(The resolution referred to is as follows:)

GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Atlanta.

RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO CIVIL AERONAUTICS BILL H. R. 1012 AMENDING THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938

By the Commission:

Whereas there is now pending before the Congress of the United States a bill (H. R. 1012) entitled "A bill to amend the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938," and which said bill has been favorably reported to the House of Representatives by the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the said House; and

Whereas the proposed new paragraph (a) of the new subsection 21 of section 1 of the said act, as proposed to be amended, and also new paragraph (a) of new subsection 22 of said section 1 of the said act defining "interstate air transportation" would, if enacted into law, remove from the sovereign State of Georgia its present rightful authority over interstate commerce by air; and

Whereas the proposed elimination of the words "interstate or overseas" at various other places in the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 would indicate an intent to broaden the scope of the Federal authority so as to preclude any jurisdiction by any sovereign State over intrastate commerce by air; and

Whereas in the opinion of this commission no need exists for the enactment of such restrictive provisions, and it appearing that the best interests of the national economy will be injured unless the said bill be amended to remove the said objectionable, and, doubtless, unconstitutional, restrictions: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Georgia Public Service Commission oppose the passage by the Congress of the United States of the civil aeronautics bill (H. R. 1012) and that the commission oppose any and all attempts to limit or deprive the sovereign State of Georgia of its right to regulate intrastate commerce within the said State of Georgia; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to each of the Senators and Representatives from the State of Georgia who are members of the Seventyeighth Congress of the United States.

By order of the Georgia Public Service Commission, this the 9th day of March 1943.

A. O. RANDALL, Secretary.
W. R. McDONALD, Chairman.

Mr. BENTON. Also, the Public Service Commission of Wyoming has adopted a resolution of which I hand a copy to the reporter and ask to have it included.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Very well.

(The resolution referred to is as follows:)

WYOMING PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

State of Wyoming.

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE WYOMING PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AT A REGULAR SESSION, CHEYENNE, WYO., MARCH 9, 1943, RELATIVE TO THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BILL, H. R. 1012, AMENDING THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938.

By the Commission:

The Wyoming Public Service Commission has examined the civil aeronautics bill (H. R. 1012) to amend the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, and has reviewed Report No. 124 of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce pertaining to said bill, and finds, if enacted in its present form, said bill would eliminate the present authority of this commission to regulate intrastate commerce. It is clear the proposed bill is so worded as to bring about the broadening of the scope of Federal authority, thereby precluding any jurisdiction vested in State commissions.

The importance of transportation by air in both interstate and intrastate commerce, particularly transcontinental movements related to the war effort, is fully recognized by this commission; however, we further recognize post-war potentialities in intrastate commerce, and it is our opinion nothing should be done to deprive the various States of their powers over such transportation: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Wyoming Public Service Commission opposes the passage by the Congress of the United States of civil aeronautics bill, H. R. 1012, and further opposes any and all attempts to deprive the State of Wyoming of its rights to regulate intrastate commerce; be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Senators and Representatives from the State of Wyoming who are Members of the Seventyeighth Congress of the United States.

By the Public Service Commission, dated at Cheyenne, Wyo., this 9th day of March, 1943, A. D.

Attest:

JOHN J. HANCOCK, Secretary.

WYOMING PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
ARCHIE EWOLDSEN, Chairman.
M. H. LEITNER, Commissioner.

Mr. BENTON. I come now to my own statement for the association. The association does not oppose this bill in its entirety, nor does it seek to say anything about its principal provisions. Those affect matters which do not concern the State regulatory commissions, and those commissions do not presume to advise you with respect to matters aside from their own jurisdiction. We have come here merely to ask that the constitutional right of the State to regulate its intrastate commerce or at least what has always been regarded as its constitutional right-be not destroyed. This bill as it has been reported undertakes to destroy that right by statute.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Would you specify the section?

Mr. BENTON. I will do that. If you will indulge me, I would like to present a list of the amendments, and comment on them at the close of my general statement.

Mr. BULWINKLE. All right, sir.

