Viewing page 321 of 507

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

312 Helicopter Air Service Program

One argument which has nothing to do with what I have said so far that has been used in favor of continuing helicopter subsidies is the argument that they serve a very useful research purpose for our armed services.

Senator Russell ably met the argument that this subsidy is worth anything to the Armed Forces in research. Listen to last year's colloquy on this subject, and this is on the floor of the Senate when the helicopter subsidy was up:

Mr. PROXMIRE. One argument which was made against the amendment and in favor of the subsidy was that it is worth a great deal to the Armed Forces, because the helicopter service provides an opportunity for the armed services to study how the helicopter would operate under great stress; and the argument was made that the commercial helicopter operators, who receive the subsidy, are serving the armed services. The distinguished Senator from Georgia is chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and undoubtedly is the outstanding expert in this field. How does he feel about that argument?

Mr. RUSSELL. It has no validity. If it had not been made by a Senator of the United States, it would be silly and ridiculous. I do not know which Senator made it. It has no validity whatever. There are literally thousands of helicopters operating today in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. They operate under every conceivable condition and for every conceivable purpose. There is a wide variety in styles and types of helicopters that are operating in all branches of the armed services. Instead of this limited operation benefiting the Department of Defense, one of the principal subsidies these operators have received has been in the work that has been done by the Department of Defense in this area. This is a handout, pure and simple. It may have had some justification during the first 3 or 4 years of its life, but it has absolutely none today.

If there is a more authoritative and effective spokesman for Senate Armed Services policy than the Senator from Georgia, I don't know who it could be. He is very highly respected in the Senate for his knowledge and ability in this area.

It has been said that this is an infant industry, and it needs the support because after all it is coming along and with a bit of help from the Federal Government it can come of age. How big is this infant becoming? After all, it has been an infant industry operating with subsidies now for more than 10 years. In fact, close to 12 years, I guess.

It seems to me that it is time that this infant be told that there isn't a Santa Claus. Usually we tell our children when they are 2, 3, or 4, or 5 years old that there is no Santa Claus. But not the helicopter industry. They think there is one and they want to continue until they are at least 16 or 17 years old, which I think is pressing a little bit too far.

Back in 1963 the House conferees made it clear that they expected the subsidy to last only another year or two, when they said, and I quote, and this is from the Independent Offices Appropriation Conference Report:
The conferees agree that the subsidies for helicopters should be ended shortly, that this service should either be made self-supporting or concluded.

Mr. Chairman, I have just one more argument, and that is that it seems to me that this subsidy is most discriminatory. Why in the world should only New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles get the benefit of this subsidy, and not, for example, Washington, or San Francisco, or Seattle, or any number of other places which can make just as good a case or perhaps a stronger case?

I am not making this argument on the grounds that they should extend the subsidy, broaden it, deepen it to include these other cities.