senate-tuesday, july 12, 1977 - govinfo.gov

22340 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE

SENATE-Tuesday, July 12, 1977

July 12, 1977

The Senate met at 10 a.m., on the expiration of the recess, and was called to order by Hon. D1cK CLARK, a Senator from the State of Iowa.

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Edward L. R. Elson, D.D., offered the following prayer:

Almighty God, we thank Thee for this Nation, created according to Thy will and kept by Thy providence. Make us a people worthy of our heritage.

Bless all who serve in the Government at this time. Quicken their minds that they may lay hold upon the truths of the Gospel. Surround them with Thy love. Fill them with Thy grace. Discipline their emotions. Claim them for Thine own. Fire them with a holy zeal for righteousness and justice that they may seek first Thy kingdom. And may they ibe given the peace which the world cannot give nor take a way.

Through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to the .Senate from the President pro temp.ore (Mr. EASTLAND).

The legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,

Washington, D .O., July 12, 1977. To the Senate:

Under the provisions of rule I, section 3 of the standing rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable DICK CLARK, a Senator from the State of Iowa, to perform the duties of the Chair.

JAMES 0. EASTLAND, President pro tempore.

Mr. CLARK thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro tempore.

THE JOURNAL Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President

I ask unanimous consent that the Jour~ nal of the proceedings of yesterday, Monday, July 11, 1977, be approved.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President

I ask unanimous consent that during th~ remainder of the 1st session of the 95th Congress, the Ethics Committee be authorized to meet at any time during the sessions of the Senate. This would put the Ethics Committee in the same category as the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee now enjoy.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I will not object-the majority leader and I have discussed this matter previously, and I fully agree with his request.

(Legislative day of Wednesday, May 18, 1977)

I take this opportunity, however, to say that earlier the majority leader had indicated that he would not freely request unanimous consent for committees to meet after the July 4 recess, except on energy matters and other important matters. At that time, I indicated that I was fully in accord with that.view, that we should metabolize the work already done by the committee system, other than in the energy field and other important and urgent areas.

I say to the majority leader that I would be agreeable to some sort of unanimous consent for committees to meet for the remainder of this session, as it relates to energy matters, and I will try to work out an agreement with him in that respect. But I reiterate now what I said at the time he first suggested this matter: I felt that committee work, other than energy-related or other special circumstance legislation-urgent, important legislation-should not occur at this point.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I agree. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I announced a month ago to the Democratic Conference that consent would not be given freely to committees to meet during the sessions of the Senate after July 11, except those committees that deal with energy matters and other legislation that is considered to be "must" legislation. The announcement has been repeated from time to time.

I first brought the matter up in the meeting of the chairmen prior to the Democratic Conference, and I discussed it with the chairmen. Subsequent to that and prior to the Democratic Conference, I also brought the matter up in the Policy Committee and discussed it there.

So the matter has been amply publicized, but I continue to receive requests. For example, I have a request on my desk today-for which I will not seek consent-asking unanimous consent that all committees be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today. I have asked my staff to stop putting that memorandum on my desk. I do not intend to ask for all committees to meet during Senate sessions. There has to be a time when we begin to act as though we meant what we said when we indicated that we were going to do everything we possibly could to adjourn this session of Congress in October.

For the record, may I say that that was not my decision alone. It was not my decision alone that Congress adjourn in October. This was a decision worked out between the leadership of both Houses, and between the leaders in the Senate, and between the leadership of Congress and the White House. Everyone is on notice, and it was a joint decision.

Whether it is the 8th, or the 7th, or the 9th, or the 10th, or the 15th, or the 22nd, I still think we can adjourn in October if we are able to proceed in a systemati~ and methodical way. That is what we are

attempting to do. As of today we are on schedule. But it is going to depend in the long run, in great measure, on the extent to which the other body is able to get over to the Senate the energy legislation.

The Finance Committee of the Senate cannot proceed, to any considerable degree, with its work on the tax aspects of the energy package until the measure comes over from the other body. So far as the leadership in this -body is concerned, every effort is being made to deal with the energy legislation and to deal with other "must" legislation, such as, for example, the water pollution bill or the minimum wage bill-I consider that to be a necessary piece of legislation--or the black lung bill. Not everyone may agree with me in 'that. There are measures that should be disposed of, in my opinion.

So far as committee meetings are concerned, we have given ample notice. I will continue to attempt to obtain consent for committees to meet only when, in the judgment of the joint leadership, it is on a matter that has to be disposed of before the Senate adjourns.

So I thank the distinguished minority leader for making reference to our previous discussion on giving standing consent, for the remainder of the session, to those committees that deal with energy, so that they will be under no doubt that they can meet.

As to the other committees, we will have to deal with them on an ad hoc basis. They understand that under the Stevenson resolution they can meet the first 2 hours of the session without consent. I urge them, therefore, to schedule their meetings accordingly, because that is the only way I think we can handle this situation in an appropriate and systematic manner. Otherwise, committees will continue to meet until October and will continue to grind out legislation that will not pass the Senate this year, perhaps not even pass next year.

For the first 5 months of the year, we held floor sessions to a minimum. The Senate did not convene until the afternoon any more than we had to, with the understanding that the committees would take advantage of those days to meet.

That time is past, and we have to do the floor work now.

I am glad the minority leader has triggered this statement, because I feel that I have to say it again, so that committees and Members will understand that committee meetings will have to be scheduled at times other than when the Senate is meeting or only during the first 2 hours, unless they can make a case for the legislation that is being handled in committees.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his additional information in that respect.

I only add to his remarks my concern in this respect, which I have stated previously.

I will be happy to confer with the majority leader and to consider requests

July 12; 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENA TE 22341 for committees to meet during the sessions of the Senate, if and when that is necessary.

I would hope those requests would be made sparingly, and that the remainder of this session of the Senate, as the majority leader has indicated, will be devoted primarily to legislative activity on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I think, for the information of the committees, as a general statement I could say that the Senate will be coming in around 10 o'clock every day from here on out. This may have to vary . . There may be days when we will have to come in at 9, and days we will not have to come in as early as 10. But, as a general policy, committees can count on the Senate coming in at 10, which would mean they could meet until 12. But that policy will vary. We have to deal with the situation from day to day as we find it.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the majority leader.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the minority leader.

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS BY CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, JR.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, several days ago I received a copy of a commencement address delivered recently by the honorable Christian A. Herter, Jr. to the American College of Switzerland. No stranger to most in this Chamber, Mr. Herter has enjoyed a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, a businessman, a diplomat, and most recently as the Assistant Administrator of the Agency for International Development.

In his address to a graduating class in which 40 different nations were represented, Mr. Herter gives a most enlightened appraisal of the predicament confronting the community of nations. He describes the vast and dramatic changes in the nature of the interrelationships among nations that have occurred in only a generation-changes created primarily by problems global in scope and for which the solutions must also be global.

As a concise description of the problems and promises of an interdependent world, I have seen no better. I commend this address, therefore, to the attention of my colleagues and ask unanimous consent it be printed in its entirety in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD. as follows:

THE CHALLENGE OF A COMPLEX WORLD

I'm delighred to be with you today, ·in this beautiful place, at this very distinguished college, and to be able to participate in commencement exercises with students from so many parts of the world. That I should have been chosen to receive an honorary degree is particularly flattering; needless to say, I'm very proud.

In thinking about my address today, I was reminded of the baccalaureate speaker who was sitting behind the stage, worrying a.bout what he was going to say to the young men and women out there in the audience.

His eye drifted up to the door that led onto the stage before which all the assembled multitude had gathered; and on the door was written P-U-S-H. That gave him a bril-

Ua.nt idea. He marched up the steps, pushed open the door, strode out on the stage, and there delivered a magnificent oration on the need for push and drive in this world . As a concluding gesture, without turning a.round, he announced that there on the door written in four letters was the word you need to get along in life. On the door was written P-U-L-L!

I don't intend today to drown you in inspirational banalities; I would simply like to share some thoughts with you.

The opening paragraph of your 1977-78 Catalogue struck me as particularly appropriate. It says, "The American College of Switzerland, a college of liberal arts and international business administration, is dedicated to the preparation of students for a future of complex ideas and· rapidly changing environment, for a. world where international cooperation has become a condition of survival."

This statement eloquently capsulizes the essence of my remarks today. When I graduated from college, I would not attend my commencemtmt exercises. I was already embarked on what I hope will be my one and only military career. Other than going to war, I had no choice as to my future.

Today, 35 years later, your choices are, in a sense, infinite. The world is smaller, more crowded, and far more complicated. The environment in which we all live has changed profoundly. Whatever you men and women choose to do--government service, the professions, private enterprise, the sciences, or no specific career-the opportunities for your generation a.re enormously challenging and exciting.

Today I'd like to review with you some of the new horizons in the field of international relations, an area to which I have been exposed for many years. And I will speak of some of the forces which are shaping such a different, increasingly interdependent worlda world in which you will play such a critical part.

First, what has happened in the last three decades to produce such dramatic change? A few examples will do:

At about the time you were born, there emerged, with great suddenness, a whole new era of space exploration and space related technology. Man encircled the earth in a space capsule, he landed on the moon, and he developed a wide variety of new mechanisms to use space for the benefit of mankind.

Yet the arrival of the space age has been accompanied, quite literally, by the birth of over a .b1llion more people on this planet, with profound implications for food supplies, the sufficiency of natural resources, including land and water, and the quality of life.

Today, there are close to one hundred and fifty sovereign nations, three times as many as there were at the signing of the United Nations Charter in 1945, and they are enormously diverse in terms of political structure, economic wealth, natural resource endowment and technological sophistication.

We are at the beginning of an era when adequate energy supplies, so vital to the survival of an expanding world, have become an overriding concern to government leaders, economists and scientists, not to mention the average citizen.

Today we a.re also enmeshed in the nuclear age, with its dangers and its promise for mankind.

Second, almost while you have been at college, international affairs and the foreign policies of individual nations have ·taken on entirely new dimensions. There is no longer an almost exclusive preoccupation with the traditional concerns of diplomacy-the military, political and economic relations between countries and regions, the strategic balance, the new power centers, interna-

tional ti-a.de, investment and monetary affairs, on the economic health of the industrialized nations.

