are so much more important to us than just staying ahead of Russia in the development of an SST, Senator.

Senator MAGNUSON. Why can't we do them both?

Mr. GODFREY. We are already $485 million in the hole, sir.

Senator MAGNUSON. Yes, but we have been doing them both. No one knows better than the Senator from Washington. I served on those committees.

Chairman ELLENDER. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor.

EXPENDITURES FOR WELFARE VIS-A-VIS JOBS

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Godfrey, I don't think there is a person in this room who wouldn't have as much compassion as you-perhaps not quite as much because all of us know your concern for so many of these human problems.

But has it ever occurred to you-it has to some of us on the committee here in the light of the discussion of the economics of the situation that it takes money to run programs of that kind, and the program which we are concerned with here is not primarily and solely for jobs, or primarily and solely for maintaining a favorable balance of trade, nor primarily and solely for staying ahead of anybody else in the aviation business. But that is part of it. Somewhere, some place, there has to be an origin and a source for the dollars it will take to feed the people and to have welfare programs and health programs, and so on. That was the testimony of Mr. Meany this morning, for example, Mr. Connally and Mr. Volpe.

How do you reconcile this? Where are we going to get the jobs to keep people off of welfare and to furnish the food, the medical care and all these other things?

Mr. GODFREY. The chairman of the coalition against the SST informs me. Senator Hruska, that you are to hear today from some real expert economists on this. I won't attempt to go into that.

PROJECT PRIMARY PURPOSES

But the Senator gave me three examples of what you said were not the primary purposes of the SST. May I ask, please, what is the primary purpose?

Senator HRUSKA. As I understood the testimony this morning, it is a combination of many things. I won't review the points because I don't have that much time. But there isn't any one single thing that Mr. Halaby testified he is not interested in. He is not interested in an SST if it is not safe, if it is not economical, and if it is harmful to the environment. So, you see the entire universe of the problem that in either advocating or opposing a new system of this kind, is embraced in those three propositions.

So there isn't any one single of them. There is a mix. There is a conglomerate.

TECHNOLOGY BENEFITS AND DANGERS: ADMINISTRATION PLEDGE AGAINST PRODUCTION IN EVENT OF UNACCEPTABLE POLLUTION

Mr. GODFREY. If I may respond, sir, this way, it occurs to me, who has spent his lifetime trying to know what is going wrong, that we,

mankind, are essentially biological animals, and man is in the jam he is in in the world because of this kind of technology which has taken us too far in too many directions.

Technology has done some wonderful, magnificent things for everybody. Technology, if we are not careful with what may happen as a result, can ruin us all. If the Senator and the committee would do, as for example, I did today, flying back from Dallas, Texas-this time it was a 707 at 35,000 feet-would observe from the cockpit, not back in the passenger's compartment where you see through a glass that throws a lot of colors and you can't see what is going on, but from the cockpit; and then when you land in Baltimore to get in a chopper, as I did, and come over here to be present here with you distinguished gentlemen today, and pass over that one bit of land between here and Baltimore and see what has happened to it because of our technology, you, too, I think, sir, would be as concerned as I am.

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Volpe testified to that, and he swore by all that is holy, in a statesman's language and in a politician's language, that he and the administration were pledged to the proposition that if the SST is not acceptable from the pollution standpoint either by way of sound or otherwise, he would be the first to oppose its production in volume.

So he has that problem in mind, as do we all. Identification of technology as being the source for pollution is a problem we will have to deal with whether the SST comes along or not. The SST will take three other planes out of business, incidentally, load wise, as we were told this morning. So maybe we will have less pollution. But we can't find that out until we build a prototype and find out. Would you have any comments on that?

Mr. GODFREY. Regardless of the fact, if the Senator permits, that the Air Force has been flying in these high altitudes all this time and should have the data for us?

