Senator PASTORE. Yes. Senator MAGNUSON. May I ask a question? FAMILY OF AIRPLANES Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. Volpe, you stated here that about the other planes, and the reason that I think it ought to be brought out in the record, when you buy an airplane, as I understand it, say it is a $5 million plane, you buy about $10 million worth of spare parts, and once the airline gets involved in the spare parts thing, they are apt to stick with the first plane they bought. And this is a very important thing. For instance, United Air Lines has already placed reserve delivery positions for six American SST's, and six Concordes. Now if they buy all these spare parts to keep the plane moving, they are not apt to move over, unless they know we are not going to go ahead. Isn't that true? This is United alone, and they are not a prominent overseas flier, they only go to Hawaii now, don't they? Secretary VOLPE. Senator, that applies not only to United, that applies to many other airlines, including KLM, which, for instance, has bought almost nothing but American planes for the last 40 years. GOVERNMENT ROYALTIES Senator MAGNUSON. Yes. Now one other quick question. Every contract, and I have been involved in this long before I even thought Boeing would be involved in it, everybody is involved, 10, 11 years ago, but every contract and every commission that has been appointed, including the final commission, the Black commission, Eugene Black's, all suggested to be put in the contracts and it was put in all the contracts, a royalty repayment scheme to the Government. Is that correct? Secretary VOLPE. That is correct, sir. Senator MAGNUSON. And if, say, 500 should be sold over a long period of time, we would then get almost a billion dollars more than we put in. Secretary VOLPE. It is at least a billion dollars more. Senator MAGNUSON. Approximately a billion dollars. Senator BIBLE. Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question? 1971 FUNDING REQUISITE I want to clear up a few figures here, because I am not clear, Mr. Secretary. Mr. VOLPE. Yes. Senator BIBLE. On the amount that you need, for the fourth quarter of this fiscal year. Secretary VOLPE. Yes. Senator BIBLE. You keep referring to $290 million in fiscal year 1971. We had a little bit of a problem with that last year, as you remember. Secretary VOLPE. I do. Senator BIBLE. We went to Conference, and we came out with $210 million. Now are you suggesting that we get back to the $290 million level for the balance of this fiscal year 1971? Not 1972, 1971. Secretary VOLPE. The answer, Senator, is yes, we are. The contractors and subcontractors, as a result of the cutback to the 210 figure, have had to cut back on the schedules that they had adopted. Senator BIBLE. I understand that. Secretary VOLPE. If we are going to catch up, without having to reopen all the subcontracts, it is essential that in the last quarter of this fiscal year, that they really do the job that they would have been doing during January, February, March. They have indicated to us that if they get this additional financing, they believe they can practically catch up with the pace, without having to reopen contracts which otherwise would have to be done, if they don't get the full $290 million. Senator BIBLE. Well, I want to get that in the record, because I think that is what a good deal of this problem is about. I sat through many days and weeks of this problem last year, and we had trouble, both in conference and on the floor, and we ended up with the $210 million figure. That was the total figure for fiscal year 1971. Now you are asking that we go back to $290 million, and put most of it in in the next 3 months, the oncoming 3 months, in the last quarter of 1971. How many dollars will that be, from April 1 to June 30? Just so we are not misleading anybody. Secretary VOLPE. $134 million, sir. Senator BIBLE. $134 million to get it back up to $290 million beyond the current funding level. Secretary VOLPE. That is correct. PROGRAM COSTS Senator BIBLE. Now assuming you get that $134 million, and then the next year, what was your figure? Secretary VOLPE. $235 million, sir. Senator BIBLE. $235 million $134 million, $235 million, and the fiscal year after that? Secretary VOLPE. None. Mr. MAGRUDER. NO. Secretary VOLPE. I beg your pardon. "None" came out very fast, because I though that was it. It starts to really fall back after that. It is $92 million, and then falls to $17 million in 1974, and in fiscal 1975 zero. Senator BIBLE. Well, then, may I just go over the figures again with you. If you are to meet your timetable and not lag in the finalization of the two prototypes $134 million more and a hundred flying hours, $235 million in fiscal 1972, $92 million in 1973, and $17 million in 1974. Secretary VOLPE. Correct. Senator BIBLE. And so that is what? Secretary VOLPE. $1,342 million. Senator BIBLE. I know, but I mean I can add it myself, $478 million, from here out. Secretary VOLPE. That is correct, sir. Senator BIBLE. That is the total appropriation that we are talking about, from here out. Secretary VOLPE. That is correct, sir. Senator BIBLE. Now what is the exact amount, as best you can give it, up to March 1, on whatever your accounting period is? I don't mean right today. I mean April 1. Secretary VOLPE. As of the 31st of March, or 30th of March, we will have spent, in accordance with the continuing resolution, just under $156 million. Senator BIBLE. No, but I mean total. Senator PROXMIRE. $864 million. Secretary VOLPE. $864 million. I beg your pardon. Senator BIBLE. All right, add $864 million to $478 million--I labor on this a little, because I labored on it a lot on the floor of the Senate, when I was getting ready to go home for Christmas dinner. But that is $1,342 million. Is that correct? Secretary VOLPE. That is correct. Senator BIBLE. OK. I just wanted to get the figures straight. I understand that. Chairman ELLENDER. AS I understand, the House subcommittee has provided for $290 million. Any further questions? Senator ALLOTT. I have one. Chairman ELLENDER. Senator Allott. NEED FOR PROTOTYPES Senator ALLOTT. I have one question: Mr. Secretary, in the House hearings, Administrator Ruckelshaus stated that we do not need two prototypes to resolve the environmental issue. You say on page 2 of your statement, and I quote: "The two are inexorably related." Now since we have, as I understand it-and I think I do understand it, having been in this with Senator Magnuson for 11 years had no deleterious effects from such supersonic flight as we have had in this country, measurable effects, how can you possibly measure or judge the allegations that have been made unless we complete the two prototypes? Would you like to comment upon your