Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-06
Mr.. BroyhiH Replies

BroyhiH."J
In my five years as a mem
Der of the House Of Repre-
sentatives / am happy to say
The Star and have generally
been in agreement on vital
matters affecting the Greater
Washington Metropolitan
Area.
Perhaps the only major
disagreement has been on the
question of the location of a
second national airport at
Burke. Va. In view of the fact
that The Star last week pub
lished two editorials vigor-
ously If not viciously attacking
my stand on this issue, I am
certain that, in complete fair
ness. you will grant me the
courtesy Of a reply in your
Letters to the Editor" column.
Your Blame Mr.. Broyhill"
editorial takes exception to
my statement that the CAA
must assume all responsible
ity for any accidents that may
occur on the ground or in the
air over Washington National
Airport. And then your writer
goes on to say that the record
shows that no one has been
more concerned over the acct
dent hazards at the congested
Gravelly Point terminal than
have been CAA officials in
recent years"
Now let us look at the rec
ord. 1t shows that the danger
Gus congestion over National
need never have happened had
the CAA assumed its RESPONSE
bility to the public. 1t shows
also that the congestion could
be materially reduced in a
short period Of time by a sim
pie directive from the CAA.
For a number of years we have
had one Of the finest airports
in the country a short distance
from Washington. Friendship
International Airport is virtu-
ally fog-free and at the pres
ent time is capable of handling
jets. To relieve the dangerous
hazards at National. CAA has
only to direct the commercial
airlines to channel traffic into
Friendship pending the final
solution Of the areas air
terminal problem. To argue
that Friendship is perhaps by
ground 10 minutes farther
than Burke and therefore is
unacceptable is to gamble the
lives Of air passengers against
10 minutes additional air
coach travel time. This posi-
ton is indefensible and / re-
peat that If CAA does not
issue such a directive to the
airlines. CAA must assume re-
sponsibility for any accidents
THAT may occur on the ground
and in the air over Washing
ton National Airport" and I
think that any fair-minded
person will agree with me.
In your editorial, Back
Where 1t Started" you refer
to the wind-screen tests which
! have advocated. pointing out
that they would cost about So
million. Then your writer
goes on with sit is hard to
believe that this economy
minded Congress would give
favorable consideration to"
this project. What makes
your writer think that the
same economy-minded Con-
gress would approve the ex-
penditure Of from $50 million
to SIS million to finance the
Burke project?
The Star is we'll aware that
the Federal vernme n /
spends hundreds OF millions
OF dollars in tests that are in
the public interest. This APP
plies to defense. atomic en-
ergy, food and drugs. public
health. agriculture and many
other fields. I seem 20 recall
that Uncle Sam spent over
a hundred million dollars test
ing plane built by Howard
Hughes that couldn't even get
into the air. Certainly 81 mil
lion to test a device that may
help alleviate the hazards at
National Airport is not in con-
fiict with Government policy.
As far as your charge OF
stalling to kill Burke is con-
cerned, l plead mot guilty"
Burke is already dead-as
dead as a dodo. This should
be patiently evident to your
correspondents in the Senate
and House. There is no need
to stall even II we're inclined
TO do so. What / am ear
nestly trying to do. because /
recognize the importance OF
another commercial airport in
the Greater Washington Area.
is TO suggest alternatives
sites and methods which may
improve the situation cur