operators, as well as military authority opposing the joint use. They testified that intermixture of military jet tactical fighters with civilian planes was dangerous and unfeasible. In fact, such intermixture would have violated the rules of CAA governing airport use for civilian transport aircraft.

"The proposal also lacked merit in that the growing traffic at Andrews Air Force Base would have made it impossible to take care of growing traffic there for both military and civilian aircraft for more than 1 or 2 years' time.

"If I remember correctly, the cost of civilian facilities for joint use would be many millions of dollars. Thus, it would be a very costly, dangerous and undesirable expense. Only if the Air Force were willing to vacate the base completely for tactical aircraft, would it be of average safety requirements for civilian operation. The Air Force investment is something like $100 million in this base and the ground facilities are not suitable for civilian use. If Andrews were taken for exclusive civilian use, most of the facilities built at great cost would be unused and undesirable.

"USE OF FRIENDSHIP AIRPORT

"Committees at various times have also heard the arguments for the use of Friendship Airport at Baltimore, Md., as Washington's second airport. The use of this field to solve Washington's problems did not seem feasible to the Aviation Subcommittee of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee that had studied it because it was constructed to be convenient for use of Baltimore air passengers and not for those arriving or departing from Washington.

"The estimated time between downtown Washington and Friendship Airport for motor travel alone is 1 hour. Allowing the necessary time for checking tickets and baggage, it would mean that the passenger would have to depart Washington almost an hour and 15 minutes to an hour and a half plane departure time from the Baltimore airport.

"TRAVEL PROBLEM

"The Friendship Airport also presents problems other than inconvenience to Washington passengers. The main North-South airtraffic lanes cross at the end of the Friendship runways and this presents serious problems in landing in instrument weather. The density of traffic on these North-South traffic lanes is the highest in the country.

"Since by elimination of the joint civilian and military use of Andrews Air Force Base-which presents serious safety problems and is no solution for long-time air-traffic needs in Washington-and since Friendship Airport of Baltimore is not properly located to serve the needs of Washington, and would cause more than an hour's delay for all passengers, both coming and going, it is highly necessary that Congress approach the need for building a second airport for the Nation's capital.

"NEED FOR JET AIRPORT

"A field capable of handling jet transports is badly needed. If it is not built, the Nation's Capital will not have any jet schedules that can reach us. For example, jet passengers traveling to Chicago will probably take about 1 hour and 15 minutes between airports. Air travel to Miami, Fla., a very high density traffic run from Washington Airport, will consume only about an hour and 45 minutes. Planes for travel to New York City require an hour between airports.

"It will be difficult to explain to Chicago, Florida, or New York passengers why the Congress, by their action, has forced an additional hour of ground travel, nearly as much, in some cases, as the time consumed in flying these distances, on them to travel to the Nation's Capital.

"INTERCHANGE OF TRAFFIC

"Another important consideration is the interchange of traffic, that is, changing from one plane to another. This traffic totals from 20 to 25 percent. Burke Airport, located on the same side of Washington as Washington National Airport, would permit this interchange between airlines within a matter of about 20 minutes. The distance for such interchange between Washington and Friendship, however, would easily consume 1 hour to 1 hour and 35 minutes. Thus, this long ground travel time to Friendship would determine the buildup of scheduled service to Friendship because of difficulties of transferring between the two airports.

"Thank you for giving me the opportunity of presenting this statement. I trust that a rapid determination for the solution of Washington's growing airport problem will be forthcoming from your committee."

Senator HOLLAND. We will meet at 10 o'clock in the morning, when we will proceed to hear witnesses from the Washington Board of Trade or any semipublic or private agencies interested in the establishment of the airport at Burke.

The committee will rise until 10 o'clock in the morning.

(Whereupon, at 4: 15 p. m. Wednesday, January 16, 1957, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m. Thursday, January 17, 1957.)

ADDITIONAL AIRPORT FACILITIES FOR

WASHINGTON AREA

THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 1957

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m. in room F-39, the Capitol, Hon. Spessard L. Holland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Holland, Smith, and Potter.

ADDITIONAL AIRPORT FACILITIES

OPPOSITION TO BURKE, VA., SITE

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

CONCERN OF REPRESENTATIVES

Senator HOLLAND. The subcommittee will please come to order. I understand that Congressman Broyhill is here for a statement. You may proceed.

Representative BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Joel T. Broyhill, a Member of the House of Representatives from the 10th Congressional District of Virginia.

I would like, first of all, Mr. Chairman, to express my appreciation to the chairman and to the committee for their interest in this very serious problem. However, I should like to point out at the outset, while I do not profess to speak for the other Representatives in Congress from this area, I do believe, however, that we are all in accord in our opposition to the construction of a secondary National Airport at Burke, Va.

I believe that will include the 2 Senators from the State of Virginia, the 2 Senators from Maryland, as well as the Members of the House of Representatives in the surrounding area. While I realize that every Member of Congress and certainly the members of this committee are very much concerned about the problems of our Nation's Capital and the congestion of air traffic, I believe the chairman will agree that we in the area are very vitally concerned with the welfare, the convenience, and the safety of the people in the surrounding area of Washington whom we have the honor to represent.

ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF BURKE SITE

I do not mean to imply that the representatives of the administration and the airlines are any less sincere in their testimony before the com

mittee. However, I do believe that the administration officials have not been as objective as they could have been in exploring other alternatives in the solution of this problem. They did recommend Burke as a location approximately 6 years ago, and I believe in every exploration that they have made of alternatives they have unconsciously intended to justify their original action in the approval of the Burke site originally.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a map which will be submitted to you later, I am sure, by representatives from Baltimore, which shows-I can give this copy now, sir-the location of the various airports in the area. It shows here that there are four principal airports: National Airport; the Anacostia and Bolling Air Force Bases, which could be considered as one; Andrews; and Friendship.

The technicians, so to speak, state that there is congestion at National Airport and that we do need an additional air facility. I cannot question or argue or dispute the fact that the National Airport. might be crowded, but the question that I ask is whether or not all of our air facilities are crowded and whether or not we do have sufficient air facilities to take care of this air transportation if they had the desire to do so.

QUESTION OF BEST ALTERNATIVE

Certainly the airlines who are opposing Friendship are not putting up the money in constructing an airport at Burke. I am wondering whether or not they would be so strongly in favor of Burke if the money was coming from their own operating expenses rather than from the Government. I think that sometimes has a lot to do with people's thinking.

Even so, if we decided that an additional airport was needed and that Friendship could not be used as an alternative-there again, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that has been explored as objectively as it should have been-and if we do need additional air facilities. again the question comes up of whether or not Burke is the best alternative for another airport.

ADVENT OF JET AIR AGE

We are coming into the jet air age. We are talking about congestion in the air as well as congestion on the ground. It seems to me to be taking quite a chance to construct another airport as close to National Airport as the Burke location would be. This little booklet shows that it is 12 air-miles from the proposed Burke location to the National Airport. With air traffic increasing as it is, and as I say, we are getting into the jet age, I am wondering whether or not in inclement weather when instrument landings are required, a construction of another airport at Burke that close to the National Airport is not going to create the hazards which we are trying to avoid by constructing another airport.

OPPOSITION TO BURKE SITE

Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that maybe I am a little bit more prejudiced about this matter than some of the Representatives from Congress away from here, but there is no politically popular side for me to take on this thing. I have some very good friends who are