statement about these two being inexorably related, and the statement of Mr. Ruckelshaus? Secretary VOLPE. Yes, Senator; let me say, first of all, that I have the deepest respect for Mr. Ruckelshaus personally, and in the final analysis, Mr. Ruckelshaus and his EPA are going to be passing judgment on some of the factors related to the flying of the SST. We have been working very closely together on other matters that we are jointly involved in. We have had both scientists, engineers, and environmental groups working at the many problems associated with this, for not a few months, but for literally years. As a matter of fact, from the noise assessment point of view and from the total system viewpoint, the interaction of the aircraft and the engines is something you just have to work together. You can't do that in a laboratory or with a slide rule. It has to be done through the actual testing of the planes. I would like to have Bill Magruder expand on that, just a little more fully. We believe very firmly that although the environmental studies are important, you can't do the job completely, without both components. Senator ALLOTT. Thank you. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes; to back up what the Secretary has said, one of the biggest problems in noise has been getting flight versus ground effects. We have run many tests, and we have learned very recently that until we get the actual hardware and do the actual noise abatement procedures, we don't get final answers that are certifiable, in even subsonic jets, much less an SST. Furthermore the tests that we do in wind tunnels for sonic booms, are done with very small scale models. When we want to know the actual situations, measure them, and look to the future for second generation airplanes, we need a full-scale airplane. If the Secretary, the Congress, and the administration-and I think Mr. Ruckelshaus and the State Department agree with this-are put into a position of later saying, "Stop," when all the evidence shows that we must not go ahead, and this Nation is limited to balloon and laboratory tests, while the scientists in Russia, France and Britain will not only have the balloon, the scientific and laboratory tests, but also the flying of full-scale airplanes for 5 years, who is going to win that argument? The State Department says it is absolutely essential to have fullscale prototype data to back up the laboratory tests in order to reach a conclusion on environmental effects, and we agree with that. Senator ALLOTT. Thank you very much. Senator MCGEE. Would the Senator yield for a question on that point? Senator ALLOTT. I will yield for a question, if it is the desire of the chairman to handle it this way. Chairman ELLENDER. I was just going to ask if it is agreeable to the Senator. Senator MCGEE. This is on the subject, rather than scattering it through the text. However, any manner in which the chairman wants to proceed will be agreeable to me. Senator ALLOTT. I will be very pleased to yield. DECISION TO STOP PRODUCTION AIRPLANE Senator MCGEE. Well, the impressive thing said here today, it seems to me, is the Secretary's commitment to kill the whole thing if the prototypes show that the environmental fallout is detrimental. This has been my misgiving on this whole business. I supported the SST, until doubts arose over the answers to that question. Now my question to the Secretary is: "Aren't we going to trap ourselves by that time?" We are going to hear again, we have already invested some $864 million, and is that not going to sway our judg ment? Namely, that we have gone so far that we may have to go the rest of the way, to protect our investment. Would this impinge upon a cool-headed evaluation of the environmental consequences? Secretary VOLPE. Senator McGee, I would just like to relate one. illustration of why I believe that we can make stick whatever we decide is in the best interests of this country. About a month and a half before we announced our decision on the jet port in southern Florida, with regard to the Everglades National Park, one of the noted national columnists, in a conversation with me, indicated, "Why don't you stop kidding us, Mr. Secretary, and tell us you are going to approve that? You can't possibly fight the business interests and all of the other heavy interests that want that jet port built." And I told him, he could have any views he wanted. I would make a judgment based on the evidence before me. And I can assure this committee and this Congress that I would-the Lord permitting, and if I am still here certainly exercise that same judgment in connection with this situation. I certainly would rather see us in the position of being able to say to the other nations of the world, "We have used our best scientists, we have used our best engineers, we have used our best technical people, and we have come up with a solid answer that says that this can't be done, without serious damage to our environment." And therefore, the answer is no. You can't fly into New York City, or into San Francisco or anywhere else in the United States. If we have to depend on other scientists, or if we stop the program at this stage, we just will not be in a position, as Mr. Magruder has just indicated, to give that kind of an answer. I make it as a solid commitment, not just from the Secretary of Transportation, I make it as a commitment from the President of the United States, to whom I just talked regarding this last evening. Senator MCGEE. Thank you. ANTINOISE REGULATIONS Senator ALLOTT. One short question: Has anything been sacrificed as far as the range of the SST is concerned, in order to meet the EPEDB requirements set forth in the proposed FAA regulations? Secretary VOLPE. Senator, I know there are those who have indicated that that is exactly what is going to happen, because of our strict discipline in this area, and that we will have a less viably economic plane. Senator CASE. Would you, for the record, just put that in layman's language? Because all of us don't know what these initials mean? Secretary VOLPE. The 108 decibels? Senator CASE. Whatever it was. Secretary VOLPE. Would the Senator repeat the question, please? Senator ALLOTT. I think to remember what all these mean, I would have to call on Mr. Magruder. I went through this last spring. It is 108 decibels, but it is modified by a lot of other things; it is called EPNDB. Mr. MAGRUDER. That is correct. Senator ALLOTT. And that is 108 limitation, the noise level. Secretary VOLPE. I will talk in nontechnical language, if I may, Senator, and then if you want the technical Senator CASE. I don't want it. Secretary VOLPE. Let me say that is a result of our requirements, which we have imposed and have said that we have to get down to this level. |