Oregon

In the interest of uniformity of construction and maintenance and general policy, favor Federal agencies working with States in matters of airport construction and improvements.-Earl Snell, Governor.

Pennsylvania

I urge that in development of national airport plan we follow successful pattern of the Federal Government working with the States and through the States to the political subdivisions. With this in mind Pennsylvania has established aviation facilities that are already busily engaged upon this project.-Edward Martin, Governor.

Rhode Island

It appears to me that any Federal funds appropriated for the construction of airports should be expended in cooperation with the States, and through the States to local subdivisions thereof. Federal-State cooperation in airport construction patterned after existing cooperative plans on highway construction most assuredly is more desirable in Rhode Island. J. Howard McGrath, Governor (letter, February 8, 1945).

South Carolina

Wish to cooperate with you and urge that legislation provide construction and improvement of airports be carried on through the States and their political subdivisions in accordance with national highway pattern. I am in full accord with the general policy adopted by the Governors' Conference in Hershey, Pa.— Ransome J. Williams, Governor.

South Dakota ·

Recent South Dakota legislation provides National Government to work through State Government of various political subdivisions of State in aeronautics. Our State's aeronautics commission also favors the policy. As Governor, I approve the legislation and also participated in the aeronautics commission's plan in view of the necessity for some State supervision, regulation, and promotion of aeronautics locally. Personally favor the idea of all Federal activities being conducted through the State government instead of directly with local subdivisions.-M. Q. Sharpe, Governor.

Tennessee

I am in favor of the airport problem being handled by the Federal agency working with and through the States in accordance with Federal-aid highway program which has been so successful.-Jim McCord, Governor.

Utah

In the development of a national airport program I think it most essential that the pattern long established and eminently successful in the Bureau of Public Roads be followed. This will insure the effective use of all existing facilities on Federal, State, and local levels.-Herbert B. Maw, Governor.

Vermont

Recommend that legislation relating to improvement of airports provide that Federal agency work directly with State agency, and through such State agency with the State political subdivisions in accordance with national highway procedure. Mortimor R. Proctor, Governor.

Virginia

Approve plan, Federal Government to work through the States, and through the States to political subdivisions relative to construction and improvement of airports.-Colgate W. Darden, Jr., Governor.

West Virginia

Retel relative to pending airport bills before Senate Commerce Committee: It appears to me the Federal agency should work with and through the States to the political subdivisions rather than deal directly with such subdivisions. This, to my mind, would make for much better planning and more efficient service for the future.-Clarence Meadows, Governor.

Wyoming

Your suggestion in harmony with my thinking, and Wyoming Senators have been advised.-Lester C. Hunt, Governor.

Mr. SCHROEDER. In the testimony of previous witnesses before this committee, the one point upon which there appears to be common agreement is the advisability of a program of Federal aid in the construction of public airports. There has been a tendency on the part of the witnesses appearing before your committee to attempt to apply a universality of thinking to the problems of air transportation and airports. An instrument so flexible as the aircraft with its multiplicity of problems cannot be so contained. All aircraft will not be mammoth air liners. All airports will not be major air terminals. Nor can all governmental control be Federal. A witness appearing before this committee has drawn an excellent picture of what one of the major cities is building for the benefit of air-line transportation He has developed quite adequately the intricacy of the problem even to the extent of telling of the amazing revenue possibilities from the casual spectators who will gladly drop a dime into a turnstile for the privilege of gazing in awe over a 4,000-acre, 90-million-dollar air terminal created by pumping all the sand out of the Atlantic Ocean. But this witness did not indicate what, if anything, is being done by that same city for the benefit of the some twenty or thirty thousand nonscheduled and personal aircraft which will be flying in his State after the war.

While the importance of long-haul air-line transportation and the need for the major air terminals to serve this particular phase of aviation cannot in any way be minimized, it is imperative to recognize the equal importance of the many other activities of the aircraft which will develop, and the ground facilities which they are going to require. It is an axiom of transportation that far more people travel short distances than long distances. The aircraft inevitably must enter the field of short-haul transportation. The terminals which it will use cannot cost millions of dollars. Similarly the aircraft will enter into more diversified commercial activities to an increasing degree along the lines suggested now by the familiar crop-dusting, seeding, and fertilizing by air, and last of all the aircraft increasingly will be used as a personal form of transportation. The growth of the facilities which will serve these activities will not, for the most part, be located within city limits, although many of them will be located near concentrations of population. The problems of their creation and maintenance of these facilities cannot be solved by the municipalities alone or with the sole aid of the Federal Government. The assistance of the State is indispensable.