Mr. BENTON. The bill, as it has been reported, undertakes by statute to destroy a right of the States which has always been considered a fundamental constitutional right. That is the right of each State to regulate its internal commerce. The bill undertakes to destroy that right so far as intrastate air commerce is concerned, by a declaration that air commerce between any two places in the United States shall be "interstate air commerce." Many words are used to make the declaration, but that is what the declaration means. That is the definition which is on page 70 of the bill in the new section 802, subparagraph (22) in section 6.

The definition of air transportation in amended subparagraph (23) in section 7 on page 71 is similar.

If that definition simply said that all transportation anywhere in the United States is interstate commerce, it would have meant exactly the same thing.

Having thus defined "interstate air commerce" to embrace all air commerce whatsoever within the United States, the Board of Civil Aeronautics is to exercise power to regulate the operations of air carriers, under the general provisions in the existing act giving that agency jurisdiction over carriers engaged in interstate air commerce. This is a complete reversal of the purpose of Congress made clear when it enacted the Aeronautics Act of 1938. In that act the jurisdiction of the Board of Civil Aeronautics was plainly restricted to the regulation of interstate air commerce defined to exclude the purely internal commerce of the States, when not affecting or endangering interstate commerce; and the Congress went further in that act by expressly recognizing State aeronautical authorities in section 205 (b)

of the act which authorizes the Board of Civil Aeronautics to hold joint hearings with such State authorities and otherwise to cooperate with State authorities in the administration of the act. That is the same provision for coordinating State regulation with Federal regulation which Congress has made in the Interstate Commerce Act, in the Motor Carrier Act, in the Federal Communications Act, in the Federal Power Act, and in the Natural Gas Act, and in the act to regulate water carriers. In other words, in every statute heretofore enacted for Federal regulation of public service enterprises, the Congress has recognized the right of the States to regulate their purely internal commerce. This act is an abrupt and complete reversal of that course.

To make this effect of this act inescapable, this act would insert a new section, numbered 802, found on page 111 of the bill, as printed. That new section is more destructive of State power than any collection of words of similar length which I have ever seen.

It starts out with a legislative finding:

The regulation of air navigation and air commerce is declared to be a matter of special national interest.

That legislative finding ties in with other legislative findings and definitions in various parts of the act to which I shall advert later. They are designed to furnish the foundation for court decisions hereafter, supporting the proposed destruction of State powers. Following that finding comes the provision in the new section explicitly effecting such destruction:

No. State * * shall regulate air navigation and air commerce.
What does that mean? It means everything.

Let us take first "air commerce," regulation of which by the States is thus explicitly forbidden. To find what that phrase means we must turn to the definition of air commerce in section 1 (3) of the 1938 statute, into which this new section is to be written. That provides: (3) "Air commerce" means interstate * * * air commerce.

*

So we are driven back to the definition of "interstate air commerce" as contained in amended paragraph (22) on page 70 of the new bill, which provides:

(22) "Interstate air commerce" persons or property

* * *

mean[s] the carriage by aircraft of a place in any State

* * * between * * * and any other place in any State * *

"Any State" plainly includes the State in which the carriage was begun.

Words might have been saved, and the proposed new definition would have meant exactly the same if it provided: "Interstate air commerce means all carriage by aircraft of persons or property within the United States."

What is the purpose of so amending this definition? It is to destroy complete State power over intrastate air commerce, and to give the Board complete jurisdiction over the rates and services of air carriers engaged in intrastate commerce, without explicitly saying so. By providing in this amended subparagraph (22) that the phrase "interstate air commerce" shall have this expanded all-inclusive meaning for the purposes of the Civil Aeronautics Act, you will give new meaning to every grant of power to the Board which is now in that act or which shall be included in it by this amending act. When you

make that new definition and the new definition of "interstate air transportation" contained in amended subparagraph (23) you extend the power of the Board to all rates and services of air carriers in intra

state commerce.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Now, just a minute there. Do you, representing these commissioners, agree that the regulation as to safety should be a national function?

Mr. BENTON. To the extent necessary for the protection of interstate air commerce.

Mr. BULWINKLE. How far would you go on that, or how little would you go?

Mr. BENTON. I would do that which it developed was necessary to be done. I am coming to that.

Mr. BULWINKLE. All right, sir, if you are coming to it.