Today, mankind is seized with a variety of different problems, global in scope, impacting its very existence, not just its political and economic welfare. These new concerns have become apparent to most people literally only in the last decade, and the international community-governments, the private sector, the individual citizen-has begun to mobilize its energy and resources to understand, manage and cope with:

The environment, and man's degradation of the air, the water and the land, his lifesupport system.

The oceans, the principal source of our oxygen, with their vast natural resources and seabed mineral wealth. As you well know, the governance of the oceans, wf.th all that im,plies in geopolitical terms, is being negotiated at the Law of the Sea Conference, and a satisfactory regime may st111 take many years to achieve.

The food-population interface, and the necessity to increase the production of food and to improve its distribution to evergrowing numbers of people. The world is faced with the awe-inspiring task of trying to provide the minimum necessities-food, shelter and clothing-to literally hundreds of m1llions of people who do not now possess them.

Weather and climate, and the capacity to understand the forces, including man's own activities, that affect them, to predict climate variations, to modify the weather, to mitigate natural disasters. One cannot overestimate the importance of further knowledge in this area, particularly in relation to the problem of an over-crowded, hungry planet.

Fina.Uy, let me speak of science and technology, and the increasing contribution they make to the substance of modern diplomacy. Technology has spawned many ills-the capacity for nuclear destruction, the invasion of the biosphere with dangerous, non-biogradable substances, the conspicuous waste of over-consumption. But technology is a necessary ,part of the answer to our global problems-how to control nuclear waste, how to clean up the environment, how to abate the population increase, how to aipportion fairly the resources of the oceans and seabeds, how to produce more food and distribute it equitably.

And technology has ,both contracted the world, and enormously expanded our knowledge of the physical forces that impact our existence. We are seeing a revolution in international communications. We make contact instantly, between continents, by phone, by television, by computer.

Through satellites, we have learned about weather, how to predict it and warn of impending storms; we have mapped the world from space, monitored the growth of crops, located mineral resources, fresh water, and the extent of man's pollution. Now we plan to shuttle back and forth from earth to permanently located space stations-a miracle of technology, industrial know-how and private initiative. And we have even had the foresight to negotiate an international treaty on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space!

Why do I highlight this array of new dimensions?

Because of their obvious and significant implications for the complexity of international relations, for the necessity of a global perspective and global collaboration, for the interdependence of people and nations, and for the emergence of a different kind of international diplomacy than we have ever known.

Today, the diplomat, the practitioner in international affairs, has to be an entirely different animal. No longer can he be con-tent with a smattering of languages and a background in .politics and economics. He must understand the relationship of science.

22342 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977 technology and a host of other disciplines to the conduct of foreign relations.

No longer can the diplomat conduct foreign policy on the basis of persona.I brilliance or individual stature. The problems are too complicated. They require continuity of attention, sta.b111ty of concept, and a. wide variety of expertise. Diplomacy today involves the totality of a country's relationships with the rest of the world-political, economic, technological, and commercial. In the case of my country, the involvement between the American private sector and the Third World, for example, in economic, technological and human terms is far greater than that of the U.S. government.

International negotiation-the essence of diplomacy-has become far more complex. Global, even regional problems, oa.n no longer be dealt with on a bila.rte,ral basis, let a.lone unilateral. This is the age of multilateral negotia.Uons, and that means scores of players, many new ia.t the game, and all with diverse experience, diverse cultures, and diverse ways of thinking. The process is frustrating, attenuated, and uncertain. It requires endless patience, and a willingness w try to understand the constraints under which everyone else at rthe table is operating. Sometimes, it is doomed to failure.

But how else, in this multi-fiaceted world, can get consensus ?-on the dangers of nuclear proliferation, on treaties for the exploration of the moon, the sea.beds, even the Antarctic, embracing, a.s they do, the common heritage of mankind?

How do we get in-ternational agreement on a.cceptabte para.meters for genetic engineering, for the ia.lloca.tion of frequencies for satellirtes, both for commercial and governmental use, so that they are not all ;taken by the technologically advanced countries? How far does na.rtional sovereignty extend into space? What is outer spia.ce? How do we deal with international terrorism, or d,rugs? How does the world establish a successful international system of food reserves to mitigate the impact of fa.mines?

Close to ha.If the peoples of the world are under the age of 15. Quite aparrt from food, how do we help the developing countries, with their burgeoning metropolirtan centers, deal with the staggering problems of unemployment, adequate schooling and even minimal soc•ial services?

How do nations manage the difflcul ties created by a resource that is in no one's exclusive jurisdiction-the mineral wealth of the seabed, the whale, the tuna, the Great Lakes, or the River Rhine? How do they deal with transboundary pollution, such a.s acid rain in Europe, or rthe impact of fluorocarbons ia.nd perhaps other chemicals on the ozone layer. What are the legal implications for a downwind country of weather modification by the upwind country?

How do we work ourt; the ground rules so that a major investment by a multlnatlona.l corpora.rtion in a host country is fair to both sides? International business hias subscribed to a code of ethics governing its performance overseas. Why is it not appropria.rte to require host countries to adopt a comparable code of behavior?

How is proprietary technology, so vital to the developing world, transferred in e.n equitable manner? What institutionial strucrt;ures must be put into place, or improved on, to intell1gently and effectively manage this myriad of problems, ma.de more difficult by the closeness, and rthe growing interdependence, of rthe world?

How, in fact, do we-citizens and nationsa.nswer these questions?

I have no easy solution; I can only go back to the words in your catalogue.

International cooperation is a. condition of survival; without it, there is anarchy.

But to say that international cooperation is a. condition of survival ls to say nothing, unless we are res.Hy willing to work at it. Therein lies the challenge, for you and for me. Leadership, creativity, understanding and pa.tie.nee, a. moral sense of pur,pose, and a. conviction that the efforts of the individual do count. We need all of them.

It seems to me you s·ta.rt with a. grea.rt advantage, here at this highly exceptional and beautiful institution of learning. You come from 40 different countries, you have lived together, studied together, come to understand the influence of background and mores on ea.ch other's thinking. You have absorbed the qualities of a. genuinely international mmeu. Further, you have been well educated and trained, and perhaps understand better than most the necessity, in international as well a.s domestic affairs, of good management.

And you a.re blessed with another advantage, perhaps not so obvious. You have been exposed, a.t lea.st in academic terms, to the private sector, with its extraordinary capacity to get things done,, to be non-bureaucratic, to capitalize on ingenuity and imagination. Many of the questions I have raised with you today, and the challenges I have suggested, are not the exclusive concern of governments, or the state. In fa.ct, answers and solutions in many cases will have to come from the private sector; it a.lone has the expertise, the fl.exib111ty and the managerial resources.

Now, a.s you graduate, there lies before each of you a. wide range of choices, perhaps more than you would prefer. As Aldous Huxley put it: "A ma.n's worst diffloulties begin when he is free to do a.s he likes." All I have tried to do is touch upon some of the exciting opportunities that a.wait you in the field of international relations, international business, international technology.

I have no llluslons that these cihallenges and opportunities will appeal to all of you. You have your own concerns, in your own countries, whet'her they be in the private sector, the public sector, ln enterprise or in the professions. Perhaps just doing your own thing. Whateve·r the choice, do it well, with your full dedlca.rtlon. And I hope, given this world of increasing interdependence, that needs so much talent, and such a large measure of leadership and idealism, that on occasion you will remember the words of a. short poem by a.n American, Stephen Crane:

"I saw a. man pursuing the horizon: Round and round they sped. I wa.s disturbed a.t this; I ,accosted the man. 'It ls futile ,' I sa.ld, 'You can never--' 'You lie,' he cried, And ran on."

Good luck!

ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern·

pore. Under the previous order, there will now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business for not to extend beyond 15 minutes, with statements limited therein to 5 minutes each.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern· pore. The clerk will call the roll.

The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. In this way the committee will kn.ow that they can meet until 12 o'clock tomorrow.


MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT Messages from the President of the

United States were communicated to the Senate by Mr. Chirdon, one of his secretaries.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED As in executive session, the Acting

President pro tempore laid before the Senate a message from the President of the United States submitting the nomination of Jean M. Wilkowski, of Florida, for the rank of ambassador while serving as coordinator of U.S. preparations for the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

APPROVAL OF BILL A message from the President of the

United States announced that on July 11, 1977, he approved and signed the following bill:

S. 964. An act to provide that the salaries of certain positions and individuals which were increased as a. result of the opera.rtion of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 shall not be increased by the first compa.ra.b111ty pay adjustment occurring after the date of the enactment of this a.ct.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE At 2:20 p.m., a message from the House

of Representatives delivered by Mr. Hackney, one of its clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill and joint resolution in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

H.R. 2960. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interim- to memorialize the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence in Constitution Gardens in the District of Columbia.; and

H.J. Res. 24. A joint resolution to provide for the designation of a. week a.s "National Lupus Week."

At 4: 30 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives delivered by Mr. Hackney announced that:

The House agrees to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6893) to amend title 4 of the United States Code to make it clear that Members of Congress may not, for purposes of State income tax laws, be treated as residents of any State other than the State from which they were elected.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22343

The House agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7636) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other purposes; the House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 21 and concurs therein; and the House recedes from its disagreement to the amendments of the Senate Nos. 4, 5, 7, 9, 16, 19,22, 37, 41, 46,48, 50, and 63 and concurs therein each with an amendment in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate.

COM:MUNICATIONS FROM EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS, ETC.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following communications which were referred as indicated:

EC-1651. A communication from the President of the United States transmitting, pursuant to law, amendments reducing the request for a.ppropriations for the fiscal year 1978 by the amount or· $1,017,400,000 for the Department of Defense-Military (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on Appropriations.

