August 21, 1974
Page 29584
AMENDMENT NO. 1834
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate (Mr. HATHAWAY), I call up amendment No. 1834, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
At an appropriate place in the Act, insert a new section as follows:
SEC. . None of the funds appropriated by this Act, may be used for the development of the Conus Over-The-Horizon (OTH) radar system during the period beginning with the date of enactment of this Act and ending May 31, 1975.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this amendment, which I have discussed with the distinguished manager of the bill, has a simple and limited purpose: that of obtaining sufficient time to resolve a number of questions which have been raised concerning the proposed site of the receiver antenna for the over-the-horizon backscatter radar system in Washington County, Maine.
For several years, the U.S. Air Force has been investigating possible sites in Maine for the radar system. However, it was not until June 25 of this year – after Senate passage of the military procurement authorization bill – that the Air Force announced the selection of a "preferred" transmitter site in western Maine and a receiver site in eastern Maine.
The receiver site, involving 1,000 acres of valuable farmland, has generated the most concern among Maine citizens. The land in question produces 6 percent of Maine's total blueberry crop, with an estimated annual cash value of $347,000.
As a result, Maine citizens and State officials seek adequate opportunity both to point out to the Air Force the adverse economic impact of the selected site and to solicit from the Air Force information as to the availability and cost of alternative sites which would still meet the technical requirements of the system.
Public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement have been scheduled for September and the Air Force has encouraged public comment. At the same time, however, there are indications that development of the proposed site is proceeding apace. Therefore, the hearings may not provide an adequate opportunity for Maine citizens to convince the Air Force of the importance of the land in question to our economy. The purchase of land options on some tracts involved in the system are scheduled to take place prior to the hearing. Also, potential contractors were requested on July 25 to submit detailed proposals and cost estimates on site development.
This amendment is intended simply to limit any further action on site acquisition and development of the prototype receiver until additional information on the matter of site selection is obtained. It is not our intent to prevent the Air Force from proceeding with development of the radar technology and other research activities associated with the OTH system.
I believe the delay I am urging is reasonable and will assure that Members of Congress and the citizens of Maine will have ample opportunity to resolve the questions which have been raised.
We are currently holding discussions with the Air Force, and I am hopeful today's vote – evidence of the sensitivity of the Senate to the problems concerning the proposed receiver site for the OTH system – will generate the kind of cooperative spirit which we need to have in order to resolve the problems.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point some recent correspondence I have had with the Air Force concerning this matter.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AUGUST 13, 1974.
Maj. Gen. M. L. BOSWELL,
Director, Legislative Liaison,
Department of the Air Force,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR GENERAL BOSWELL: On August 9, Colonel Horace Wood briefed my staff on the Administration's plans to build a prototype Over-The-Horizon-Backscatter (OTH-B) radar system in the State of Maine. In the course of the briefing, several questions were raised which Colonel Wood suggested would best be answered in writing for the record.
Specifically, the following questions were raised about which I would like to know the Air Force's thinking: How does the OTH-B improve the current DEW line? How likely is it that an operational OTH-B would be able to detect the kind of subsonic missiles that an adversary might employ? How does the planned development of an OTH-B system relate to the Executive's projected reductions in the Air National Guard? What consideration was given to the economic impact of constructing the OTH-B on the State of Maine and, specifically on Washington County? Finally, what criteria were used for choosing the receiver site in Township 19, as opposed to another nearby site with less adverse economic impact?
Since the Congress is currently considering the FY '75 Military Procurement Appropriations Bill, I would appreciate the favor of an early reply.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senator.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
Washington, D.C.,
August 21, 1974.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate.
DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: This is in response to your letter of August 12, 1974, requesting the Air Force view on several questions concerning the Over-the-Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar Program.
Specific answers to your questions are contained in the attachment. In addition, a copy of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on July 30, 1974, is forwarded for your information. It is important to note that the location of the transmitter and receiver stations will not become finalized until after Federal and State agencies and the public have had an opportunity to comment on the Draft Statement. They may submit their comments to the Special Assistant for Environmental Quality, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, or at one of the open hearings scheduled for September 11, 12, and 13. The deadline for comments is September 23.
