local airports which expenditures should be assumed by the whole economy where they have benefit.

7. Almost without exception, airports are operating at deficits. With these points we are in complete agreement.

That was the report of that committee, and among the membership I am acquainted with but one. I got that report this morning

Senator CLARK (interposing). It seems to me that all those reasons might be reasons for increased Federal aid, but I don't see any reason still for setting up an additional supernumerary authority to which the municipalities would have to go in dealing with the Civil Aeronautics Authority.

Senator MCCARRAN. You expressed the matter from an angle that has a lot of cogency to it. But I want to say at the outset that this bill is not drafted with a hard and fast adherence to anything. It is drafted with the idea of getting a program moving forward toward accomplishing an end, namely, sufficient air landing fields in this country.

Senator CLARK. I am very much in sympathy with the object of the bill, Senator, but let me say that the experience, I presume, in many other States is the same as it has been in mine. For instance, the State came in and by the use of its taxing power, raised a very large proportion of the revenue funds necessary for use in the State in the city of St. Louis; but when they go to distribute those funds they distribute them outside of St. Louis.

I have a telegram from the mayor of St. Louis stating in effect that he is very much interested in the airport bill coming up before the Senate Commerce subcommittee today which bill attempts to put the airports under State control instead of under one national program under supervision of the Federal Government. He states that this would mean 48 directors and requests that I watch the bill carefully against tying up the municipalities.

Now, what he is afraid of is that under State control he won't be able to do as much for the devolopment of aviation in our community as he is at present; and that the State will take the money and spend it wherever they please.

Senator MCCARRAN. That is an argument that must be listened to. Now, Mr. Chairman, a very respectable and respectful group, known as the Committee of Mayors of the United States, headed by Mayor LaGuardia, have done me the honor of coming to the office through their representatives, and suggesting certain things somewhat along the lines that the chairman has just suggested, and they have left with me a bill, or a draft, which practically in all respects follows the bill before the committee excepting it puts the matterit is a cooperation between the Federal Government and the municipalities. I want to put that into the record in fairness to everyone. Senator CLARK. We would be glad to have that, and the reporter may insert it at this point.

(Same is as follows:)

A BILL To authorize the Civil Aeronautics Board to establish, improve, and develop airports in the United States, appropriating $125,000,000 for this purpose and prescribing certain principles, standards, methods, and procedure for the expenditure of this appropriation

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Airports Development Act."

DEFINITIONS

SEC. 2. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires(1) The term "Board" means the Civil Aeronautics Board.