August 31, 1970
Page 30510
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement made by me on Friday, August 28, 1970, before the Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations concerning appropriations for the supersonic transport.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Statement by Senator Edmund S. Muskie
Before the Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Appropriations for the SST,
August 28, 1970
Mr. Chairman, in 1963 President Kennedy announced that the Federal Government would embark on a program to develop a supersonic transport. He pledged a $750 million limit on Federal support of the project.
We have now spent almost $700 million on this project and are being asked to appropriate $290 million more. It is now likely that the prototype costs to the Government will rise to at least $1.3 billion. Many people suspect that the Government will even be asked to finance production. of these aircraft.
It is now time, Mr. Chairman, to take a second look at the SST . . . to re-evaluate it and to ask whether we can afford to continue the program.
This is an appropriate time to take a second look . . .
For this year Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act. We said that major federal programs must be carefully examined in light of their potential impact on the environment.
This year we are considering significant changes in our national transportation policies. We recognize the need to spend our money more carefully and more wisely on programs that do the most good for the most people.
And this year we are faced with substantial unemployment in one-fifth of our major labor markets. We must deal with this problem effectively and quickly.
So we should ask what the SST means to us . . . with respect to our environment, our priorities and our people.
To many Americans, the SST is a symbol of man's lack of concern for his planet. I am aware that proposed rules would prohibit SST's from flying over populated land areas. But this does not answer the questions of–
What effects sonic booms would have on ships at sea, and on fish and animal life;
What effects sideline takeoff noise four or five times that of the 747 would have on people who work in the airports or live in neighboring communities;
What effects jet vapors would have on the upper atmosphere, on world climate, and on radiation levels.
Even the Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality has stated that this last question "has not received the attention it deserves." The MIT Study of Critical Environmental Problems concluded recently that "the projected SST's can have a clearly measurable effect on the world climate." The National Academy of Sciences has reached a similar conclusion.
I know that proponents of the SST have promised that these problems will be studied as soon as the prototypes are built and before the production phase.
I hope that an increasing financial commitment would not weaken that resolve. But I am concerned that this research would occupy environmental research resources that are being stretched thin as we seek to solve the problems of air and water pollution that we have already created.
We should ask whether new research on the environmental effects of the SST – research that would be admittedly necessary before production – is the wisest use we can make of our limited capacity.
I am also concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the question of whether the FAA has complied with the National Environmental Policy Act:
Section 102 (2) (c) of the act requires a "detailed statement" from the agency on the environmental impact of any major proposal – whether or not work on the project had begun before passage of the act. The FAA has not submitted a detailed statement.
Section 102 (2) (c) of the act requires each agency to "study, develop and prescribe appropriate alternatives to, recommend courses of action." The FAA has not submitted those alternatives.
The Appropriations Committee should not report the appropriations bill to the floor until the requirements of section 102 of the Environmental Policy Act have been met.
Then the Senate can make its own decision on the merits. At this time too many environmental questions have not been answered.
We should also ask whether we need the SST . . . as much as we need new mass transit systems for our cities, new airport facilities for the planes already flying, or new schools, homes and a clean environment.
These programs also cost money – as much or more than the SST. And the funds must come from the same kitty . . . resources that are limited.
This year's budget for air pollution control is $106 million. To restore our air to a breathable, healthy level will cost the Government almost $400 million a year. Appropriations bills for medical care, education and housing have been vetoed . Yet these needs are not being met.
We cannot afford everything under the sun. We must face the realities of difficult choices . . . and say "no" to some things we should like but do not need.
Those are the questions we must ask about our priorities.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we ask what the SST means to our people.
The level of unemployment in the State of Washington is unacceptable . . . as unacceptable as in thirty other major labor markets across the nation.
We cannot ignore the fact that the problem in Washington may get worse if the SST program is halted. But we know that the program will not reverse the rising levels across the nation . . . and this must be our first concern . . . with first call on our resources.
We must meet the challenge of unemployment nationwide. It will take new programs, more imaginative ideas and perhaps more expensive efforts. It is a problem that affects all our States and that demands remedies for all our States.
The SST program is not without merit, Mr. Chairman
It would provide job opportunities. It would be a technological victory. And it would be an exciting advance in air travel.
But at this time, Mr. Chairman, it is not the best use of our resources . . . the environmental, social and human costs are too high.
And at this time, with the kinds of needs that have gone unmet, dropping the SST is the kind of difficult decision we must make.