This is putting a tremendous strain on the air transportation industry. The borrowing power of the air transportation industry is reaching its limits. I am not suggesting that this won't be changed in the forthcoming years, but a direct answer to your very direct question and very appropriate question is that the air transportation industry by and large has a very, very full plate generated primarily because they have to buy the 747, the tri-jet, and the DC-10. They are re-equipping. This cycle is coming all too frequent. PRESTIGE OF DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION Senator PERCY. The question has been raised in the past concerning national prestige. As a matter of fact, when the House committee in 1960 appropriated funds for this, it was really in response, as I read the testimony at the time, to the Sputnik. Do you see the prestige in our having an SST to be so great that it can be likened to a walk on the moon or something like that? Mr. QUESADA. No sir; I do not. Senator ALLOTT. Would the Senator yield for a slight correction? Senator PERCY. I would be happy to. RELATIONSHIP OF SPUTNIK WITH SST PROGRAM Senator ALLOTT. The Senator from Washington is here. I was part of this. I want to state unequivocally that I know of nothing in the record that would even indicate in the slightest that the commencement of the SST program had any connection with Sputnik whatever. Senator PERCY. With the chairman's permission, I should like to insert into the record at this point the testimony from the House, relating to the necessity of our developing the SST in order to keep up with technology and science, and keep in the forefront, and keep our national prestige high. It was my understanding from reading that testimony that that was a very strong argument at the time. Senator ALLOTT. I don't want to take time, but I wanted to make the point. I couldn't sit here and let that pass. It was not as a reaction to Sputnik. The statement in the context you make it is true, that we could not afford to let technology pass us by. Senator MAGNUSON. In all the months we were reviewed, this was never discussed, Senator Percy. Chairman ELLENDER. Senator Percy, as I understand, this is in a printed record by the House? Senator PERCY. Yes. I would like to extract sections of the arguments given at the time that would reinforce my feeling that at the time we were told, the country was told, that we needed the SST in order to keep our technology up, to have the prestige of being out in front, and that we had lost a great deal of prestige in the Sputnik. We did many, many things, including the Defense Education Act and other things, to regain our preeminence in the scientific field. I think certainly the moon shot was pushed forward by our desire to regain our supremacy. And it did. I think the return on investment in world prestige was immense, but I do no think that the SST can be put in this category of national prestige. I don't think it adds an awful lot to the British and to the French to have what might be considered and what has been called, a flying white elephant. Senator MAGNUSON. I don't know who made the statement but I would like to see it. The Senator from Colorado and I and our committee spent weeks on this. The word "Sputnik" might have been mentioned as a technological thing but surely wasn't any reason for us to go ahead on the SST. As I have said many times, this started way back in the early 60's, as the general knows, 10 or 11 years ago. Mr. QUESADA. It was about 10 years ago. Senator MAGNUSON. About $11 million was the first one. Chairman ELLENDER. Senator Percy, could you produce that for the record? (The information will be furnished to the committee.) JET TRANSPORT PRODUCTION: COMPLETION TO BE FIRST Senator PERCY. I would like to ask about our being first. I like to be first as an American wherever it is possible. We were not first with the jet. The Comet, as I understand it,was the first jet, and they sold five to Ghana, I believe, three to East Africa, and that was about it. We then moved into the field. Can you give us a feeling as to what race was carried on at the time to be first in the jet race and how we overcame the lead that the British originally had? Mr. QUESADA. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a competitive atmosphere prevailing throughout the world at the time for one country or one company to be the first to produce the jet transport. The British did, in this case to their sorrow and to our sorrow. I would imagine about 2 years elapsed before Boeing stepped forward with their 707. There is always going to be this competitive competition between nations. This is why we are doing well, because this is where we are at our best, in competitive competition. I think this country thrives on it. I think our industry thrives on it. I think Boeing has thrived on it. It can get out of hand. It can result in failures. Certainly the British Comet was a failure, a sad failure for all of us. I wish it had not been a failure, but it was. Boeing was not a failure. CONCORDE DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION Senator PERCY. Is it at all possible that the Concorde could ever be a success? As I understand it, they will have $1,800 million in that plane. Is there any chance that the British and the French could ever sell that plane commercially so as to recover their investment plus production costs thereby enabling them to set a selling price so it would be commercially salable? Mr. QUESADA. I doubt if the Concorde is ever going to be a compensatory effort on the part of those who developed it. I doubt it seriously. I think they are going to adopt the philosophy that my father used to adopt when I was a kid. He used to say in his broken English he heard five, spent seven and saved two. But I think that principle is going to apply to the Concorde. Senator PERCY. Lastly, if they are willing to sell them at a loss, and we continue to sell aircraft, as we are, at a profit, what is wrong with letting those abroad sell loss leaders if they want the prestige and we buy them at their cost minus whatever they can't get in a commercial selling price? They can't recover their full costs. What is wrong with our buying them and testing out the market that way? Then if there is really a big market for it, go in with the right design at the right time? Mr. QUESADA. As I said before, I see nothing wrong with us buying a Concorde if it is a better mousetrap. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't buy it if it is a better mousetrap. The French and the British certainly bought our mousetrap when it was the best. The airplane and the engine have been our largest exports. The benefits that have been derived from the ingenuity of our industry are almost immeasurable. It seems fair to me that we should buy a British or French airplane if they have bought ours. I don't think we should refrain from buying it because it is French and English. Senator PERCY. Thank you very much, indeed. If not, thank you very much, General. Mr. QUESADA. Thank you. STATEMENT OF PROF. REGINALD E. NEWELL, DEPARTMENT OF METEOROLOGY, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PREPARED STATEMENT Chairman ELLENDER. Dr. Newell, please step forward. Dr. NEWELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am sure the hour is late and you would like to terminate as quickly as possible. I will start by giving a brief summary of some of the scientific arguments concerning pollution in the stratosphere and then go into details a little later. I should mention first of all Senator PROXMIRE. Could I ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent that if the witness doesn't read his complete statement, and apparently he is not going to, that the full statement will be printed in the record? Chairman ELLENDER. Without objection, that may be done. You may highlight it. Dr. NEWELL. Thank you. I should like to include in the last statement, if possible, the three papers, namely, two articles in Nature and one in Scientific American, which are essentially part of my statement here. I am not going to reiterate the details in those articles. Chairman ELLENDER. Are they different articles? Dr. NEWELL. They are all included here with the copy that you have. Chairman ELLENDER. Suppose we put into the record your entire statement and file the rest of it with the committee. Dr. NEWELL. Thank you. (The information follows:) Biographical Summary REGINALD E. NEWELL Born: Married: Children: Education: 9 April 1931, Peterborough, England Maireen Newell (formerly Lees), 1954 Madeleine, Elizabeth, Oliver, Nicholas, all born in Kings' School Peterborough, Oxford School Certificate, Professional Positions: 1947-49 Scientific Assistant, British Meteorological Office Professional Societies: American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society Institute of Physics and Physical Society Royal Meteorological Society American Association for Advancement of Science International Associations: 1961-66 1966-69 1969 Member, International Commission on the Meteorology of the Upper For the past eleven years my students and I have been studying planetary transport processes in the upper atmosphere and their relationship to processes in the lower atmosphere. These studies have been mainly supported by the United States Atomic Energy Commission and had as their practical goal an understanding of the transfer of radioactive material, originating from nuclear weapons tests and satellite power plants, throughout the stratosphere and between the stratosphere and the troposphere. Our answers to such questions as how long will radioactive tungsten from |