problem, isn't it possible under the wording of a bill to so arrange for the administration that it may-for instance, in Texas, where our cities are a long distance apart, perhaps there is good reason to deal individually with them and for a city to have very little thought for the others around it, and the C. A. A. could deal directly with the mayor of that city.

But in another area where there is a State set-up and where there is close collaboration between the city officials and that State organization, for the C. A. A. to deal with both and see that both are consulted so that all of the factors are brought in.

It seems to me it would be a mistake if the law imposed one or the other of those two procedures, rather than setting them up alternatively in the judgment of the Civil Aeronautics Authority.

There is another factor with respect to the State situation. Senator McCarran's bill calls for a 20-percent participation by the States, financially, and I would just like to raise the question for your thought as to the practicality of getting a 20-percent State participation if you are going to deal directly with the municipalities on the airports where the State's money is to be expended?

Senator CLARK. I take it that the theory of the 20-percent contribution from the State is predicated on the theory that the Government is going to turn over 80 percent of the money to the State. Certainly nobody expects the State to put up the money unless they have control of it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There again you see there is room for an alternative program, whether the 20 percent be put up by the municipality or the State, and the C. A. A. could handle it through either channel, depending on which was the most feasible in that situation.

Senator CLARK. As far as I know, no State has ever thought of putting up anything like 20 percent of any airport improvements. I may be mistaken about that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that is a mistaken thought in the case of specific airports.

One of the points I jotted down during this discussion to mention was this, that there are at least five different kinds of airports. There is the single airport, owned and operated by the single city, which we can call the municipal airport. There is the airport which is perhaps developed by more than one city and is under some kind of operation which at least requires a cooperative arrangement between those cities.

There is the county airport; there is the State airport, of which we have one in Connecticut, which is strictly a State institution, it is used for our National Guard. It is also used by commercial flyers or private flyers if they happen to find it convenient. But it is strictly a State airport.

And then there are Federal airports. Those may be the military airports such as the new air base that is being built in Massachusetts at Chicopee, or they may be the C. A. A. type of airports such as the intermediate landing field.

But we have a pretty diversified pattern of airports in this structure of some 2,400 units, and when you are considering passing an overriding act applying money to the airport problem, perhaps it is well to bear in mind that there are those different types of situation, and if the money isn't to be more or less piped into one type of air

port, the bill must be broad enough to recognize those different situations that exist.

Now, another thing that has impressed me, Senator, is the fact that most of the discussion has been addressed to construction of airports and not to use of airports.

I am not an airport manager, I have been in the air transportation business for some years, but I am essentially an engineer and a businessman, and this airport problem to me takes on a very fundamental factor. If you have got an emergency situation, if you want added airport facilities, particularly in the Southeast and the Northeast, for military reasons as well as commercial reasons, why don't you treat that as an emergency proposition and go out to get those airports built as economically and as rapidly as you can?

In other words, instead of thinking of it in terms of one type of relief or another, why isn't it thought of as the business proposition of getting a facility made at the most reasonable cost in the least time consistent with reasonable economy, in the most efficient manner? I don't intend to write a formula for that because I would rather have some of the men who are airport engineers and managers do that for you.

Senator CLARK. On the basis of military advantage that wouldn't have anything to do with this bill, it wouldn't be before this committee, it wouldn't have anything whatever to do with this bill; it would be a national-defense measure to be considered by the Military Affairs Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it is difficult to believe, sir, that a lot of these airports aren't matters of interest as national-defense facilities as well as commercial facilities.

Senator CLARK. You are just saying that it ought to be considered as an emergency national-defense matter. If so it ought to be considered by the Army and handled on the recommendation of the Army, instead of on the recommendation of the Civil Aeronautics Authority.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think there is a combination of use there.
One other point, if I may take the time-

Senator CLARK (interposing). You are perfectly welcome to take all the time that you wish.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, sir.

