11 214, 000, 000

Total, Interstate Commerce Com mission.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Federal contribution..

SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURE

Senator ELLENDER. In the course of debate on the resolution, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Proxmire) desired "to see both Houses decide by an up-and-down vote on the SST whether it should continue." The Majority Leader (Senator Mansfield), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Bible), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Stennis) made responses indicating personal commitment to the approach desired by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Proxmire) when this matter was taken up again prior to March 30, 1971.

In early February, I consulted with quite a few members of the committee, with the idea of holding hearings on the SST, and we agreed on holding hearings for 2 days, originally March 4 and 5 and rescheduled later for the 10th and 11th.

NEW MATERIAL, NEW INSIGHTS, AND NEW KNOWLEDGE

The idea was, as expressed in a letter that I directed to Senator Magnuson, who represents the proponents of SST, and Senator Proxmire, who represents the opponents, and I had just one sentence that I would like to emphasize. "It is requested that every effort be made by all of the witnesses to limit their testimony to new material, to new insights, and to new knowledge on the subject."

If we were to start holding hearings on the entire program, from its inception. we might be here 2 or 3 weeks.

So, with that admonition, I would like to emphasize I am very hopeful that the witnesses will confine themselves to new material, and I also hope that we don't get into arguments here between the proponents and opponents of this proposal. It is a very emotional subject, and I believe we ought to leave the arguments to be stated and made on the Senate floor.

So, with that in mind, we can proceed with the witnesses, unless— Senator Stennis?

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield to me just 1 minute. As former chairman of the subcommittee to which this item went for several years, I highly commend you for having the hearings before the full committee, concerning this new development.

I think it is necessary, time-wise, and it is wise in all respects. It will put us off to an excellent start. I highly commend you in what you do.

Chairman ELLENDER. Senator?

Senator BIBLE. Mr. Chairman, I was the acting chairman last year, and I labored over this particular project for many, many hours. I thoroughly agree with the way you are handling it, thoroughly agree with what Senator Stennis has said, from his handling of this bill in prior years, and I hope, insofar as possible, we can limit it to new material.

I think the record is replete with old material. I would just like to have it updated, that would be my philosophy. I always hesitate to put limits of time on Senators. I would hope they wouldn't take too long, so we can hear the witnesses, but maybe I shouldn't suggest that, because I realize rule 22 is just where it used to be.

So, I know what the unlimited debate means.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the subcommittee that for several years held hearings on this, may I have a small word at this time?

Chairman ELLENDER. Proceed, sir.

Senator CASE. I just want to join my senior colleagues here in expressing commendation to our genial and able chairman, always fair in the way that he proposes to conduct these hearings, and I would expect that, like all rules, this will be enforced in the spirit of reasonableness, and fairplay goes without saying, but also the desire to find out the facts, and if they are old facts that need a new gloss. I don't think we ought to be precluded from putting that polish on them. Chairman ELLENDER. Very well.

Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add, too, as one of the ranking members, that Senator Proxmire and I both agreed on this procedure, and I hope these meetings-the sole purpose of which is to separate fact from fiction and speculation.

LETTERS OF CHAIRMAN ELLENDER TO SENATORS MAGNUSON AND PROXMIRE

Chairman ELLENDER. Well, pursuant to the suggestion that I have made in early February, I addressed letters to Senator Magnuson to furnish the names of the witnesses to testify here for the proponents, and Senator Proxmire for the opponents. These letters will be inserted at this point in the record.

(The letter to Senators Magnuson and Proxmire, as appropriate, follows:)

FEBRUARY 10, 1971.

The Continuing Resolution which provides authority for the items in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill expires March 30, 1971. The current financing for the Supersonic Transport is, of course, authorized under this Continuing Resolution.

I believe we should have hearings in this Committee on this controversial matter of the Supersonic Transport at an early date so that the Senate may be fully informed currently on this subject. The Committee has not been advised as to the procedure which will be followed in the House of Representatives and it may be that after the House acts there will be very little time left before March 30.

I propose that we extend equal time to the opponents and proponents and I am writing to you so that you can make the arrangements for you and your associates to present the case in favor of the Supersonic Transport. You may plan that we will have two days of hearings. On the first day, in the morning, the Committee will hear the proponents and in the afternoon the opponents. On the second day of the hearings, in the morning, we will hear the opponents and in the afternoon the proponents. It is requested that every effort be made by all of the witnesses to limit their testimony to new material, to new insights, and to new knowledge on this subject.

I have scheduled these hearings to begin at 10 a.m. on March 4, and to continue on March 5, in Room 1224 of the New Senate Office Building. The hearings will be in open session.

I have written a similar letter to Senator Proxmire to arrange witnesses for the opposition in this matter.

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely,

ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

Chairman.

PROPONENTS OF DEVELOPMENT

STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

PREPARED STATEMENT

Chairman ELLENDER. Iwish to say that the hearings today will probably go on until 12:45, and I am very hopeful that in that period of time, we can hear the witnesses that are summoned to testify

today. So, with that in mind, Senator Magnuson, as I understand, your first witness is Mr. Meany.

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes.