PETITIONS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore laid before the Senate the following pe•titions which were referred as indicated:

POM-252. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts memorializing Congress to enact legislation Whereby the period of daylight saving time shall be extended to 7 months each year; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

[The Commonwealth of :Massachusetts] "RESOLUTIONS MEMORIALIZING CONGRESS TO

ENACT LEGISLATION WHEREBY THE PERIOD OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME SHALL BE EXTENDED TO 7 MONTHS EACH YEAR "Whereas, It has come to the attention of

the General Court that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of -the U.S. House of Represent81tives plans to consider daylight saving time legislation in late summer or early fall; and

"Whereas, The Senate has in the past passed a bill providing for a 7 month daylight saving time schedule; and

"Whereas, The passage of such legislation at this time would alleviate in part the impact of the energy crisis with which we are currently confronted; and

"Whereas, The enactment of said legislation would assist crime prevention efforts and lower rush hour traffic accident rates attributable to poor visibility; therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Massachusetts House of Representatives hereby urges the Congress of the United States to pass legislation whereby the period o! daylight sa.ving time shall be extended to 7 months each year; and 'be it further

"Resolved, That copies of these resolutions be forwarded by the Clerk of the House of Representatives to the presiding officer of each Branch of Congress and to the members thereof from this Commonwealth."

POM-253. A resolution adopted by the Senate of the State of New Jersey urging the administration as well as the Congress to approve the El Paso Alaska Company's

trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline project in order to expedite the availability of new gas supplies for the lower 48 states; ·to the,Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

[State of New Jersey] "SENATE RESOLUTION

"Whereas, The nation's need for new energy supplies has been compounded by the effects of harsh weather conditions which have raised the demand for fuel supplies to unprecedented levels; and,

"Whereas, The dual effects of the cold winter in the U.S., coupled wi-th the drought on the west coast, have produced economic chaos that has affected the nation's vital industries and many homes; and,

"Whereas, These problems have heightened and dramatized the immediate need for additional energy sources, of which natural gas is in the shortest supply and one of the most immediately available new sources of energy for the U.S. are the huge reserves of natural gas available on the North Slope of Alaska; and,

"Whereas, Of the three proposals now being considered by the administration for moving this Alaska gas to consumers in the lower 48 states, only cne, the · so-called El Paso, "all-American" trans-Alaskan gas route, would be entirely under U.S. control, would largely parallel the Alaska oil line across Alaska, and would involve construction of a complex of gasification and liquefication facilities as well as a fleet of liquid natural gas vessels to carry the gas to the U.S. West Coast; and,

"Whereas, Of the three proposed routes, the El Paso trans-Alaska line will provide the maximum job benefits in Alaska as well as in the lower 48 states (an estimated 765,000 man-years of employment for American workers), particularly during the construction in U.S. yards of the fleet LNG vessels needed to carry the gas; and,

"Whereas, All the tax benefits, as well as wage and material payments, will go to the U.S. and American firms if the El Paso plan is implemented and the El Paso plan would be the easiest system to finance because of its lower initial cost and because of Federal guarantees of bonds for its tankers under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act; and,

"Whereas, The fact that the El Paso project is neither dependent on Canadian government action or threatened by law suits and delays in Canad.a would make this project the best choice for the U.S.; and,

"Whereas, Just as important as the employment and economic benefits, is the need to obtain secure supplies of gas for the lower 48 states as soon as possible to meet the present shortage, and that on this basis also the El Paso trans-Alaska line is clearly superior; now, therefore,

"Be It Resolved by the Senate of the State o/ New Jersey:

"That this House urge the Carter Administration, and the Congress of the United States, to approve the El Paso Alaska Company's "All-American" trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline project in order to assure the expedited availability of the secure new gas supplies that will increase U.S. energy selfreliance.

"Be It Further Resolved, That duly authenticated copies of this resolution, signed by the President and attested by the Secretary, shall forthwith be transmitted to the President of the ·united States, the Vice President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and to each of the members of Congress elected from this Sta.te."

POM-254. Resolution No. 128 adopted by th-e Legislature of the Territory of Guam relative to respectfully requesting the President and Congress of the United States to enact H.R. 6650, the Federal Omnibus Bill; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

"RESOLUTION No. 128 "Be it resolved by the Legislature of the

Territory of Guam: "Whereas, on June 15, 1977, a public hear

ing on H .R. 6550, the Federal Omnibus Bill, was held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; and

"Whereas, the Senate Committee requested a resolution be adopted by the Fourteenth Guam Legislature relative to H.R. 6550; and

"Whereas, Guam is in dire need of federal assistance for typhoon restoration and economic development; and

"Whereas, the Office of Federal Comptroller is an imposition and unnecessary economic burden on the government of Guam; and

"Whereas, the Legislature should be granted the election to impose a surtax on Guam to generate revenue; and

"Whereas, equity mandates compensation be provided to persons on Guam whose real properties were taken from the period 1944 to 1963 at less than fair market value; and

"Whereas, Guam's treasury has significantly been depleted by the Tax Reduction Act of 1975 and the Tax Reform Act of 1976; and

"Whereas, our Micronesian brothers are deserving of and should be justly compensated for loss of land and other injuries incurred as a result of World War II and other activities undertaken by the Federal government; and

"Whereas, we empathize with the need of our sister territory, the Virgin Islands; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, that the Fourteenth Guam Legislature wholeheartedly endorses the intent and purposes of H.R. 6550, subject to the following revisions, that Section 301 o! Title III, be amended to require the concurrence of the Legislature prior to the disposition of funds; and be it further

"Resolved, that the President and Congress of the United States are respectfully requested to enact H.R. 6550; and be it further

"Resolved, that the Speaker certify to and the Legislative Secretary attest the adoption hereof and that copies of the same be thereafter transmitted to the President of the United States; the President of the U.S. Senate; the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders; the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Insular Affairs; the Secretary of the Interior; Guam's Delegate to Congress, and to the Governor of Guam."

POM-255. Interim Resolution 77-5 a.dopted by the Legislative Council of the State o! Arkansas urging the enactment of necessary and appropriate legislation to accelerate the study of the Tulsa District o! the U.S. Corps of Engineers pertaining to the salt content of the water in the Arkansas River, in light o! the completion of the McClellan/Kerr Navigation Project, for the purpose o! reducing such salt content to make the Arkansas River suitable for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

POM-256. A petition requesting that the Secretary o! the Department o! Interior be given the discretion to permit certain property owners to reserve the right of use and occupancy o! ,property denied to them under P.L. 94-459; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

POM-257. A petition to Congress relaitive to reparations that are due to Native Hawaiians in reference to Senate Joint Resolution 4; to the Committee on Energy a.nd Natural Resources.

POM-258. A resolution adopted by the Solid Waste Management Board regarding the protection of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River

22344 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977 Delta; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

POM-259. A resolution adopted by the Assoc.1:ation of Trial Lawyers of America-Puerto Rico Chapter, at San Juan, Puerto Rico endorsing the Honorable Jose V. Toledo for the position of Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

REPORTS OF COMMITI'EES

The following reports of committees were submitted: .

By Mr. LONG, from the Committee on Finance: With amendments:

S. 1538. A blll to amend title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act to improve the bla~k lung benefits program established thereunder, to impose an excise tax on the sale or use of coal, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 95-336).

SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977-CONFERENCE REPORT CREPT. NO. 95-337)

Mr. METCALF submitted a report from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of tthe two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill <H.R. 2) to provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States with respect to tthe regulation of surface coal mining operations, and the acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines, and for other purposes, which was ordered to be printed.

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. SPARKMAN, from rthe Committee on Foreign Relations:

Gerard C. Smi,th, of the District of Colum,bia, to be Ambassador at Large and United States Special Representative for Non-Proliferation Matters, and to be also the Representative of the United States of America to the Internationial Atomic Energy Agen'cy.

W. Howard Wriggins, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Sri Lanka.

Lawrence A. Pezzullo, of Maryland, a Foreign Secrertary officer of class 1, to be Ambassaidor Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Uruguay.

Wlllia.m E. Schaufele, Jr., of Ohio, a Foreign Service officer of the class of career minister, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the UnLted States of America to Gr~e.

Louts A. Lerner, of IHinois, to be Ambassador Extraordinary ia.nd Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Norway.

Frank V. Ortiz, Jr., of New Mexico, a Foreign Service officer of class 1, to be Ambassador Extra.ordinary and Pleniportenti,a.ry of the United States of America to Barbados.

Frank V. Ortiz, Jr., of New Mexico, a Foreign Service officer of class 1, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the State of Granada.

(The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed, subject to the nominees' commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.)

STATEMENTS OF POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Nominee: Gerard C. Smith. Contributions, Amount, Date, and Donee.-

(If none, write none.) 1. Self: See schedule attached. 2. Spouse: See schedule attached. Advised by Mr. Herbert Hansell that ques

tions 3 through 7 are not applicable. I have listed above the names of each mem

ber of my immediate family including their spouses. I have asked each of these persons to inform me of the pertinenrt contributions made by them. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this report is complete and accurate.

GERARD C. SMITH. Gerard C. Smith, political contributions

Donee, amount, and date.-Jimmy Carter for President, $200, 1976. Republican National Committee, $200,

1976. John Wilson Campaign, $100, 1976. President Ford Committee, $250, 1975. The '76 Taft for Senate, $50, 1975. Shriver for President Committee, $125,

1975. Shriver for President Committee (Donation

by Mrs. Bernice L. Smith), none, 1974; none, 1973.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Nominee: Prof. W. Howard Wrigglns. Post: Ambassador to Sri Lanka. Contributions, amount, date, donee. 1. Self: None. 2. Spouse: None. 3. Children: Diana Cundy and Chris-

topher: None. 4. Pa.rents (deceased): None. 5. Grandparents (deceased): None. 6. Brothers: No brother. 7. Sisters and Spouses, Helen v. Fleer:

None; Edith W. Atmore: None. I have listed above the names of each

member of my immediate family including their spouses. I have asked each of these persons to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained In this report ls complete and accurate.

W. HOWARD WRIGGINS.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Nominee: Lawrence A. Pezzullo. Post: Ambassador to Uruguay. Contributions, amount, date, and donee.-1. Self: None 2. Spouse: None. 3. Children, Ralph, Susan, and David:

None. 4. Parents (deceased): None. 6. Grandparents (deceased): None. 6. Brothers and Spouses (deceased): None. 7. Sisters and Spouses: William and Josephine Zingaro: None. Al and Rose Magliano: None. Anna Zingaro (spouse deceased): None. Charles and Grace Grassl: None. Mary DiPiazza. (spouse deceased): None. I have listed above the names of each

member of my immediate family including their spouses. I have asked each of these persons to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this report is complete and accurate.