On this question of use, it seems to me that whether we want to or not we have got to relate a great many of these things today to national-defense potentialities. I am impressed with the fact that the greatest amount of airport development has gone into the airports which are used by the scheduled airlines, and that as a result of that we have today an express system of transportation over this country which is really amazingly efficient and amazingly useful. I say that as one who uses it a great deal.

Those airports have come into being because of the demands of that transportation service, because the public in the larger cities could see it and their governments could see it. Some comment has been made here about the lack of interest on the part of States in putting up money. Outside of the larger cities there are very few who were convinced that air transportation and airports, to my way of thinking, had any great current value.

235392-40- -6

Now, if a service could be created, or the usefulness of those airports could be visualized, so the people could see a use and a benefit out of more airports, it seems to me that your problem of having State funds or town funds appropriated to go with Federal funds, would be very much simpler.

To my mind the problem today divides itself into three categories. The scheduled air-line airport will continue to be improved because of the demands of air transportation and the momentum that has; the private flyer, through his pressure on local authorities where he wants to land at some little resort or what not, will gradually have strip landing fields or so-called pasture fields put in. But the off air-line airport, at the moderate-sized city, it seems to me holds the greatest potentialities, both in terms of expanding the development of commercial air transportation and also giving you a national defense backlog in expanding your commercial activities, creating a type of pilot that will be good military material-and I am talking about a cargo service between the off-air-line airport and the main air-line stop.

And if that project could be brought forward, it seems to me that it would stimulate the interest of a great many of these moderatesized cities and communities into improving their airport facilities, or adding their funds to your funds to accomplish those improve

ments.

Now, if I can say so, there is-this is not on airports, but it is a very interesting thought today-our present commercial flying is not providing flyers of satisfactory military-pilot material, because the air-line pilots have become very conservative, and the whole emphasis is on safety, and flying their passengers comfortably. They have been given every air-navigation facility including a great many that wouldn't be available if there is any war emergency.

I think the first thing we would do if we had any enemy aircraft approaching, would be to shut off the air beacons and beams.

And those men, while they are the finest flyers in the world, are certainly not military-combat material. The private flyer, flying in a small horsepower ship, isn't getting the type of training that makes him quickly into a military flyer. The type I am thinking of is the man who used to fly the air-mail in the old days before they carried passengers, and who got the mail through rain or shine, hail or storm, and had an esprit de corps, and was used to handling sufficiently powerful ships so that if you put him in a military ship he was pretty well up. He may have needed instruction in gunnery and tactics, but flying-wise he was prepared to be a military pilot.

And it seems to me that if the emphasis can be put on the off-line airport and the cargo service from that airport to the connecting air line stop, that you can tie into that the rebirth of a group of young pilots who will have the esprit de corps and the same character of training as the old air-mail pilots, and it will give you an invaluable reservoir of pilot material for military emergencies.

That development to me is dependent upon the airport development because without the airports to operate from, you can't have the pilot development. I would like to throw that thought in for what it is worth.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Owsley?

Mr. Roy H. OWSLEY. I haven't any testimony.

Senator CLARK. Is there anybody else who desires to be heard on this matter?

STATEMENT OF HERBERT A. FOLSOM, MAINE AERONAUTICAL COMMISSION

Mr. FOLSOM. Maine has gone on record by action of its council for some such measure providing funds for airport construction, but I want to go on record at this time as concurring with what Mr. Johnson said about the allocation of these funds directly to the municipalities, with the exception that it does seem to me, citing our own situation up there in Maine, that where there is an existing State agency such as an aeronautical commission, that they should tie in as a collaborating or approving agency with the Civil Aeronautics Authority, due to the fact that we are now working upon a State airport system made up of useful units, useful both from a military and a commercial viewpoint, and if a certain total was to be reached in the allocation of funds to any particular State, a certain number of communities might be approved and those funds entirely exhausted, while several of the more important or most useful units would not be included in the program.

I am assuming, as they have done so well in the past, that the Civil Aeronautics Authority will work with any existing agency of that kind, but I don't know whether any provision should be made or not. I concur that the money should go to the municipalities with the proviso that I think where there is an existing agency they should tie in.