Mr. BENTON. That you destroy State power as to the regulation of services and rates is perfectly plain; if you will refer to the proposed provision of the statute which you have and the provisions of the existing law which I have set out here.

Sections 403 and 404 of the 1938 statute provide:

SEC. 403. (a) Every air carrier * * shall file with the Authority * tariffs showing all rates, fares, and charges for air transportation.

SEC. 404. (a) It shall be the duty of every air carrier to provide and furnish interstate * * * air transportation * * * safe and adequate service, equipment, and facilities * [and] to establish just and reasonable * * * rates, fares, and charges.

* *

Section 1 (10) of the 1938 act provides:

"Air transportation" means interstate *

* *

The provisions of the existing law make it the duty of air carriers to provide just and reasonable services at just and reasonable rates in air transportation.

Now, it is plain that those words "air transportation" have a special meaning by definition in the existing act. In section 1 (10) they mean "interstate air transportation."

That definition you put into the language of the 1938 act to make it clear that the jurisdiction which you then gave over air transportation was limited to interstate air transportation. Now, by changing the definition of interstate air transportation to include everything, you very carefully do what you very carefully refrained from doing in the 1938 statute.

The new definition of "interstate air transportation" contained in section 7 on page 71 accordingly ties up with these provisions of the law already in the act. By making these new amendments, therefore, you would make it the statutory duty of every air carrier to establish and maintain just and reasonable rates for intrastate air carriage, and would give to the Board jurisdiction to enforce that duty on air carriers. In other words, jurisdiction to regulate the rates and service of air carriers in intrastate commerce would be shifted from the States to the Board.

So I say if you make these changes in definition, and write into the act this proposed new section 802, you will effect the complete destruction of State power to regulate intrastate commerce by aircraft. But you will do a great deal more than destroy State power to regulate air carriers. You will absolutely foreclose the States from any regulation whatever of private aircraft, as well.

We are at the threshold of a great development of air transportation. It may rival the development of the automobile, and may help us to avoid a post-war depression.

In the last issue of Time is a picture, and an account of Mr. Sikorsky's new helicopter, which is a machine not much larger than an automobile, which can land and take off from your front lawn, or from your porch, and is said to be foolproof. The Army is already buying them for military use and so is the British Navy, according to the newspapers-that is not stated in Time.

Who is going to say that airplanes are not going to become cheap and open to common use, if the conditions under which they can be used permit that sort of thing.

But this will not happen

Mr. BULWINKLE. Are you speaking now of airplanes for private use?

That

Mr. BENTON. I am speaking of airplanes for private use. will not happen if all regulation is through Federal bureaus in Washington. Aviation needs the same chance to enjoy and to benefit from the local interest and participation and support which every other industry in America has had. And, it needs the interest and participation of State governments and municipalities.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Mr. Wolverton.

Mr. WOLVERTON. You have just stated that, in your opinion, if there is Federal regulation the aircraft industry would not develop as much as if it were left to State regulation.

Will you develop that thought a little bit more? I do not follow it so readily that I can accept your statement without something to support it.

Mr. BENTON. I was here on the 11th and 12th and I heard the testimony of the aeronautical representatives of the States of Illinois and New Jersey who were telling you about the development in those States and about the plans for municipal airports which perhaps did not exactly reach the dimensions which would accommodate interstate air liners, but which perform a useful function in those States, in developing local aviation to meet the needs of the people locally, and I believe that the members of the committee must have been impressed with the fact that aviation in those States is being greatly aided by the participation of the States and the municipalities in the development of the industry, in furnishing facilities; and I believe you will also think that it is impossible to believe that the counties and cities and States of this country will take that active interest in developing the industry which they are now taking, if you provide by law that they cannot have any word to say with respect either to air carriers, or carrier service, or with respect to airplanes for private

use.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Well, I heard the testimony to which you refer; but it did not lead me to the same conclusion that it evidently has led you. Your statement was a strong statement.

Mr. BENTON. It was intended to be, sir. I do not think it was overstrong.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I was anxious that you would develop it in some way so I could more readily understand the conclusion that you reach. You have referred to the testimony of those two gentlemen.