LAWRENCE A. PEZZULLO.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Nominee: William E. Schaufele, Jr. Contributions, amount, date, and donee.-1. Self: None. 2. Spouse, Heather Moon Schaufele: None. 3. Children and Spouses, Steven W. Schau-

fele, and Peter H. Scha.ufele: None. 4. Parents: Mrs. Lillian Schaufele: None. (Father deceased). 5. Grandparents Deceased.

6. Sisters and Spouses, Mr. and Mrs. Fred 0. Sloane, $15, May 20, 1971, Friends of John Glenn Committee; $5, July 9, 1972, Democratic National Committee Telethan.

I have listed above the names of each member of my immediate family including their spouses. I have asked ea.ch of these persons to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this report is complete and accurate.

WILLIAM E. ScHAUFELE, Jr.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Nominee: Louis A. Lerner. .Post: Ambassador to Norway. Contributions, amount, date, and donee.-1. ·Self: $1,25, March 1976, Carter campaign;

and $500, March 1976, Carter campaign. 2. Spouse: None. 3. Children and Spouses: None. Parents, Deana Lerner, $100, July 1976,

Carter Administration. 5. Grandparents: None. 6. Brothers and Spouses: None. 7. Sisters and Spouses: None. I have listed above the names of each

member of my immediate family including their spouses. I have asked each of these persons to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this report is complete and accurate.

LOUIS A. LERNER.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Nominee: Frank V. Ortiz, Jr. Post: Barbados. Contributions, amount, date, and donee.-1. Self and Spouse, joint contributions:

$40, March 9, 1975, (Gale) McGee for Senate committee; $40, March 17, 1976, (Gale) McGee for Senate Committee; $100, June 10, 1976, (Joseph) Montoya for Senate Committee; and $30, October 5, 1976, (Manuel) Lujan for Congress Committee.

3. Children and Spouses: None. 4. Parents: None. 5. Grandparents: None. 6. Brothers and Spouses: None. 7. Sisters and Spouses: None. I have listed above the names of each

member of my immediate family including their spouses. I have asked each of these persons to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this report ls complete and accurate.

FRANK V. ORTIZ.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED

The following bill was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

IH.R. 2960. An act to authorize the Secntary of the Interior to memorla.llze the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence in Constitution Gardens in the District· of Columbia.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the first time and, by unanimous consent the second time, and referred as indicated:

By Mr. NELSON: S. 1838. A bill to insure fair and equitable

representation for smaller and medium-sized businesses on Federal advisory committees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. LAXALT: S. 1839. A bill to amend the Internal Reve

nue Code of 1964 to provide for payment by

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 2'i345

the Government of all reasonable litigation expenses to prevailing ta.xpa.yers in lega.l action; to the Committee on Fina.nee.

By Mr. MORGAN: s. 1840. A bill. tor the relief of Drs. Fell

zardo Hocbo Mangundaya.o and Fiorita Castar Mangundayao; to the COmmi·ttee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. ZORINSKY: S. 1841. A b111 for the relle! of Mano Di Dlo;

to the Committee on the Judlciarv. By Mr. EAGLETON:

s. 1842. A bill to authorize the Mayor of the District of Columbia to enter into a.n agreement with the U.S. Postal Service relating to the use of certain air space in the District of Columbia. for postal purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. RIEGLE: S. 1843. A blll for the relief of Yaeko

Howell; and S. 1844. A blll for the relief of Arnaldo

Moreno, M.D.; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. BAYH: S. 1845. A b111 to protect the rights of in

dividuals guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and to prevent unwarranted invasion of their privacy of prohibiting the use of polygraph type equipment tor certain purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

By Mr. NELSON: S.J. Res. 69. A joint resolution requiring

each executive department and agency to designate a small business advocate; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

By Mr. RANDOLPH (for himself, Mr. HATHAWAY, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. KEN-. NEDY, Mr. PELL, Mr. RIEGLE, and Mr. ScHWEIKER) :

S.J. Res. 70. A joint resolution authorizing the President to proclaim the third week of July of 1977, 1978, and 1979, as "National Architectural Barrier Awareness Week"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

(Statements in connection with the above introduced bills and joint resolutions are printed at the conclusion of Senate proceedings today.)

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS s. 25i>

At the request of Mr. PEARSON, the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. WEICKER) was added as a cosponsor of S. 256, the Natural Gas Act Amendments of 1977.

s. 1495

At the request of Mr. PACKWOOD, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. McGOVERN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1495, to provide funding for bikeway construction.

s. 1559

At the request of Mr. HATFIELD, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1559, to provide for the reinstatement of certain survivor ,annuities.

s. 1693

. At the request of Mr. CRANSTON, the Senator from Ohio (Mr. METZENBAUM) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1693, to amend title 38, United States Code.

s. 1722

At the request of Mr. NuNN, the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. ANDERSON) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1722, the Drug Sentencing and Seizure Act of 1977.

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 34-SUBMISSION OF A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE HOLY CROWN OF ST. STEPHEN (Referred to the Committee on For

eign Relations.) Mr. DOLE submitted the following

concurrent resolution: . S. CoN. REs. 34

.Resolved by the Senate .(the House of .Representatives concurring),·

Whereas the Holy crown of Saint Stephen ls a. national treasure of great symbolic and constitutional significance to the Hungarian people; and

Whereas the United States Government ls in possession of the Holy Crown of Saint Stephen, it having been entrusted to the United States in 1945 for safekeeping until Hungary should once again function as a constitutional government established by the Hungarian people through free choice; and

Whereas Hungary ls presently under the control of an atheistic Communist regime whose interest is to destroy the constitutional principles and historic tra.dltlons that the Holy Crown of Saint Stephen represents; and

Whereas the Communist government of Hungry has repeatedly proposed that the crown be given to that government in order to further improve the atmosphere of American-Hungarian relations; and

Whereas relations between the United States and the Communist government of Hungary have gradually been resumed, and discussions have ta.ken place and agreements have been made regarding the settlement of various longstanding bllateral problems; and

Whereas it ls possible that the holy crown may be .considered as a negotiable item by the United States Government; and

Whereas the hopes of the oppressed people ot Hungary for a future of freedom and liberty, and the hopes of their brothers and sisters, the American-Hungarians in this country, wm be dashed if the United States Government breaks its sacred trust and relinquishes the crown: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring). That it ls the sense of Congress that the Holy Crown of Saint Stephen should remain in the safekeeping of the United States Government until Hungary once again functions as a constitutional government established by the Hungarian people through free choice.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I submit for appropriate reference a concurrent resolution which will serve as a declaration of America's renewed determination to see that the principles of democracy and freedom will some day berestored to the people of Hungary. A similar resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives earlier in the year by Congressman FRANK HORTON.

CROWN OF ST. STEPHEN MUST REMAIN

This resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the great national treasure of Hungary, the holy crown of St. Stephen, should continue to remain in the safekeeping of the United States until the Government of Hungary functions according to the free will of its people.

I am concerned with recent newspaper accounts which suggest that the United States is preparing to return the crown of St. Stephen to Hungary, a move that would greatly enhance the claims of Hungary's Communist rulers to historical legitimacy. Given the fact that the

present regime is kept in power by some 50,000 permanently quartered Soviet troops, it is unthinkable that anyone in our Government would seriously contemplate such a gesture, especially since Hungary has not honored its commitment to the humanitarian ideals articulated in the Helsinki Final Act.

HUNGARIAN REFUGEES

During my trip to Vienna last week, I met with a Hungarian refugee couple who had fled to Austria to escape oppression. Both were engineers and lived rather well by Communist standards, and yet they were unhappy. They made it very clear that they were not seeking material wealth in the West but rather, an opportunity to live as free human beings. They were tired, they told me, of living in a land where they had to be ever vigilant with their words lest their remarks be viewed as subversive. As long as Hungary's Government for bids free speech and the exercise of other basic human rights, there can be no further discussion concerning the Crown of St. Stephen.

SACRED TRUST

At the close of World War II, when Eastern Europe was overrun by the forces of totalitarian communism, valiant and devoted Hungarian patriots entrusted the crown to the U.S. Government until the day that freedom returned to their homeland. Our Government undertook a solemn obligation in accepting the crown, and this resolution will reassure freedomloving Hungarians everywhere that the United States will remain true to what is undoubtedly a sacred trust.

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING

PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONSH.R. 7553

AMENDMENT NO. 498

( Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. HATFIELD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill (H.R. 7553) making appropriations for public works for water and power development and energy research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other purposes.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1978-H.R. 7933

AMENDMENTS NOS. 499, 500, AND 502

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. STEVENS submitted three amendments intended to be proposed by him to the bill <H.R. 7933) making appropriations for the Del)artment of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other purposes.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF-S. 9 AMENDMENT NO. 502

(Ordered to be printed and to lie on the table.)

Mr. CRANSTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to

22346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977

the bill (S. 9) to establish a policy for the management of oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf; to protect the marine and coastal environment; to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; and for other purposes.

NOTICES qF HEARINGS COMMI'ITEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing this Friday morning on a request for the modification of the trust agreement of Bertram Lance filed with the Governmental Affairs Committee on January 21, 1977. The hearings will begin at 10 o'clock on July 15, 1977, in room 3302, Dirksen Senate Office Building. TO AMEND THE COUNCIL ON WAGE AND PRICE

STABILITY ACT

Mr. PROXMffiE. Mr. President, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will hold 2 days of public hearings on S. 1542, which would amend the Council on Wage and Price Stability Act, on July 19 and 20, at 10 a.m. in room 5302 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The legislation being considered by the committee would provide for an extension of the Council on Wage and Price Stability to September 30, 1979. It also would provide the Council with an increase in its authorization from $1.7 million to $2.5 million. I have been told that these funds are needed in order to expand the size of the professional and support staff of the Council so that it may more effectively perform its mandated functions. There are also several technical amendments to the a.ct which have been recommended by the administra-tio~ ·

On Tuesday, July 19, 1977, the committee will receive testimony from four witnesses: Albert Rees, director, industrial relations section and professor of economics, Princeton University; Andrew J. Biemiller, director, department of legislation, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; Louis G. Peloubet, controller of Union Carbide Corp. and representing the Business Roundtable; and Barry Bosworth, Director-designate of the Council on Wage and Price Stability and currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

On Wednesday, July 20, 1977, the committee will receive testimony from four witnesses; Charles L. Schultze, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers; Robert R. Nathan, president of Robert Nathan Associates, Inc.; Paul McCracken, Edmund Ezra Day university professor of business administration, University of Michigan; and Hendrik S. Houthakker, Henry Lee professor of economics, Harvard University.

