AERONAUTICS AND i R.Wsl'OKI a I K >\ 



759 



by the FAA. In 1972, this issue had none of the factors which core the 

 subcommittee apart five years later. More funds were provided to 

 increase collision avoidance instruments in general aviation aircraft. 



Winn did not give up easily on the aircraft noise issue. He blistered 

 the subcommittee in "Additional Views" attached to the 1972 com- 

 mittee report, noting: 



Perhaps in our zeal to deal with a pressing national problem, we have imposed 

 an unnecessary burden on NASA which should more appropriately be borne by several 

 different government agent ies and the airline industr) 



WHY DOES IHI SENATE SHORT-CHANGE AERONAUTICS-' 



The usual tight occurred with the Senate when the conferees as- 

 sembled. The House conferees could never figure out why, in light of 

 the pride which the Senate committee took in having initiated the 

 CARD study, the Senate conferees fought so hard against increased 

 funding for aeronautics. In 1972, it was an unusually close fight, 

 because Senator Goldwater sided with the House conferees. Even so, 

 when the smoke had cleared, the conferees once again split the 

 difference and agreed on a $24 million increase for aeronautics, instead 

 of the House position of double that amount. The sequel is that the 

 House and Senate appropriations committees agreed not only to fund 

 this entire amount but also to earmark the $24 million exclusively for 

 retrofitting existing aircraft with the quiet engine. Then the nasty 

 old OMB came along and impounded the funds, after all that work. 



The impounded funds, however, were available the following 

 year, as NASA came in with an aeronautics budget of $171 million- 

 only $7.6 million above the prior year request including the im- 

 pounded funds. At the same time, projected future costs for aeronau- 

 tics seemed to be at a fairly stable, or declining level. This prompted 

 Hechler to ask NASA Administrator Fletcher as the 1973 full com- 

 mittee healings opened in March: 



It would seem to me that with this very, very sharp decline projected for aero- 

 nautics over the next tew years we really ought to change the name of NASA and 

 take the first "A" out of there. As you know, this committee and the Congress have 

 very strongly supported additional emphasis on aeronautical research and devel- 

 opment and the very simple question I would like to ask you is: Where ate we going 

 in this Nation in aeronautical research and development? Why are we slowing down? 

 It would almost seem from these figures that we arc going underground. 



Dr. Fletcher responded: "Aeronautics will continue to grow, and will 

 be emphasized 



