Secretary DEARING. Table 1 shows the extent to which the various States have been unable to obligate fully their apportioned funds, and Table 2 shows the geographical distribution of the discretionary fund. There are several points which should be noted with respect to these two interrelated tables.

First, the geographic pattern has changed markedly from year to year with respect to both unobligated balances of apportioned funds, and obligations from the discretionary fund. Thirty-one States had unobligated balances in one or more of the fiscal years shown in table 1, that is, years 1949, 1952, inclusive.

The frequencies and amounts of such unobligated balances varied widely. Three-fourths of these same States have at other times required assistance from the discretionary funds. In other words, most of the States which have in some years been unable to use their apportionment completely have at other times needed to supplement their apportionment through discretionary fund contributions.

Second, for the country as a whole, a total of 41 States have at one time or another received an allotment from the discretionary fund. From year to year this distribution of the discretionary fund has varied considerably, both in terms of the specific States covered and the relative portions going to the respective States.

Third—and I think this is probably the most important conclusion to be drawn from these two tables-the year-to-year variations in the distribution of the discretionary fund have tended to smooth out in large measure when the cumulative result for the entire period is considered.

A few specific examples will make this point clear.

Pennsylvania, for example, received 14 percent of the entire discretionary fund in fiscal year 1948 and 17 percent in 1952. However, it received less than 6 percent on a cumulative basis for the overall period of the program. This is only slightly more than its regular apportionment of approximately 4.2 percent.

Texas, which received nearly 13 percent of the discretionary fund for fiscal 1951, received only 5 percent on a cumulative basis for the entire period, or slightly less than its regular apportionment under the statute.

An outstanding example of the value of the manner in which the discretionary fund works in the respective States can be found in the case of Rhode Island.

In fiscal years 1947 through 1949 it was unable to obligate any of its apportionment. Yet in subsequent years it needed almost five times as much as its regular apportionment, and therefore had to receive significant contributions from the discretionary fund.

As is evident from these data, the discretionary fund has had its main value in overcoming the variations in the timing of airport improvement in the several States. It is also worth stressing that the discretionary fund has not been used for the benefit of only a few States, but rather has at one time or another been used for the assistance of almost all the States.

The fact that flexibility is required in this program was recognized by the Congress when it initially included the existing 25-percent discretionary fund in the Federal Airport Act. Based on our continuing experience with the airport program, and our present desire to make it more effective by concentrating on projects of clear national

importance, it is now important to provide the additional flexibility which would be available by increasing the discretionary fund to 50 percent. We believe that such an increase provides the best means of assuring the ability to direct this Federal assistance to the locations where airport improvement is most clearly required, and at the same time is most urgently needed.

The remaining two amendments proposed by S. 3410 are clarifying in nature, and their purpose is to make more specific in basic statute the authority which is already generally available to concentrate this program upon projects of national importance. One of these amendments would change section 9 (d) of the present statue as to spell out the Department's authority to approve only those airport projects which have sufficient national importance to warrant financial participation by the United States."

It is the Department's intention to base determinations of national importance for this purpose on the type of objective criteria already indicated earlier in my testimony, namely, 3,000 enplaned passengers per year, and 30 based aircraft.

Finally, a related amendment would change section 6 (a) of the act, dealing with the reapportionment of unobligated balances at the end of a fiscal year. The proposed amendment would make it clear that such unobligated balances may result from a lack of sufficient eligible projects, as well as from other circumstances.

In conclusion, the Department wishes to emphasize its conviction that the program which it is proposing is a sound one-one which will more effectively promote the national interest in airport development, while at the same time holding to a minimum the Federal expenditures required for its administration.

The enactment of S. 3410 would, for the reasons stated, assist us greatly in realizing for the taxpayer and the aviation industry the maximum return on every dollar spent. We therefore recommend the enactment of this bill, and we have been authorized to advise you that its enactment would be in accord with the President's program.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Schoeppel, have you any questions?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I don't believe that I do at this stage, Mr. Chair

man.

Secretary DEARING. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lee and his staff are here and would be happy to answer any technical or administrative questions.

The CHAIRMAN. There are one or two questions I would like to ask: For instance, I think in my home town of Columbus, where there has been a bond issue authorized-Mr. Lee, you come up.

Mr. LEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. First of all, will you identify the map which you have there, of which we have a copy, for the purposes of the record? Mr. LEE. This a map of the United States, Mr. Chairman, which has superimposed on it dots indicating the airports which have 3,000 or more enplaned domestic airline passengers during calendar year 1953, or 30 airworthy based aircraft, or less than 3,000 enplaned passengers, but a compensating number of based aircraft.

This is all in 1953.

The CHAIRMAN. We will make the map a part of the committee's files

Mr. LEE. I also have a report, dated May 15, 1954, listing the airports shown on the map I have referred to.

The CHAIRMAN. We will make the report a part of the record at this point. (The report is as follows:)

AIRPORTS OF RECORD, MAY 15, 1954

(With 3,000 or more enplaned domestic airline passengers (based on calendar year 1953 statistics) or 30 airworthy based aircraft (based on current airport facilities records data) or less than 3,000 enplaned passengers but having a compensating number of based aircraft)

SUMMARY

The 425 air carrier airports listed herein enplaned 27,897,700 domestic airline passengers in 1953. This is 99.6 percent of the total of 28,004,300 enplaned domestic airline passengers in the United States.

In addition, the 425 air carrier airports have 18,941 based aircraft or 28.4 percent of the total aircraft based at all United States airports. The 335 general aviation airports shown herein have 19,896 based aircraft or 29.9 percent of the total aircraft based at all United States airports.

The 760 airports thus have a total of 38,837 based aircraft or 58.3 percent of the 66,661 total aircraft based at all airports in the United States.