Anyone interested in obtaining additional information about the hearings or desiring to submit comments for the hearing records should contact Steven M. Roberts of the committee staff at (202> 224-0893.

CHANGE IN SCHEDULE

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I wish to announce a time change for the energy hearings before the Rural Development Subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Due to the Senate rule which prohibits committee meetings beyond 2 hours after the Senate has convened without special permission, I have moved up the starting time to 9 a.m. for both Wednesday and Thursday, July 13 and 14. Originally, the hearings were to begin at 10 a.m. The subcommittee will hear from invited representatives of USDA, ERDA, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on Thursday, July 14, 1977, the Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities of the Committee on Human Resources will hold its first hearing on elementary and secondary education. The subject of the hearing will be the current state of educational quality. In other words, are our Nation's children learning to read, write, and compute as well as they did in the past?

The witnesses for this day of hearings will be Adm. Hyman G. Rickover, long an expert in the field of education, and Dr. Mary Berry, the Assistant Secretary of Education, of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The hearing will be held at 10 a.m. in room 1318, Dirksen Senate Office Building.

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee will conduct public hearings on the second concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1978 on Tuesday, July 19, Wednesday, July 20, and Thursday, July 21.

These hearings will provide valuable information to the Budget Committee for reviewing the first concurrent resolution on the budget and deciding what changes, if any, are necessary for the second concurrent resolution which must be adopted by both Houses of Congress by September 15. The second concurrent resolution on the budget will establish minimum limits for revenues and maximum limits for spending, including limits for spending in each major functional category of the budget for fiscal year 1978.

The committee will discuss with witnesses from the administration and from the Congressional Budget Office, the relationship between the administration's revised budgetary recommendations and the requirements for maintaining vigorous economic expansion in to fiscal year 1978 and beyond. The committee also expects to explore the problem of the low growth of business investment in the economy. Stronger investment is required to provide jobs and to expand industrial capacity in order to eliminate potential inflationary bottlenecks and to raise productivity and incomes in the future. The committee will explore with the administration the policies it is considering in tax reform or other programs which are

expected to facilitate this vigorous investment activity. The committee will also explore the administration's ·assumptions about monetary policy in fl.seal year 1978 and plans for reducing inflation.

In the energy area, the committee has a special need for information on the budgetary and economic impact of the President's energy program now being acted upon by the Congress. The com-:mittee is especially interested in examining the cumulative net revenue impact of the plan, the impact on inflation of the President's plan and its revisions by Congress, and the appropriate level of funding for the strategic oil reserve.

Other areas which will be highlighted during the hearings include a review of the President's propooals for financing social security, for program expansion and job creation in Federal youth employment and training programs, and for termination of the B-1 bomber production. In discussing these topics, the committee expects to review all factors which would lead to changes in estimated revenues or spending for fiscal year 1978.

On Tuesday, July 19, at 10 a.m., the witness will be W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury.

On Wednesday, July 20, at 10 a.m., the witness will be Dr. Alice Rivlin, Director, Congressional Budget Office.

On Thursday, July 21, at 9:30 a.m., the witness will be Thomas B. Lance, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and at 11 a.m., the witness will be Charles D. Schultze, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

All hearings will be held in room 357, Russell Senate Office Building.

For further information regarding these hearings, please contact Kim Baldwin of the Budget Committee staff at 4-0853.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS (Additional statements are printed at

the conclusion of Senate proceedings today.)

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed.

ERDA AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1978-CIVIL NUCLEAR ENERGY APPLICATIONS The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1811, which the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 1811) to authorize appropria

tions to the Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with Section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and Section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, as amended, and for other purposes.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22347

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, upon the disposition of the ERDA authorization bill, does the Senate automatically resume consideration of the public works appropriations bill?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is an order to that effect.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. What will be the pending question?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon, both dealing with the neutron bomb.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

One further question, if the distinguished minority leader will allow ma· The Senate, once it resumes consideration of the public works appropriations bill, cannot go back to any water project; am I correct?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senate will not go back to the breeder reactor project, am I correct? That was resolved yesterday.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senate will not go back to the Barnwell, S.C., project; that was resolved on yesterday; is that correct?


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield to me?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. Mr. BAKER. I note we moved a lot of

obstacles out of our path when we voted on the breeder reactor project yesterday, with the Barnwell project and the like. I inquire of the majority leader, is it his intention to try to complete both the ERDA authorization bill and the public works appropriation bill today?

Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. I thank the minority leader for the question. It is my desire and my intention, if it can be done. I would hope there would not be too many other matters to be resolved in connection with the ERDA authorization bill. It might very well be possible to get a time agreement on the remaining amendments thereto, and then we will proceed to the public works appropriations bill.

I would hope if we are able to complete action on those two measures today we would then be prepared to go to the Outer Continental Shelf bill tomorrow. I would hope if we could finish that bill tomorrow we could go to the Defense appropriations bill on Thursday.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair would like to qualify an earlier response. The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DoMENicI) has been authorized by unanimous consent to call up an amendment.

In terms of the Clinch River project that is finished in the pending measure but not in the appropriations measure.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for that additional information. As I understand it, there is now in effect a unanimous-consent agreement which protects the distinguished Senator from New Mexico to offer his amendment to title I of the appropriations bill.


Mr. BAKER. I thank the Chair. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the

Chair for clarifying the matter. May I say it was not my intention in securing the earlier response from the Chair to in any way vitiate the order or the understanding that was entered into for the protection of Mr. DoMENICI.

I yield the floor. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I sug

gest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem

pore. The clerk will call the roll. The second assistant legislative clerk

proceeded to call the roll.

ERDA AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1978-CIVIL NUCLEAR ENERGY APPLICATIONS The Senate continued with the consid

eration of S. 1811. Mr. McCLURE. Mr . .President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary McKenna of the committee staff be accorded the privilege of the floor during the debate.


Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Dan Dreyfus, Mr. Ben Yamagata, Dr. Willis Smith, Dr. Granville Smith, Ms. Katherine Reese, and Ms. Nancy Fussell, members of the Energy Committee staff, who had the privilege of the floor yesterday during the initial consideration of this measure, be granted the same privilege today.


Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimousconsent request?

Mr. STONE. I yield. ORDER THAT NO ROLLCALL VOTES OCCUR PRIOR

TO 12 NOON TODAY

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, in order that committees may know that they may meet until 12 noon today without interruption, no roll call votes occur, even if ordered on this measure, or amendments or motions in relation thereto, prior to the hour of 12 noon.


AMENDMENT NO. 496, AS MODIFIED

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, shortly I will call up an amendment I have at the desk, which has been printed, and ask for its consideration.

What this amendment will do is to allocate $5 million of the funds appropriated by the amendment offered by Mr. CHURCH, which was agreed to last night, for the purpose of assigning those funds to research and development, to reduce the ability to divert plutonium from its intended purpose, and, in addition to reducing the ability to divert the plutonium, to increase the detectability of such plutonium if it should be so diverted.

The major issue confronting the development of the breeder reactor for the generation of electricity which has been raised is the possibility that the byproduct plutonium could be diverted for nonelectric generating purposes. Although the form in which the byproduct is currently found is difficult to use and handle for such inappropriate purposes, it is not so difficult that it is impossible or infeasible.

Under those circumstances, the issue becomes: Is there a way or are there ways in which, in a practical and feasible manner, the byproduct plutonium can be prevented from such diverted use, and the detectability of any attempts heightened?

The answer to that is clearly yes. In order to make it quite clear that this particular project will add its applied knowledge to the search for prevention of diversion and the detectability of attempts, I will offer an amendment, which I call up at this time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Florida (Mr. SToNE)

proposes an amendment, No. 496, as modified.:

On page 2, line 21, strike the period and add the following language : ": Provided, That an ,a.mount not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be applied for research and development on means to reduce the ability to divert plutonium from its intended purposes and to increase the detectability of plutonium if it should be so diverted.".

Mr. STONE. Mr. President, the issue is, how can we prevent the plutonium from being diverted and detect the efforts to divert it when other nations around the world, regardless of any attempted unilateral act on our part, have announced in the last few days that they intend to continue to develop and produce breeder re~ctors for the generation of electricity?

The answer is applied research and development on the issue of divertability. The answer is not cancellation and isolation.

I offer this amendment to the managers of the bill.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I agree wholly with the statements made by the distinguished Sena tor from Florida.

The committee had testimony from some of the foremost physicists of the country, one of whom was Dr. Benedict


of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Benedict is a renowned nuclear physicist who testified that there are technical means for dealing with the plutonium problem. He stated that it would be possible to devise a system that would be nearly foolproof, by using a reprocessing technique that mixes the plutonium with enriched uranium oxides in such a manner that the reprocessed fuel rod can be used to generate electricity. But these fuel rods would be unsuitable for bomb making.

He also testified that it should be feasi'ble to irradiate reprocessed elements so that they would . not be susceptible to being hijacked by terrorists, because they would be as hot as the spent fuel rods themselves which come out of the conventional reactors.

In other words, there are technical ways to deal with the plutonium problem. That is what we want to find. That is what the world will need, if it appears proba·ble that other nations will go forward with plutonium technology regardless o.f what decision we make.

So this is wholly in accord with the desire of the committee and with the desire of the President, that money should be allocated for this purpose. I find the amendment wholly acceptable. I have discussed the amendment with my colleague on the Republican side of the aisle. I believe he also finds the amendment acceptable. I commend the Senator for offering it, and hope the Senate will adopt it.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STONE. I yield. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I not

only agree with the statements made by both the distinguished Senator from Florida who ha.s offered the amendment and my colleague from Idaho who has just spoken in support of the amendment, but wish to add my own comments.

I point out that at pages 98 and 99 of the committee report in the additional views that several of us filed on his measure, we included the letter from ERDA supporting this kind of an initiative, showing that it can be done and that this is the way to do it.

