this problem 2 years ago: the Washington-Baltimore Airport investigation. But the case never got off the ground. It apparently is mired in interagency redtape for an indefinite period.

We strongly urge this committee to look into this question to see what is necessary to induce the CAB to reinstitute procedures in that case. Nothing more than scattered token efforts of reallocation by the carriers will result until the CAB steps in with a firm hand and sets clear guidelines for use of the area airports.

CAB HEARING

Senator SPONG. This subcommittee is very much aware of the status of those proceedings, and I would say in terms of your statement that perhaps I ought to review my understanding of what has happened.

CAB scheduled the hearings on an informal basis, in the hope that the airlines would voluntarily agree to the transfer of some flights from National to Friendship and to Dulles.

The hearings were held and then the Department of Transportation requested that the matter be held in abeyance pending some policy decisions from them. Then the new administration again asked that the hearings be suspended, I believe until July of this year, pending some policy decisions on their part.

Now, frankly, I am speaking only for myself and no other member of the committee. I have always felt that the CAB hearings were the most apparent vehicle for something to be done. I have realized though that had the hearings proceeded, and not been delayed by these requests for future policy statements from the Department of Transportation, would have had to have gone into a formal stage unless the airlines voluntarily agreed to something that would have been very time-consuming.

Perhaps you can enlighten me further on this.

Mr. GELBAND. Yes, sir.

Generally speaking, what you said is exactly correct. The CAB did start a proceeding, and it actually never got to the hearing state. The prehearing conference was held

Senator SPONG. I used the word "informal.”

Mr. GELBAND. Good.

It was hoped that the airlines could get together and reallocate among themselves. That hope was short lived. There were several meetings and apparently they could not get together. It was at that juncture the Department of Transportation did request some delays. The input of the Department of Transportation, however, is only one of a number of factors that the CAB would take into account. I think what we were looking for from the DOT was the physical aspects of the various airports, their capabilities, and the experience they had in the past. Such things as the relative convenience of the airport, and where the people lived who wanted to go to various places, and so forth, was not in the subject matter that DOT would have any particular knowledge of, and that is something the CAB itself would be interested in.

So the CAB could reinstitute at any point its hearings and take into evidence all of the other factors, and await the DOT's information somewhere down the line.

I think it is generally the position of these groups that they should not await DOT's ultimately coming up with the ideal solution, because that may take forever. But rather, it should be instituted and let it go down the line.

If I may, I would like to mention something about the jurisdiction of the CAB. They do have jurisdiction clearly over the authority that airlines possess. They cannot grant authority, limit it to specific airports. They have done this from the first year that they were in operation in 1938, through scattered cases, up until the present. There is a whole series of cases in which they have done this. Several more this year. The question has been tested in the courts in the early fifties in the case involving Dulles and the courts have held this right. The Board can and has granted Washington authority to airline applicants limited to Dulles, limited to Friendship, limited to Dulles and Friendship some time, but excluding National. It has all of these tools at its disposal.

It also has and started to invoke in the Washington-Baltimore Airport case the right to amend outstanding authority, and that is the more fruitful area, because most of the authority that exists they can after hearing modify and amend existing authority of airlines to change it so it does not just read Washington or Baltimore, but reads "Washington (to be served through Dulles International Airport)" or "(to be served to Dulles and Friendship or any combination)." As I understood that case, that was its goal.

Senator SPONG. Thank you. I appreciate that.

I did not want to interrupt you except to say I think the record ought to show that in the March hearings of this subcommittee-and we have gone over this once this morning-we asked the CAB, and they said that the matter was presently in suspension because they had been requested to hold everything in abeyance pending some policy. I do not take that to be final solution, just policy statement from the Department of Transportation.

Now, I have-as a Virginia Senator and not as a member of this subcommittee-written the Secretary of Transportation, saying we hope that policy would soon be forthcoming.

But I do believe in view of what the CAB has said and what we gathered from talking to the Department of Transportation, that we should at least give them what they ask for, which I think took them up through June, to come forward with their observations and hopefully recommendations with regard to this.

I think the CAB is the avenue we should follow. I think I have a duty as a Virginia Senator to do something along this line, but I do believe, I think we ought to put in perspective the present posture of the Department of Transportation with regard to this, whether they have a solution or not.

Mr. GELBAND. May I make one more comment. As I understood Mr. Saunders' statement this morning, starting in June, when this new airport restriction goes into place, they will then start evaluating information which will lead ultimately to a policy statement which will be put in this case. Which could be several years hence, I understand. Unless I misunderstood you, it is not something to be submitted in June. In June they are going to start evaluating.

Senator SPONG. That was in response to my question about the Kling report.

We have never, in all of this, dealt specifically with that report as the thing everyone is awaiting insofar as anything from the Department of Transportation is concerned.

Again, speaking only for myself, I think that the Department of Transportation by June will have been given a reasonable time to do something about this, and I am very hopeful that we will be hearing from them.

We invited the Secretary of Transportation to be with us today. He has been under the weather. We are submitting questions regarding policy to that Department from these hearings, to be made a part of the record of these hearings. Again, I cannot speak for Senator Tydings and the other members of the committee, but I certainly believe that we will continue to ask CAB when something will be done.

CONCLUSION

Mr. SPENCE. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I might say the Authority certainly places our confidence not only in the Chairman and his ability to communicate with the Federal Government, but also in the CAB's judgment on this question because the evidence, which has been placed in the record of the other CAB cases in which we have participated, demonstrates factually that Dulles International Airport is more convenient to a very substantially larger number of Metropolitan Washington air travelers than its sister airport in Baltimore. Dulles' share of the Washington area's air service pattern should reflect this greater convenience. It does not now-and the CAB can do something about it. That is the problem to which we earnestly direct this committee's attention.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our views.