Senator CLARK. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter? If not, the committee will adjourn, subject to the call of the Chair.

(The chairman directed that the following be inserted as a part of the record:)

Re: S. 3620. "Aircraft Landing Area Development Act."
Hon. BENNETT CHAMP CLARK,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation,

United States Senate Committee on Commerce,
Washington, D. C.

MAY 20, 1940.

MY DEAR SENATOR CLARK: We enclose a statement suggesting an amendment to the above bill now pending before your committee.

Briefly, this amendment would put in force a policy that has proven to be in the public interest in connection with the construction of Federal-aid highways, namely, the use of the contract system.

The amendment would read as follows:

"Wherever feasible and practicable, the contract system shall be followed on performing work."

We would kindly ask that you give consideration to the above and include it in the transcript of the hearings on the bill.

Very truly yours,

EDW. J. HARDING,
Managing Director.

MAY 22, 1940.

STATEMENT REGARDING S. 3620, "AIRCRAFT LANDING AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT" Submitted to the subcommittee on aviation, United States Senate Committee on Commerce, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America, by Edward J. Harding, managing director, Washington, D. C., May 20, 1940

The Associated General Contractors of America is composed of those firms who do the major part of the construction work in the United States.

In appearing before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the United States Senate Commerce Committee, in regard to S. 3620, entitled "Aircraft Landing Area Development Act," we are asking no favors. We come offering the cooperation of all our members, including all their forces skilled in the efficient management of construction operations, our thousands of skilled employees who operate the equipment developed to handle such work expeditiously.

This bill, S. 3620, recognizes the need for a national system of airports and would authorize $125,000,000 of Federal funds for this purpose. It is assumed the Congress desires these funds to be administered so as to get value received for the appropriation made.

We suggest that the bill be amended so as to profit by the experience of the Federal Government in the building of a national system of Federal aid highways, namely by providing for the use of the contract system on work which may be financed under its terms. More of airport value for the tax dollar expended will be furnished by this method than by any other.

This may be accomplished by adding to S. 3620, section 5 (b) on page 6 after line 2, a new subsection:

"(5) Whenever feasible and practicable, the contract method shall be followed in performing work.”

The above is an exact quotation of the provisions used on Federal-aid highway projects as appearing on pages 76 and 80 of "Federal Legislation and Rules and Regulations Relating to Highway Construction-Administered by the Public Roads Administration, Federal Works Agency-United States Government Printing Office, 1939."

The amendment suggested is in the public interest and we ask your favorable consideration so that it will be included in the form of bill which may be approved by the committee.

(At the request of Senator McCarran, the Chairman directed that the following be included in the record:)

OFF-AIR-LINE AIRPORTS FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

MAY 29, 1940.

By Harvey L. Williams, Chairman, New England Aviation Conference and Director, Connecticut Aeronautical Development Commission)

In developing the finest scheduled air-line system in the world, with the appurtenant airports, radio beams, beacons, and other ground facilities, we have abandoned a type of flying well qualified to train pilots in the basic essentials needed for the military air services and suited to developing the type of esprit de corps necessary in the military pilot. Such flying can be reestablished through commercial flying operations from off-air-line airports to air-line stops by service designed to carry cargo (mail, express, or freight) regularly, winter and summer, rain or shine. Such service can be supplemented by carriage of passengers when flight conditions permit but emphasis must be placed on getting the cargo load through just as it was in the days of the air mail before passenger traffic became a factor and before mail loads were flown in passenger airplanes.

The development of such flying requires, before all else, the ground facilities from which to operate. Such ground facilities are airports and landing fields off-air-line routes.

In many instances, such airports will be turf-covered landing areas with wooden, painted boundary markers and a wind tee but with no other aids to air navigation. In some cases runways with inexpensive surface treatment may be justified and in some others automatic marker beacons, a lighted wind tee and some boundary or runway lights. These off-air-line landing areas would not be the costly, highly developed type of airport required at main stops of the scheduled airlines. Neither would they be as small or as inexpensive as