We made several provisions in the committee deliberations for movement in this direction. I believe the language offered by the Senator from Florida not only strengthens and sharpens the focus, but also adds further weight to the idea that the Senate wants this kind of action to be taken, and that this body has spoken very directly on it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that portion of the additional views appearing on pages 98 and 99 be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the excerpt from the committee report was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

5. The Importance of Continuing the CRBRP for Nonproliferation:

In a letter dated March 9, 1977, to Chairman Walter Flowers of the House Subcommittee on Fossil and Nuclear Energy Research and Development, from Robert Thorne, Acting Assistant Administrator for Nuclear Energy, ERDA stated the following in response to the subcommittee's questions:

A. That foreign breeder plants and their proposed scale-up follow-ons will not meet the nonproliferation objectives based on current U.S. thinking, in terms of the specific technologies, such as, the types of core designs and fuel.

B. That it was possible to develop a plutonium economy which could be considered acceptable from both a nonproliferation and an energy supply standpoint by the use of coprocessing or highly radioactive recycle fuels. The letter suggested assessing energy center concepts and working on the development of these "technological fixes" while continuing our ongoing R&D programs.

C. That to date, ERDA has seen no evidence that other nations which have breeder reactors and reprocessing programs have undertaken any significant technological development efforts to reduce the nuclear weapons proliferation potential of their facilities. And, further, that based on past experience, ERDA would expect that advanced safeguards instrumentation and processing developments by the U.S. would be ut111zed by foreign natlons. The example was offered that the U.S. has requests from France and Russia for some of our equipment still in the development stage. In other words, U.S. technologicail improvements for nonproliferation probably will be the only improvements available.

D. ERDA agreed that if the United States does not develop more proliferation-resistant technologies, they probably will not be developed by other nations, and even if there might be such developments by others, they would not be developed as rapidly.

E. In the LMFBR program that the reactor plant and engineering which require the majority of funds for plant, component development, systems development and materials development are not effected regardless of what type of nonproliferation requirements might be evolved. This suggests strongly that continuing those activities while parallelling them with nonproliferation efforts is a rational and well-reasoned approach.

F. That U.S. Actions can have significant influence over the actions of other nations when the U.S. actions are perceived to be in the best interest of them, such as, when a U.S. development program produces an advanced reactor or reprocessing technology offering improved economics or resource conservation. This, again, suggests that an incorporation of nonproliferation advances in a U.S. development advanced reactor or reprocessing technology could have the greatest influence on the programs of other nations.

G. That it is possible to develop nonproliferation acceptable reprocessing technology.

H. That the United States will be in a poorer bargaining position in carrying out our bilateral cooperative agreements, which are based on quid pro quo information exchanges (where we understand problems have already been experienced.)

I. That foreign nuclear programs treat proliferation issues primarily from the standpoint of improving safeguards, rather than by attempting to develop and incorporate technology advances designed to provide greater proliferation resistance.

ERDA Acting Administrator Robert Fri was asked in a hearing before the Senate Energy Research and Development Subcommittee by Senator McClure if the statements in the letter were valid, notwithstanding the April 7th policy statement. He answered in the affirmative.

In light of these statements and the obvious conclusion that the most effective way to influence the programs of other nations ls to proceed with a technology development program with proliferation resistance characteristics incorporated within the system, it is difficult to understand the Administration now suggests that we stop our development. It is obvious that it be better to proceed in a parallel manner with both breeder

and reprocessing development and prollferation motivated R. & D., and attempt to merge them for either foreign or domestic commercialization, as appropriate, to satisfy all policy objectives, includng energy supply and nonproliferation.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, we find the amendment not only acceptable but a valuable addition.

Mr. STONE. I thank the Senator. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern- .

pore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Florida.

The amendment was agreed to. TIME-LIMITATION AGREEMENTS ON SPECIFIED

AMENDM:::::NTS

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on an a:mendment to be offered by Mr. McGOVERN there be a time limitation of 30 minutes, to be equally divided between Mr. McGOVERN and Mr. CHURCH.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that on an amendment to be offered by Mr. HAYAKAWA there be a time limitation 01' 1 % hours, to be equally divided in accordance with the usual form.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that on an amendment to be offered by Mr. CURTIS there be a time limitation of 1 % hours, to be equally divided and controlled in accordance with the usual form.


UP AMENDMENT 635

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is open to further amendment.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that they may be considered together.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will state the amendments. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER)

for himself, Mr. McCLURE, and Mr. SASSER, proposes Unprinted Amendment No. 635.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendments are as follows: On page 8, line 14, insert the following

new Subsection (f) to Section 103: "(F) CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PROJECT

(1) The new Section 106 contained in Section 103(d) of Public Law 94-187, as amended, is amended as follows:

(A) in subsection (a) of Section 106, strike "September 30, 1976" and insert in lieu thereof, "September 30, 1978",

(B) at the end of Subsection (b) of Section 106, insert the following new sentences. "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as authorizing the Administrator to use the procedures of this section to propose and proceed with a cancellation or termination, in whole or in part, of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project and the cooperative arrangements associated therewith. No funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization contained in this section shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22349 cancel or terminate the Project, in whole or in part, or to plan such ca.ncella.tion or termination. The Congress hereby endorses the opinion of the Comptroller General of the United States contained in the June 23, 1977 letter to Vice Cha.irma.n Jackson a.nd Sena.tor Baker of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from Comptroller Genera.I Staats, insofar as the opinion interprets the authorities under this section. The Congress hereby declares that this restatement of the authorities under this Section is now a.nd always has been the intention of the Congress for the interpretation of these authorities. Consequently, the Congress further declares that the proposal of the Administrator to modify the cooperative arrangements under this Section to terminate the Project, with the exception of a. "final design", contained in the Ma.y 18, 1977 letter to Vice Chairman Jackson of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from ERDA Acting Administrator Fri shall be deemed to be unauthorized by this section, and no funds appropriated for any Fiscal Yea.r pursuant to the authorization of this Section shall be used to implement in any way, directly or indirectly, the proposal.

The Congress a.lso declares that, insofar as the Comptroller General's opinion contained in the June 23, 1977 letter interprets the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the intent of Congress is that funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization to design, construct a.nd operate a. project, or conduct a. specifl.ed program, shall only be used for the continued design, construction, a.nd operation of the project, or continued conduct of the program, a.nd shall not be used in a.ny wa.y, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the project or program, in whole or in pa.rt, or for planning thereof, unless expressly authorized in a.n authorization Act by Congress. Funds made available for such continued design, construction and operation of a. project, or continued conduct of a. program shall therefore be deemed to be deferred or rescinded, as appropriate, for purposes of the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, when such funds are used for such cancellation or termination, in whole or in pa.rt, or for planning thereof, rather than for the continuation of the authorized project or program. Consequently, a disapproval resolution under the Impoundment Control Act shall have the effect of requiring as a matter of law that. such funds shall be used for such continuation activities, and shall not be used for such termination or cancellation activities. Furthermore, when such funds are being withheld, or are proposed to be withheld, a.pprova.l of a disapproval resolution or !allure to approve a recession resolution, as appropriate, shall not be considered to be satisfied under the Impoundment Control Act by releasing .such funds for such termination or cancellation activities, but shall be considered to be satisfied only by the release of such funds for such continuation activities.

Accordingly, the Comptroller General of the United States is hereby authorized to institute a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory relief, if in the performance of any of his functions authorized by Section 74, of Title 31, United States Code, if he has reasonable cause for belief that any officer or employee of the Executive Branch is about to expend, obligate, or authorize the expenditure or obligation of public funds appropriated pursuant to this authorization for a.ny activity in violation of this section. Other parties, including the prospective payee, or obligee, who shall be served with notice, may intervene or be impleaded as otherwise provided by law, and process in such an action may be served by certified ma.il beyond the territorial limits of the District of Columbia..

(2) Section 309 of Public La.w 95-39, which authorizes funds for the ERDA nuclear programs in Fiscal Year 1977, is a.mended by inserting the following sentences at the end of the Section. "Provided that none of the funds ma.de available by Public Law 94-355, or any other appropriations Act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received, changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall be used in Fiscal Year 1977 in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, in whole or in part, or to pla.n such termination or cancellation."

On page 2, line 21, strike the period a.nd insert in lieu thereof: "; Provided that none of the funds made available by any appropriations Act pursuant to this Act, or a.ny other authorization Act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received, changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall be used in Fiscal Year 1978, in any way, directly or indirectly, to terminate or cancel the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project, in whole or in part, or to plan such termination or cancellation; and a.ny such funds shall only be used for the purposes of continuing the project in accordance with section 106 of Public Law 91-273, as a.mended by Public Law 94--187 and as further a.mended by section 103 (f) of this Act.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I point out to my colleagues that these two amendments are sponsored by me, by the distinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE). and by my distinguished colleague from Tennessee (Mr. SASSER). It is my understanding that they have been discussed with the majority manager of this bill. I hope they may be acceptable.

These amendments are in direct response to the President's plan to terminate the Clinch River project on July 26, 1977. The President forwarded his plan through the ERDA administrator in a letter of May 18, 1977. The plan attempts to misuse the authorities under section 103(d) of Public Law 94-187, which were enacted to provide some flexibility in the administrator for making modifications to the project.

As I stated in my statement on this floor on June 24, our own legal analysis and that of the General Accounting Office both concluded that the administration was wholly without authority to make the proposed effective termination of the project under section 103. As a result, it is our strong belief that the President's plan, if carried out, would be in violation of existing law. Additionally, the termination could add as much as $1.3 billion in costs and delays of as much as 6 years to the project, if we decided to continue with the project in fiscal year 1978. This additional burden placed upon those who, in good faith, support the project is an unwarranted attack on the merits of this controversial decision. As a result, the President's plan also would have the effect of preempting in large measure the congressional prerogative under existing statutes and the Constitution to particioate in this critical decision ·for our energy and nonprolif era ti on future.

The effect of these amendments would be, simply and directly, to reinforce and restate the original intent of the Congress that the procedures of section 103 be used only to modify the ongoing

Clinch River project within the overall objectives stated in the second-that is to design, construct, and operate a liquid metal fast breeder reactor demonstration project. This reinforcement and restatement of the original congressional intent hopefully will add the weight of the Senate's active consideration of this matter and similar conclusion to that of the committee and the Comptroller General.