Senator SPONG. Thank you, we are very pleased to hear from you. Mr. MAJER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you on your interest in this problem and certainly appreciate the opportunity to express our views at this hearing date.

Senator SPONG. Thank you very much.

I think this record along with Senator Tydings' hearing on Friendship, will be voluminous, but I think for the first time we are getting all of this together in one record where hopefully we can achieve something.

Thank you very much.

Is Mr. Harris here?

(No response.)

Mr. Waddell.

Mr. Waddell, we are very pleased to have you here.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES WADDELL, MEMBER, LOUDOUN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND REPRESENTING THE COMMITTEE FOR DULLES; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH GARDNER

Mr. WADDELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to introduce with me today, Mr. Joseph Gardner, businessman and a member of the Committee for Dulles. He

will be available to answer questions or assist me in attempting to

answer.

Senator SPONG. We are very pleased to have you here.

COMMITTEE FOR DULLES

Mr. WADDELL. Mr. Chairman, the Committee for Dulles gratefully acknowledges the thoughtful and meaningful work of the Senate District Committee and commends the committee especially for its vigorous investigation of the air problems in the Metropolitan Washington area. I am Charles L. Waddell, member of the Loudoun County, Va., Board of Supervisors, representing Broad Run District, which encompasses Dulles Airport in Loudoun County. I am testifying today on behalf of the Committee for Dulles. This is a group of over 100 area businessmen banded together for the purpose of assisting in the betterment of Dulles International Airport. Since the committee was formed some 3 years ago, we have worked very hard in being of assistance to the airlines and the FAA and the Washington area for the betterment of Dulles. Because of our efforts we believe the CAB is aware of the needs and the demands of the greater Washington area and the northern Virginia area. We further believe they should exert more effort in this problem.

We have been successful in having the State chamber of commerce and our State government create committees for the improvement and betterment of Dulles. We have had newspapermen, legislators, and general businessmen visit the facility. We have assisted in many smaller details too numerous to mention. At present we have a display in the Rockefeller Center in New York portraying the great facility of Dulles International Airport along with other assets in Loudoun County.

The committee also commends the Senators from Virginia and Maryland for their cooperative efforts to improve a bad situation and to express itself as being in full accord with their aims. The committee also goes on record as being in support of all but one recommendation made by those who appeared before this committee on March 10. Under no circumstances does the Committee for Dulles recommend the closing of National Airport with the resulting loss of urgently needed service to the Washington area. It is, however, a strong advocate of redistribution of much of the load at National compatible with sound. airways planning and safety.

The committee heartily recommends that the Congress of the United States take immediate steps to complete Interstate 66 and establish rapid transit into Dulles Airport. In this order, 66 could be completed while rapid transit is in the planning stage.

The Committee for Dulles finds no fault with the formula for the distribution of the traffic in the Washington area, but we must insist that this formula be strictly enforced in a fair and reasonable manner to both general aviation and airline traffic. General aviation traffic today is reaching a parity with the airlines. The business fleet of America represents companies making up some 70 to 80 percent of the gross national product.

The aviation industry is basically divided into four segments: air transport, business aviation, and what I will call personal or non

commercial aviation, and military. The latter category would encompass flight training and, thanks to the satellite airports in our area, is well taken care of. Our basic consideration then is with the first two. The airlines and their airport requirements have been well publicized. The scheduling problems, the airways delays under certain conditions are well known and well documented. My contention here today is that these problems can be solved if we utilize what we have in the most advantageous manner.

DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF DULLES

Dulles airport has not begun to carry its proportionate load of Washington/Baltimore traffic. Why? Does it make sense to schedule one operation at one airport and 20 at another, only 20 to 30 air miles apart? Does it make sense to have one of the most modern facilities in the country, and not use it? Let me make another point. Most of what I have said here today relates to the situation as it exists today. In the immediate future we face larger transports, an almost unparalleled increase in passenger traffic and an increase in general or business aviation. In the next 11 years, general aviation will double, 122,000 to 244,000 airplanes. I need hardly point out that the airport-airways facility cannot possibly keep pace with this expanded use. Recently Transportation Secretary Volpe has promised that requested legislation will be submitted to the Congress. Senator Randolph sees a sense of urgency in the situation.

The U.S. Congress authorized Dulles to meet the needs of the Washington area. Can the Congress do less than to implement, to legislate, to suggest, to pro where necessary, or to get downright insistent that the various administrative bodies charged with the responsibility discharge that responsibility, and promptly.

SOLUTION

The solution is an administrative one. The committee recommends that every consideration be given to private enterprise and development of the commercial and industrial properties set aside at Dulles. The committee for Dulles is fearfully concerned about many aspects of Dulles' operation and humbly poses the following questions. They are hopefully presented in behalf of the passenger, the freight and cargo users, the carriers and management of the world's finest, most convenient airport with the belief that there are immediate solutions through cooperative efforts by all involved. Our suggestions are as follows:

1. The Congress should at once divest the FAA of the airport management and create a corporate body to operate the National Capital airports complex. General McKee, while administrator of the FAA, said the FAA had problems enough without having to run airports. It is a well known fact that his interest in Dulles was at a minimum due to many pressing problems that he had on other aviation matters. 2. The Congress should commit to the corporation full and uninhibited authority to manage the complex in its entirety, including the setting of rates, supplying it with needed funds to become fiscally responsible, have it coordinate schedules for the entire Washington