After all comments are considered, we will prepare and issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement setting forth our decisions. No action can be taken to implement the decision until 30 days after release of the Final Statement.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
ROBERT B. TANGUY,
Brigadier General, USAF, Dep. Dir.
Legislative Liaison.
OVER-THE-HORIZON BACKSCATTER (OTH-B) RADAR PROGRAM
1. Question: How does the OTH-B improve the current DEW Line?
Answer: The present Air Force program and long-range plans call for two OTH-B radars, one sited in the Northeast in the State of Maine and one sited in the Northwest portion of the Continental United States (CONUS). When operational these two sites will preclude an end run of the DEW Line in the north. The initial phase is to design and develop a limited coverage prototype and conduct a test and evaluation for one year for the purpose of validating system concepts and definitizing performance and costs before building the operational sites.
2. Question: How likely is it that an operational OTH-B would be able to detect the kind of subsonic missiles that an adversary might employ?
Answer: Although it is possible for an OTH-B radar to detect the missiles to which you refer, the primary mission of the CONUS OTH-B system is aircraft detection. The distinguishing characteristics of an OTH-B radar is its ability to use the ionosphere to reflect the high frequency (HF) signals around the earth's curvature, typically on the order of 4,000 kilometers. This capability provides a potential to provide a quantum improvement in the range at which aircraft can be detected, and at all altitudes down to the earth's surface. It will be possible, therefore, with an operational OTH-B radar to detect and provide warning of an adversary aircraft before they penetrate to the range necessary to launch their subsonic missiles.
3. Question: How does the planned development of an OTH-B system relate to the Executive's projected reductions in the Air National Guard?
Answer: The long-range surveillance and tactical warning which is possible with the OTH-B system is more vital than ever in view of the projected reductions in the Air National Guard Interceptor Force and our ability to react and intercept potentially hostile aircraft entering our sovereign airspace. The OTH-B system will significantly increase the warning time available to alert National Command Authorities such that appropriate action can be taken to determine the identity and purpose of the intruder.
4. Question: What consideration was given to the economic impact of constructing the OTH-B in the State of Maine and, specifically, in Washington County?
Answer: Consideration of site locations during the concept formulation phase was based primarily on technical and operational criteria. Once the State of Maine was considered optimum under these criteria, extensive consideration of the economic impact in the local areas within the State was factored into the final site selection. Recommendations were solicited and received from the State of Maine Land Development officials on possible site locations, and the preferred site takes into consideration the availability of land and the economic conditions.
5. Question: What criteria were used for choosing the receiver site in Township 19, as opposed to another nearby site with less adverse economic impact?
Answer: The detailed criteria used for choosing the receiver site are contained in the Revised Draft Environmental Statement and include minimum Radio Frequency Interference (RFI distances), economic impact, population densities, existing soil and foliage densities, topography, and other associated impacts and costs. The selected site in Township 19 was considered optimum in this case. Surveys in the areas around the Township 19 site determined that the topography was less than technically desirable due to orientation and size. Construction in the possible surrounding areas would, therefore, necessitate extensive land mass relocation and grading with much higher costs and environmental impact.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the patience of the distinguished floor manager of the bill, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. MCCLELLAN), in giving consideration to this amendment.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, as I understand, we are not taking the money out of the bill, we are simply providing for no expenditure until some of these problems can be further considered and hopefully worked out.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It is not killing the project, but it is trying to make an accommodation so that there can be a spirit of cooperation and good will as a part of the procedure. Does that state it substantially?
Mr. MUSKIE. That states it precisely, may I say to the Senator. We have no interest in blocking the project. We are just concerned with the particular aspect of it that I have described.
Mr. McCLELLAN. If my distinguished colleague, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG), has no objection on his side of the aisle, I see no objection to the amendment, and I would be willing to accept it and take it to conference.
Mr. YOUNG. I have no objection. In fact, I think the Senator from Maine makes a good case.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I express my appreciation to both of my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.