Great stress has been placed by witnesses before this committee on the failure of the State to make provision for the development of aircraft ground facilities as the reason for sustaining a Federal-municipal relationship in the channeling of Federal airport aids. It is interesting to point out, historically, that the States enacted aviation legislation some years before the Congress, and that undoubtedly had an economically justifiable need for airports existed in the years prior to the war, the States would have taken some action on a matter which affects so many of its citizens as some of the men who are here with today will indicate to you. At the present time some 44 States have created the necessary agencies to handle aviation matters and are ready to act. Again from a historical point of view, this represents a far greater realization of the obligation and responsibility than the States showed at the beginning of the development of our public

highways. When the Public Roads Administration began its work in 1912 there were only two State highway departments, and it was the Public Roads Administration which actively urged the creation of such agencies in all the States. Similarly the Public Roads Administration recognized the importance of achieving cooperation at the State level and it was as a result of this requirement that the principle of State control was advocated by the Administrator and ultimately adopted by all the States.

Our experience and our struggle with the airport problem up to the present time should now be so adequate that anyone can read the signs. The testimony of witnesses before this committee and the Senate Commerce Committee strongly point to the deficiencies of the airport planning and construction program of the past which the 1938 Civil Aeronautics Act placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Aeronautics Authority. In that act and by repeated subsequent resolutions, Congress has required the Civil Aeronautics Administration to prepare a plan, but we still see no plan which is recognized as being adequate even by Civil Aeronautics Administration. The missing ingredient and the failures of the past can be charged quite directly to lack of coordinated planning at the State level. The testimony of witnesses before this committee and before the Senate committee strongly support this contention.

H. R. 3170 now proposes to attempt to solve the difficulty by proceeding still further along this line of the original error. It attempts to substitute contractual relations with political subdivisions for normal governmental processes. It attempts to require the success of municipally sponsored airport projects by the application of Federal control and management. It proposes that municipalities abandon all consideration of their community of interest with their neighboring cities and their State government, and bargain competitively with each other through the Administrator for "their share" of a vast public appropriation. In the event they are successful in this negotiation, this legislation proposes that as equal partners from the dollar point of view, they shall become very unequal partners from the management point of view, and must submit their contracts and their operation statements to the Administrator for scrutiny and approval, and if they do not respond to the suggestions and orders of the Administrator this legislation further provides that through the medium of contracts, decrees for specific performance may be enforced against them. Thus, we have what might better be termed a municipal-aid airport program, rather than a Federal-aid airport program.

If this were not enough to stimulate the development of an entirely new concept of partnership in a public undertaking, title II of H. R. 3170 sweepingly gives to the Administrator the power to grant contracts or rights for exclusive use of the airport and further to exercise the power of the Federal Government to condemn land and to build, if deemed necessary in the opinion of the Administrator, federally owned and operated airports on the other side of the fence.

The National Association of State Aviation Officials is acutely conscious of the fact that something more than public funds obtained at a fantastic price will be required to develop and sustain a Nation-wide airport system. In every State there are instances of airports which have been created largely with public funds which stand nearly idle

or which have long since been abandoned. In every State there are instances of municipal airports from which have departed most of the private aircraft operators. These men have returned to the pasture airports because the municipalities, by reason of poor planning, were being forced on the one hand to raise their tax levies to maintain the airport, and on the other to make exorbitant charges to the users of the airport. In every State there are instances of airport-service operators who have gone out of business simply because aircraft could not earn enough money to pay its keep in the municipal stable.

It is

It is the considered opinion of the National Association of State Aviation Officials that the development of the national airport system upon which the success or failue of a vast new industry hinges will be possible only through the machinery of municipal, State, and Federal intergovernmental cooperation. Each of these levels of government has an unavoidable obligation and responsibility in connection with such a program. Any effort to compromise this principle will seriously retard the full development of an airport system built within a sound economy and this in turn will have a serious and demoralizing effect upon the industry the airports are being constructed to serve. preposterous that the municipalities and States should point their fingers at each other and claim either that they have or have not the money to match with Federal funds. The value of either position taken by either group is most adequately demonstrated by the testimony given by Mayor LaGuardia before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 22, 1945, with reference to Federal loans for the advance planning of public works. At that time Mr. LaGuardia inserted in the record statements from a number of our major municipalities urging a Federal appropriation for advance planning loans for postwar public works on the ground that the municipalities have inadequate funds even for planning.

I have here a copy of the responses of the municipalities which Mayor LaGuardia inserted in the record at that time, and I should like permission to insert that same material in this record as exhibit B. The CHAIRMAN. It may be received.