Mr. HRUSKA. The authority on the data in that respect is the Senator from Washington. He gave us some of the figures a little bit ago. Senator MAGNUSON. Close to 500,000 hours as of one month ago. Senator HRUSKA. But those are not the planes we want to build. We want to build an SST and we don't know the capabilities or the results of an SST in the field of pollution, either by sound or by emissions into the atmosphere, are until it is put on a working basis. Not ivory tower, not talk tank, not laboratory, but in the skies with a load. Mr. GODFREY. May Mr. Soucie respond?

Mr. SOUCIE. Senator Hruska, there is one thing that Mr. Volpe did not testify to this morning because he wasn't asked. It is very unclear who makes that decision to go ahead with the production, because if it is not going to be financed by the Congress or the U.S. Treasury, then this committee will not make that decision. But no matter who makes the decision, what happens if, as a result of the testing program which is going to be done largely by means other than the prototypes, we don't have clear-cut answers by 1973 to all of these questions, especially about stratospheric pollution? I think when you hear from the various atmospheric scientists, you will hear from later today and tomorrow, you will see that we have an incredible ignorance about the physics and the chemistry of the upper atmosphere. Here we have a research program which has yet to be defined.

It has not been started. It must be completed by 1973. If we don't have the answers and yet we have the economic imperative to make a decision, what will the decision be, no matter who makes it? You see, that is where the real problem comes in.

You can't order the answers to be found by that time. We really have an incredible lack of knowledge about the upper atmosphere.

Senator HRUSKA. On the contrary, Mr. Volpe testified if proof positive is not produced, that the lack of harm to the environment would be within acceptable ranges, it will not be built. The Congress is in a position to speak on that. If they say this is the range of acceptable detriment and if they cannot operate in that kind of political climate, they will not be able to build their planes.

The reference to incredible ignorance and the answer to it isn't to be found in saying we are in incredible ignorance; therefore, we will stay there. Or would it be more sensible to say let us build two prototypes and let us get out of this incredible ignorance.

Mr. SOUCIE. First, I don't think Secretary Volpe testified to that. I think what he said is that if it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SST fleet would damage the stratoshpere, he would be the first to oppose it. It is the other way around.

The second thing is we don't need the protoypes to get the answers. In fact, they can't even be used to get the answers.

Chairman ELLENDER. The record will speak for itself. We don't have to argue about it.

Senator Cotton?

U.S. AIRCRAFT LANDING RIGHTS: WORLD TRADE AND COOPERATION

Senator COTTON. One quick question: For the record, during the colloquy, and I think the suggestion came from the committee and not from you gentlemen, there was some talk about the denial of landing rights and the necessity of their landing in Canada, Mexico, or somewhere else.

As a practical matter, you do not have any idea that if Britain and France, or Russia, is flying those planes, with the interdependence of all the nations in the air traffic, that we would deny landing rights at the water's edge, at least, to these foreign planes; do you?

Mr. SOUCIE. As I understand the question, we don't have any absolute knowledge that that would in fact be done. No, we don't.

Senator COTTON. It is just commonsense. If we start denying landing rights at the water's edge-I am not talking about flying inland, to foreign planes because we don't like them, or feel they are too large and we don't have one, then you get into the situation on all planes. The other nations could then deny our landing rights for the 747 and so on and so forth.

We are talking a lot about protections, protection of shoes, textiles and so forth, but fundamentally we stick to a policy that promotes world trade and world cooperation.

I don't want to make a big issue of this, but on that one point you wouldn't expect that if they were flying supersonic planes and we weren't, that we could deny them landing rights at the water's edge and get away with it; do you?!

PART 36, FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS: RESERVATION TO STATES AND AIRPORT PROPRIETORS RIGHT TO ESTABLISH NOISE REGULATIONS

Mr. SOUCIE. Senator, that really isn't the instrumentality that is being used. The 16 States, and I understand that there are more that will be considering it, are considering the establisment of airport noise standards.

When the FAA issued part 36 to the Federal Aviation Regulations, the noise standards, their communicating memorandum reserved to the States and to the airport proprietors the right-and they cited a Supreme Court case which reserves the right and responsibility to the airport proprietor-to establish more stringent airport noise regulations, should the airport proprietors and the States choose.