It is an unfortunate and disappointing aspect of the whole debate on this project that the time and resources of this body have to be expended in such a restatement and reinforcement when the law is quite clear on its face. In fact, the GAO felt very strongly about the clarity of the legal situation and as a result, provided to me and to the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) an exceedingly strong opinion letter. We hope that these amendments will finally dispose of the fiscal year 1977 issue, pending our ultimate resolution of the project's future continuation during the fiscal year 1978 legislative process.

Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the two amendments.

Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join by distinguished colleague from Tennessee in cosponsoring these amendments.

Yesterday the Senate voted clearly against an amendment which would have provided $33 million to terminate the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project.

These amendments before the Senate this morning would simply add language to the bill which reaffirms the Senate's action of yesterday.

These amendments would prevent any funds which were appropriated in fiscal year 1977 and which will be appropriated in fiscal year 1978 from being used to terminate this project.

These amendments make the intent of the Senate very clear.

I hope the Senate will adopt these amendments.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. CHURCH. Yes, I yield for that purpose.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that Bob Hunter of my staff may be accorded the privilege of the floor during discussion of this bill.


Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I have only one question to raise with the Senator. I understand that his purpose is to conform the law to the decision made by the Senate last evening, which was against the termination of Clinch River during the coming year. I certainly do not object to either amendment insofar as it seeks to conform the law to that decision. I have one question to raise in connection with the wording of these amendments.

I call the attention of the distinguished Senator to the language in his amendments.

Mr. BAKER. Which amendment? Mr. CHURCH. Both amendments. Per

haps I should read the short one: Provided that none of the funds ma.de

a.vs.Hable by any appropriations act pursuant


to this Act, or any other authorization act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues re~eived, changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any source, shall be used in Fiscal Year 1978, in any way, directly or indirectly, to terminate or cancel the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, in whole or in part ....

The Senator will remember that, last evening, in explaining the amendment that I offered to reduce the amount of money from $150 million to $75 million for Clinch River for the coming year, I explained that some of that money might be used to cancel certain contracts for future supplies, where the cost of reinstating the contract would not be signifi.cant should we later decide to proceed with the action.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, there is nothing inconsistent with the intent of that decision, nor do I see any problem with the language referred to by the dis-. tinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) . It is fully consistent with the language adopted yesterday. The specific example that the Senator uses, I thinl{, would not be prohibited by this language.

Mr. CHURCH. I know that is the Senator's intent, but I wonder whether the language itself would be read in that manner. I would feel better about it if the phrase ''in whole or in part" is simply stricken. Then there would be no question whatsoever about what the amendment does.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. I modify the amendment to strike the words "in whole or in part," wherever they appear in the two amendments now under consideration.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.

The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 8, line 14, insert the following new Subsection (f) to Section 103, "(f) CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PRO.JECT

( 1) The new Section 106 contained in Semion 103(d) of Public Law 94-187, as amended, is amended as follows:

(A) in subsection (a) of Section 106, strike "September 30, 1976" and insert in lieu thereof, "September 30, 1978",

(B) at the end of Subsection (b) of Section 106, insert the following new sentences. "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as authorizing the Administrator to use the procedures of this section to propose and proceed with a cancellation or termination, of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project and the cooperative arrangements associated therewith. No funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization contained in this section shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the Project, or to plan such cancellation or termination. The Congress hereby endorses the opinion of the Comptroller General of the United States contained in the June 23, 1977 letter to Vice Chairman Jackson and Senator Baker of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from Comptroller General Staats, insofar as the opinion interprets the authorities under this section. The Congress hereby declares that this restatement of the authorities under this Section is now and always has been the intention of the Congress for the interpretation of these authorities. Consequently, the Congress further declares that the proposal of the Administrator to modify the cooperative arrangements under this Section to terminate the Project, with the ex-

ception of a "final design", contained in the May 18, 1977 letter to Vice Chairman Jackson of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from ERDA Acting Administrator Fri shall be deemed to be unauthorized by this section, and no funds appropriated for any Fl.seal Year pursuant to the authorization of this Section shall be used to implement in any way, directly or indirectly, the proposal.

The Congress also declares that, insofar as the Comptroller General's opinion contained in the June 23, 1977 letter interprets the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the intent of Congress is that funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization to design, construct and operate a project, or conduct a specified program shall only be used for the continued design, construction, and operation of the project, or continued conduct of the program, and shall not be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the project or program, or for planning thereof, unless expressly authorized in an authorization Act by Congress. Funds made available for such continued design, construction and operation of a project, or continued conduct of a program shall therefore be deemed to be deferred or rescinded, as appropriate, for purposes of the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, when such funds are used for suc::1 cancellation or termination, or for planning thereof, rather than for the continuation of the authorized project or program. Consequently, a disapproval resolution under the Impoundment Control Act shall have the effect of requiring as a matter of law that such funds shall be used for such continuation activities and shall not be used for such termina tio~ or cancellation activities. Furthermore, when such funds are being withheld, or are proposed to be withheld, approval of a disapproval resolution or failure to approve a rescission resolution, as appropriate, shall not be considered to be satisfied under the Impoundment Control Act by releasing such funds for such termination or cancellation activities, but shall be considered to be satisfied only by the release of such funds for such continuation activities.

Accordingly, the Comptroller General of the United States is hereby authorized to institute a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for declaratory relief, if in the performance of any of his functions authorized by section 74, of title 31, United .States Code, if he has reasonable cause for belief that any officer or employee of the executive branch is about to expend, obligate, or authorize the expenditure or obligation of public funds aopropriated pursuant to this authorization for any activity in violation of this section. Other parties, including the prospective payee, or obligee, who shall be served with notice, may intervene or be impleaded as otherwise provided by law, and process in such an action may be served by certified man beyond the territorial limits of the District of Columbia.

(2) Section 309 of Public Law 95-39, which authorizes funds for the ERDA nuclear programs in fiscal year 1977, is amended by inserting the following sentences at the end of the section. "Proposed that none of the funds made avaUa·ble by Public Law 94-355, or any other appropriations Act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received, changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall be used in fiscal year 1977 in any way, directly or indirnctly, to cancel or terminate the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project, or to plan such termination or cancellation."

On page 2, line 21, strike the period and insert in lieu thereof, "; Provided that none· of the funds made available by any appropriations Act pursuant to this Act, or any

other authorization act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received, changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall ·be used in fiscal year 1978, in any way, directly or indirectly, to terminate or cancel the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project, or to plan such termination or cancellation; and any such funds sha,ll only be used for the purposes of continuing the project in accordance with section 106 of Public Law 91-273, as amended by Public Law 94-187 and as further amended by section 103 (!) of this Act.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Sena tor yield?

Mr. BAKER. I am happy to yield. Mr. McCLURE. I reiterate what I said

yesterday, that I would have preferred it if the Senate had appropriated the full $150 million and the Clinch River project had -been continued without any reduction in its scope or purpose or the size of the project. The Senate, however, voted to reduce the funding by 50 percent, to the level of $75 million. That will require some adjustment in the program and some adjustment in the aims of the programs during the current fiscal year, as well as during fl.seal 1978.

I understand both the purpose of the amendments and the suggestion made by my colleague from Idaho in the context in which they have been discussed. I do not like having to reduce it. I would have preferred that we not have to discuss whether "in whole or in part" is a necessary deletion from these amendments. But I think the action of the Senate makes that prudent, and I certainly support the amendments as modified.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE) for his additional remarks and his sentiments, which I share. On yesterday, after the voice vote on the $75 million amendment, I indicated for the RECORD that I opposed the amendment and did, indeed, vote against it, because I, too, feel that the full funding at the authorized level of $150 million, as recommended by the committee, is appropriate and desirable. But that was not the will of the Senate.

I think, then, that this amendment as it is now modified, is necessary to carry out fully the intent of the measure adopted yesterday by the Senate. I think the suggestion made by the distinguished Senator from Idaho to strike "in whole or in part" does not detract from the initial purpose of the amendment, which is to make sure that the President or the executive department does not do by indirection what the Congress does not want them to do directly: That is, they do not canc;el this project; but, rather, continue it as prescribed in the amendment on yesterday, at the $75 million funding level, or as the level may be further modified by the conference or subsequent action of these bodies.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, may we vote on these amendments separately. I have a matter I want to take up with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. May we have the vote on the short amendment, if it has a number?

Mr. BAKER. I have not objection to that, Mr. President.


I ask unanimous consent that the consolidation of the amendments heretofore agreed to may be vacated.


Mr. BAKER. I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed first to the consideration of the single-page amendment, as modified.


Division I of the amendment is as follows:

On page 2, line 21, strike the period and insert in lieu thereof, ": Provided, That none of the funds made available by any appropriations act pursuant to this Act, or any other authorization act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received, changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall be used in fiscal year 1978, in any way, directly or indirectly, to terminate or cancel the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, or to plan such termination or cancellation; and any such funds shall only be used for the purposes of continuing the Project in accordance with Section 106 of Public Law 91-273. as amended by Public Law 94-187 and as further amended by section 103 (f) of this Act.".

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to division I of the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER).

Division I of the amendment, as modified was agreed to.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CHURCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.


Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I further modify my second amendment by striking all of the fourth page beginning with the word "accordingly" and ending with the term "District of Columbia."

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.

Division n of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 8, line 14, insert the following new Subsection (f) to Section 103,

"(f) CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PROJECT

( 1) The new section 106 contained in section 103(d) of Public Law 94-187, as amended, is amended as follows:

(A) in subsection (a) of section 106, strike "September 30, 1976" and insert in lieu thereof, "September 30, 1978",

(B) at the end of subsection (b) of section 106, insert the following new sentences. "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as authorizing the Administrator

• to use the procedures of this section to propose and proceed with a cancellation or termination, o! the Clinch River Breeder Re-

actor project and the cooperative arrangements associated therewith. No funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization contained in this section shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the project, or to plan such cancellation or termination. The Congress hereby endorses the opinion of the Comptroller General of the United States contained in the June 23, 1977 letter to Vice Chairman Jackson and Senator Baker of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from Comptroller General Staats, insofar as the opinion interprets the authorities under this section. The Congress hereby declares that this restatement of the authorities under this section is now and al ways has been the intention of the Congress for the interpretation of these authorities. Consequently, the Congress further declares that the proposal of the Administrator to modify the cooperative arrangements under this section to terminate the project, with the exception of a "final design", contained in the May 18, 1977 letter to Vice Chairman Jackson of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from ERDA Acting Administrator Fri shall be deemed to be unauthorized by this section, and no funds appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of this section shall be used to implement in any way, directly or indirectly, the proposal.