(Exhibit B above referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT B

FINANCIAL ABILITY OF CITIES AS REFLECTED IN TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

The mayor of New York City in testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee on March 16, 1945 stated as follows:

"It appears to the United States Conference of Mayors that successful execution of a national-airport program as contemplated by these bills (S. 2 and S. 34), revolves completely around the question of what units of government can match Federal funds. From evidence compiled by the conference it is clear that few units of government other than the larger cities are in a position at the present time to match proposed Federal funds on a 50-50 arrangement for those airports of class III and above.

"The conference of mayors has made a sampling survey of typical cities in practically all of the States of the Union for the purpose of determining the ability of cities to uphold their part of this suggested arrangement. Detailed data for the information of the committee is submitted in the attached exhibit marked 'A." Exhibit A, referred to by Mayor LaGuardia contained a list of statements from approximately 50 cities in which the prevailing tone was that municipalities had the money and were prepared to spend millions of dollars on airport construction just as soon as matching funds were made available by the Federal Government. In contrast to Mayor LaGuardia's testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee was his testimony before a subcominittee of the Senate Appropriations

Committee on February 22, 1945 with reference to Federal loans for the advance planning of public works. In his February 22 testimony, Mr. LaGuardia inserted in the record (pp. 123-135, inclusive) statements from some 75 municipalities urging that the proposed House appropriation for advance planning loans, designated by Mayor Samuel, of Philadelphia, as "so grossly inadequate that it must be considered as no appropriation at all" be greatly increased so that the cities could borrow sufficient money from the Federal Government to make adequate plans for postwar public works. Here the prevailing tone was to the effect that municipalities have very inadequate funds with which to make even the plans and designs for postwar public works and that actual construction in most of the cities would be dependent upon State or Federal grants. The following excerpts indicate the vein of this testimony:

Philadelphia, Pa.: "Unless we are given this very essential assistance in the preparation of plans and specifications, there is little prospect of our contributing toward the national welfare."

St. Louis, Mo.: "Our existing program requires 1.7 million dollars for preparation of engineering and architectural plans, but only about one-tenth of this sum is presently available

*

Pittsburgh, Pa.: "Costs, surveys, and plans (needed), 1.4 million dollars; funds available, 165 thousand dollars."

Los Angeles, Calif.: "Our needs are taken care of at State expense."

New Orleans, La.: 'Are having difficulty in financing the preparation of detailed plans and specifications.'

Newark, N. J.: "No local funds are available for plans and specifications." Dayton, Ohio: "Insufficient funds and engineers for preparation of plans." Flint, Mich.: "Funds available from State on matching basis, but available local funds relatively insignificant."

Buffalo, N. Y.: "The city at the present time is not able to finance further plans without assistance."

Youngstown, Ohio: "The financial condition of this city, along with all other cities in Ohio, is in such a condition that no postwar work can be done without Federal assistance."

Savannah, Ga.: "Have been awaiting action in Washington before engaging engineers."

Birmingham, Ala.: "We badly need engineer and architect advancement fees." Shreveport, La.: "If the (House) recommendation of $5,000,000 is sustained * * * Shreveport's pro rata part of this fund would not amount to enough to prepare plans for Chick Sale's outhouse."

Roanoke, Va.: "No funds are available for the preparation of plans and specifications."

Springfield, Ohio: "We will be unable to get out detailed plans to the fact that city's finances will not permit same."

due

St. Joseph, Mo.: "Without Government aid, it would be utterly impossible to carry out our plans."

Huntington, W. Va.: "The city is not financially able to finance (engineering and architectural costs)."

Quincy, Ill.: "Local funds are not available to finance engineering costs." Mount Vernon, N. Y.: "We have no plans for providing the funds for our postwar program, and we await announcements from the State and Federal Governments as to what their intentions will be."

Further evidence is available to indicate that the "Financial ability of cities to participate in Federal-aid airport programs" (heading of Mayor LaGuardia's exhibit A) may not be so great as the mayor of New York has claimed. On April 4, 1945, the Public Works Subcommittee of the House Postwar Economic Policy and Planning (Colmer) Committee held hearings in Chicago. At that time Mayor Kelly pointed out that the city of Chicago has in preparation a postwar public-works program totaling $937,000,000. However, the mayor of Chicago went on to say:

"I do not want you gentlemen to infer that Chicago taxpayers can shoulder this added financial load, this $937,000,000. Quite the contrary is true. If there is a shrinkage in employment after the war. Chicago will have difficulty securing from its taxpayers the funds to pay for the maintenance of its garbage collection, its police and fire services, its health and recreation, and other local essentials. Decreased income does not spell increased taxes."

Later on in his testimony, Mayor Kelly said:

"I therefore strongly advocate that the National Government make outright grants now to expedite the planning for the construction later contemplated."