What these States are doing is debating the establishment of airport noise standards which would, in fact if not in intent, prevent the Concorde from landing, because the Concorde, according to all the figures being discussed by BAC, the best available figures they can come up with, are 111 decibels to 116, which exceeds all of the standards being discussed in the State houses.

So, it would be not by intent or design, but, in fact, the result of these decisions that would be to deny the Concorde landing rights.

Senator COTTON. If they get into production and get into traffic. some adjustment is likely to be made. I imagine that we will have a hard time holding them to that.

We have a vote.

Chairman ELLENDER. Are there any further questions to ask?

We have a rollcall on now. We regret that we will have to leave and come back later.

We will take a brief recess.

(A brief recess was taken.)

Chairman ELLENDER. The committee will please come to order.

SUPPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN EVENT PRIORITIES ARE MET

Senator Fong, you are recognized to proceed.

Senator FONG. Mr. Godfrey, I have studied your statement. You seem to base your argument against the SST on these grounds: That private funds should not be used, that there are priorities which need our attention, that we are now far ahead in the leadership as far as aviation is concerned, and faster planes are not needed, and there is the question of pollution.

From this I seem to get the feeling that your thrust in your statement is based more upon the fact that there are priorities which we must meet, and that we are so far ahead in our leadership in aviation— and especially when Mr. Soucie gave us all the figures showing how far ahead we are in the aviation field as compared with other countries. Is there an implication in this statement that should we fall back in leadership, and should priorities be met, that at that time you will consider that we build this SST?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, Senator. I differ from my colleagues in this respect: I don't know, of course, and I leave to the scientists what will happen way up high in the stratosphere. But the total pollution caused by aviation, roughly 125,000 airplanes that we have, is less than 1 percent of the total pollution of the air.

If we add to that a fleet of 500 SST's, at terrific altitudes, flying over the same routes, yes, it could cause something. But I am not wellenough versed in that.

I would, however, never hesitate a moment, if it were a military airplane that was proposed. But in the light of all the things that we should be doing, to put public funds to this distresses me.

Senator FONG. Then you feel that if we were able to take care of some of the other priorities, you will not be so strongly against the SST?

Mr. GODFREY. That is right, sir. In its proper order of priorities, yes, because I love to see aviation go as far as it can.

CONFIDENCE IN CONTINUING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN AVIATION

Senator FONG. And then should we fall back in aviation leadership, at that time you would reconsider and be willing?

Mr. GODFREY. No, sir; that wouldn't have any bearing. I don't believe we are ever going to fall back. Our technology, our sophistication in aviation, far exceeds anything I have ever seen in any other country, and I have flown personally in the cockpits of almost every free country's aircraft. Nothing compares with ours, sir.

Senator FONG. You have made a very strong point on the fact that we are leading the world in aviation, and Mr. Soucie, in his prepared statement, stated that we are so far ahead.

Supposing we were to have this gap lessen and we are not so far ahead of the other nations? At that time, would you then consider that we take up the funding of this prototype?

Mr. GODFREY. No, sir, and I don't think my patriotism can be challenged, sir. But that is the last thing I would worry about.

Senator FONG. In a hypothetical case, suppose this leadership was being challenged. Then, would you change your mind?

Mr. GODFREY. To using public funds for it? No, sir.

Senator FONG. But private funds would be all right?
Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir.

Senator FONG. Thank you very

you very much.

NONPRACTICABILITY OF EXCLUSION OF FOREIGN SUPERSONIC
AIRCRAFT

Chairman ELLENDER. Are there any further questions?

Senator COTTON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add one sentence. to clarify for the record what was happening when we were called to vote.

The observation I was making simply was this, that if the Legislature of the State of New York should set standards under which supersonic aircraft, foreign supersonic aircraft, could land, we will say, at the water's edge, it would not be difficult at all for other nations to find some kind of criteria to stop ours. The point I was making was that this matter of talking about excluding foreign supersonic craft, in the opinion of this member, is not a determining factor in this decision.

Mr. GODFREY. With the Senator's permission, I would like to respond in this manner, sir: I doubt that any country would ever refuse