I have a statement to include in the record. (The statement follows:)

Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee begins its consideration of whether the United States will have a supersonic transport program. As everyone knows, supersonic transports are being developed internationally by a British/ French consortium developing the Concorde and by the Soviet Union-producing the TU-144-both of these versions will soon begin service on international routes.

The key issue in this debate is whether the United States Government will continue to participate as a financial partner in developing two supersonic transport prototypes.

The testimony that will be presented to this committee will highlight the economic reasons for continuing this program; will, I believe, lay to rest any lingerinng doubts about the SST and its compatibility with the environment; and will portray for the Committee the most recent activities of our foreign competitors.

Important new data has come to light on the SST since Congress last considered this issue.

Environmentally, the most encouraging news is the development of a new noise suppressor that will allow the production model SST to create only 108 EPNdb on the sideline which is the existing requirement for new subsonic jets. Opponents of the SST have in the past raised “sideline noise" as a major environmental issue. Last year, I introduced, and the Senate passed, a bill requiring the SST to meet this very same requirement before the chute suppressor was perfected. The Senate Commerce Committee yesterday ordered the bill favorably reported to the floor.

Equally important from an environmental viewpoint is the recent statement of Dr. Fred S. Singer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior, and Chairman of the SST Environmental Advisory Committee, Dr. Singer, a highly qualified atmospheric scientist, stated last week during direct questioning by Congressman Minshall before the House Appropriation Committee that he was 95 percent certain that there would be no adverse environmental impact to the stratosphere caused by the operation of a fleet of SSTs. Dr. Singer was joined in that conclusion by Dr. William W. Kellogg, Associate Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; Dr. Kellogg also chaired the SST section of the study for critical environmental problems (SCEP) sponsored last fall by MIT. In fact, Congressman Silvio O. Conte, an SST opponent, said at the conclusion of the House hearing that in his judgment "the environmental issue has been laid to rest.”

Internationally, the most important development is the announcement that the Russians will begin SST service with their TU-144, from Moscow to Calcutta this October. This certainly indicates that the Russians are deadly serious about entering the international air transport market. Other reports indicate that the Russians will not only be selling their SST internationally, but will also be offering for sale a subsonic member of their "family of jets”—the YAK-40.

Economically, the key issue is whether Congress can turn its back on the billion dollars of taxpayer money invested in this program when the cost of continuing the program-at least through fiscal year 1971-is less than the "costs associated with termination." I believe we should complete the prototype phase so that the Nation at least has the option of getting back the seed money invested in this vital program.

Our witnesses in support of the SST will be focusing on the key economic, environmental and international issues during the next 2 days. The witnesses for the first day are as follows:

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10

(1) Mr. George Meany, president, AFL-CIO;

(2) Honorable John Volpe, Secretary, Department of Transportation; (3) Honorable John Connally, Secretary, Treasury Department;

(4) Mr. Najeeb Halaby, president, Pan American Airlines; and Mr. Neil Armstrong, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE MEANY, PRESIDENT AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

DEVELOPMENT OF PROTOTYPES

Chairman ELLENDER. Mr. Meany, you may proceed, sir.
Mr. MEANY. Thank you, Senator.

I appear, representing the AFL-CIO, and we are here today to tell you why we believe that continued development of two prototypes of a made-in-the-U.S.A. supersonic transport is decidedly in the interests of our country.

It is ironic that the fight over the appropriation needed to complete these two prototypes has stirred up serious opposition among many individuals and groups with whom we are normally allied. Conservationists fear that the SST will create unforeseen risks to the environment. Many liberals believe that we should forego further development in favor of a general reshaping of national priorities.

Mr. Chairman, the AFL-CIO takes pride in its record of support for programs and policies that benefit all the people.

And so we have looked at the SST closely from that viewpoint. We have studied the evidence now available on the probable ecological effects of supersonic flights. On the basis of our inquiries, we are convinced that the opposition of the conservationists is based more on emotion than on fact. At least two Government studies have concluded after extensive tests that there is no concrete evidence that a fleet of supersonic airlines will damage or threaten the earth's atmosphere. If the environmentalists feel that the dangers are as great as they contend, then it seems to me they should be pursuing a campaign for international agreement to abolish the SST everywhere. Unilateral action by the United States against an American SST, would not protect the world's environment. Only complete abolition would do the job and that would require international agreement.

And, of course, no possible environmental risk can come from the completion of the two prototypes.

We have also considered the "reordering of national priorities" arguments. We have long maintained that America needs to do much more in the future than it has in the past or is doing now to meet the Nation's deficiencies in housing, education, health, recreation, pollution control, mass transit, and the like. But we are realistic enough to know that solutions of social problems depend in large part on solution of economic problems. We cannot hope to construct a better social environment without a strong economic foundation.

I will touch on this in a little more detail in a moment. At this point just let me note that aerospace is vitally important to the country's economic base. When it operated at full capacity aerospace directly and indirectly employed the skills of a great percentage of the workers in manufacturing. Moreover, the sale of American-made aircraft has been one of the Nation's primary sources of export income. Last year, for example, we sold $3.4 billion worth of aerospace products overseas including $1.5 billion in commercial transport planes alone. Without these sales, the United States would have had a sizable deficit in its balance of trade.