Viewing page 118 of 239

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-87-

Page Three

noted.  That perception certainly has motivated the supporters of a Dulles facility, who have spent a great deal of time and effort in encouraging and supporting the development.  It certainly motivated the Virginia Department of Transportation, which has included the prospects of a Dulles facility in their highway construction plans for the area.  It certainly was clear to the Members of the United States Senate, who have voted to support the planning for that facility.  And it certainly has been clear to me, and has been fundamental to my own efforts to support the expansion.  I have to confess to a certain sense of exasperation to suddenly find that there are serious plans to reopen the issue of a general site location.

I recognize, of course, that there has been a change in the Maryland government, and in its Congressional delegation, since August of 1986, when the Senate Rules Committee obtained the "clearance" to proceed with authorization for a Dulles location.  And I can understand the Institution's desire to be "fair and equitable" to any interested parties.  But I strongly believe that the decision to accept a Dulles location was a good one, and that there is more than ample merit and justification for that site.  I believe that the pattern of activity undertaken by the Institution regarding that question, and the Regents' specific action in support of the Dulles location have established a clear direction and as formal a level of commitment as was possible, absent planning authorization.  I believe that a great many groups and individuals came to rely on that level of commitment and I simply believe that it is wrong now for the Board to authorize a planning process which ignores all of that.

The opportunity to participate in a site "competition" was, in effect, offered to Maryland as I have described, as was declined by competent authority.  I see no compelling reason to reopen the issue simply because there has been an expression of interest by a new Maryland administration.

I also have some very practical concerns regarding this matter.  Perhaps the most crucial is one of timing.  We all know that it has taken a great deal of time to finally arrive at a point where serious planning could begin.  We also know that, when it comes to contemplating facility constructions, time equals money.  The longer we delay, the more expensive the ultimate construction costs will become.  I am very concerned that the process of "competition" on sites will significantly extend the planning process and significantly increase the cost.

In addition to the matter of delay, I am concerned about the nature of the planning "authority".  There is still no specific authorization, adopted by the Congress, for the Institution to proceed.  My preference would be to continue with the pending legislation and "ratify", if you will, the verbal grant of authority on which the proposed planning process is based.  However, given the composition of the legislation now pending, opening the question of site selection effectively precludes any action on that legislation, unless it is brought into conformity with the proposed planning process by removing the Dulles reference.  Not only am I not willing to do that, but even more to the point, it would require submitting new legislation, or at