The Congress also declares that, insofar as the Comptroller General 's opinion contained in the June 23, 1977 letter interprets the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the intent of Congress is that funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization to design, construct and operate a project, or conduct a specified program shall only be used for the continued design, construction, and operation of the project, or continued conduct of the program, and shall not be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the project or program, or for planning thereof, unless expressly authorized in an authorization Act by Congress. Funds made available for such continued design. construction and operation of a project, or continued conduct of a program shall therefore be deemed to be deferred or rescinded, as appropriate, for purposes of the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, when such funds are used for such cancellation, or termination, or for planning thereof, rather than for the continuation of the authorized project or program. Consequently, a disapproval resolution under the Impoundment Control Act shall have the effect of requiring as a matter of law that such funds shall be used for such continuation activities, and shall not be used for such termination or cancellation activities. Furthermore, when such funds are being withheld, or are proposed to be withheld, approval of a disapproval resolution or failure to approve a rescission resolution, as appropriate, shall not be considered to be satisfied under the Impoundment Control Act by releasing such funds for such termination or cancellation activities, but shall be considered to be satisfied only by the release of such funds for such continuation activities.

(2) Section 309 of Public Law 95-39, which authorizes funds for the ERDA nuclear programs in Fiscal Year 1.977, is amended by inserting the following sentences at the end of the Section, "Provided that none of the funds made available by Public Law 94-355, or any other appropriations Act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received, changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall be used in Fiscal Year 1977 in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, or to plan such termination or cancella tlon."

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the distinguished manager of the bill, the second amendment to which we now proceed to consider, has to do with the situation that occurs after the action of the Congress and providing for the funding and the continuation compatible with yesterday's amendment of the Clinch River project.

By the language of the amendment, it is made clear-or I hope it is made clear-that the Clinch River project should not be cancelled under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act; that it is the contention of the Congress and of the General Accounting Office, as I interpret their letter, that the 45-day layover provision does not include and encompass the possibiity of cancellation; and that it is the purpose of this amendment--and the one just preceding which was adopted by the Senate as Division I-to make it clear that no such cancellation should be in order for fiscal year 1977 or 1978.

I ask the distinguished manager of the bill if he will agree that under these circumstances and this context that the President should not interpret the Atomic Energy Act or the action of the Congress to mean authority for that cancellation?

Mr. CHURCH. I agree with the distinguished Senator in all respects. The language of the amendment makes it clear that we mean to act in such a way as to keep the Clinch River project in abeyance but intact, and to oppose the termination of that project during the coming year.

The Senator's amendment contains language that is susceptible to no other interpretation. It reads:

The Congress hereby endorses the opinion of the Comptroller General of the United States contained in the June 23, 1977 letter to Vice Chairman Jackson and Senator Baker of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from Comptroller General Staats, insofar as the opinion interprets the authorities under this section. The Congress hereby declares that this restatement o! the authorities under this section is now and always has been the intention of the Congress for the interpretation of these authorities. Consequently, the Congress further declares that the proposal of the Administrator to modify the cooperative arrangements under this section to terminate the project, with the exception of a "final design", contained in the May 18, 1977, letter to Vice Chairman Jackson of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy !ram ERDA Acting Administrator Fri shall be deemed to be unauthorized by this section, and no funds appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of this section shall be used to implement in any way, directly or indirectly, the proposal.

I do not know how language could make the intent of the Congress any clearer, and I cannot believe that the President, should . the Congress write these provisions into the law, would defy the clearly expressed will of the Congress and attempt to terminate in defiance of the Congress.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, and I entirely agree with his assessment of the situation and his interpretation of the language of the amendment.

.


I point out that under the Atomic Energy Act, if the President were to seek and obtain a favorable opinion from the Attorney General of the United States, it is not clear what the situation would be; that is, whether or not the opinion of the Comptroller General would still have the force and effect of law, or whether a contrary opinion by the Attorney General would nullify it.

I ask the distinguished manager of the bill if he will agree with me that one of the purposes of this language is to make it clear that in such a stalemate, it is the clear intention of Congress that the position of the GAO should prevail.

Mr. CHURCH. Yes, I agree fully with the Senator. Since this is the last expression of Congress on this subject, I think there is no doubt that it will be controlling.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the manager of the bill.

I pave discussed this matter with my colleague from Tennessee, who is a cosponsor of both these amendments, and I am prepared at this time to proceed to a vote.

Mr. CHURCH. I move the adoption of the amendment, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLEN). The question is on agreeing to division II of the amendment, as modified.

Division II of the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was adopted.



The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment.

UP AMENDMENT NO. 636

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I submit an amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please state the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The 'Senator from California (Mr. HAYAKAWA) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 636:

Beginning on page 21, line 9, strike out through line 11, on page 22.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time on this amendment is limited to 1 hour and a half, to be equally divided between the Senator from California and the manager of the bill.

Who yields time? Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, the

purpose of this amendment is to delete title V which creates the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory employee grievance procedure.

This title provides that the Administrator of ERDA shall not use any funds · appropriated in S. 1811 under any contract with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory unless the ·contract specifically provides that the employees of LLL will be protected by an impartial grievance procedure, have the right to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain

collectively and to have available the use of certain mediation services.

The Senate deleted a similar provision earlier this year from -S. 36, the 1977 ERDA authorization bill, and the House Science and Technology Committee voted it down when Representative BROWN attempted to attach it to the 1978 ERDA nonnuclear authorization legislation.

Mr. President, I have been in contact with the Carter administration, and they too, oppose this provision. In this regard, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter I received from the Acting Administrator of ERDA, dated July 6, 1977, which states that opposition.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D.O .. July 8, 1977. Hon. SAMUEL I. HAYAKAWA, U.S. Senate.

DEAR SENATOR HAYAKAWA: This responds to a. July 6, 1977, inquiry from your office for comments by the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) on the "Stark/Cranston amendments" to our FY 1978 authorization bill. The amendments propose to require certain collective bargaining obligations at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL). LLL is a. Government-owned fa.cllity operated by the University of California. under contra.ct to ERDA. Its primary mission is the research and development of nuclear weapons. For the reasons set forth below, ERDA opposes these amendments.

We believe it is inappropriate for the authorization process to be used as a. vehicle for requiring certain actions affecting labor relations problems at any particular ERDA plant or laboratory. The ERDA system includes a.bout 60 Government-owned, contractor-operated facilities, employing nearly 100,000 employees. ERDA installations a.re subject to Federal and state labor-management relations laws. There a.re numerous instances in which, given a. precedent of Congressional resolution of disputes, local interest groups may seek to influence the outcome of a. specific labor relations question through the legislative process. We a.re opposed to this practice as a. matter of principle.

The University of California. is an agency of the State of California.. Relationships between the University and its employees a.re regulated by California. state law. It is inappropriate for the Federal Government's authorization process to be used to alter such rela. tionships. If changes are needed, they should be ma.de by state statutory enactments appllcable to all employees similarly sUu:ated. Indeed, we understand that Congress considered legislation which would make state and municipal employees subject to the Ta.ft-Hartley Act and has rejected it. We see no reason why LLL employees of the University of Ca.Ufornia. should now be treated differently.

Even if the amendments pass, they may not achieve their objective, since relationships between the University and its employees may also. be covered by current or proposed state law. We cannot be certain that the amendments to ERDA's authorization bill could require the University to enter into a contract with ERDA which could obligate it to do anything contrary to state law. Passage of the Stark/Cranston

amendments might, therefore, do little more than create false expectations among some LLL employees which might not be realized because of possible inconsistency with state law. Considerable confusion could also be created for the management of LLL, which would not be certain as to their obligations if the amendments, as well as proposed state legislation, were enacted.

If we can provide any additional information on this matter, please let us know.

Sincerely, ROBERT W. FRI,

Acting Administrator.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I will read two sentences from the letter:

The University of California is an agency of the State of California. Relationships between the University and its employees a.re regulated by California State law. It is inappropriate for the Federal Government's authorization process to be used to alter such relationships.

The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is a branch of the University of California. It is a research wing, and definitely the employees there are State employees. Therefore, even if the amendment is agreed to, they may not achieve their objective, since the relationship between the university and its employees may also be covered by current or proposed State law, and we cannot be certain that the amendments to ERDA's authorization bill could require the university to enter into a contract with ERDA which would obligate it to do anything contrary to State law.

If we allow this provision to remain in the ERDA nuclear authorization bill we place ourselves in the role of dictating how the labor relations for a small group of public employees of the State of California must be handled if their employer is to receive ERDA funds. We would be setting a terrible precedent in attempting to use Federal contract power to impose a labor relations requirement on a State. The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts State employees from its coverage and leaves the labor rela~ tions issue to the individual States.

There may even be some question of constitutionality in view of the Supreme Court's decision in League of Cities against Usery, 1976. That decision stated that Congress did not have the constitutional power to regulate State employment practices with regard to minimum wage. The provision we are discussing today does attempt to regulate State employment, in this case, labor relations.

Mr. President, clearly an authorization bill is not the proper vehicle for modifying the framework for employee relations. More important, not only does this provision intrude in an authorization bill, it singles out one institution which is part of the University of California and requires processes and procedures different from those under which all other public employees of the university and State carry out their interactlons with their employers. It does not even apply to the University of California's other research facilities, the Lawrence Berkeley Laiboratory, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, and the Laboratory of Nuclear Medicine and Radiation

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22353 Biology. This one laboratory at Liver- 8idvlsory arbltm.tlon) 129 cases were appealed more is being singled out for this require- to the final grieve.nee step dur-lng fl.sea.I 1975-ment 76. One-hundred-twenty-three of these cases

· . . . . resulted ln recommendations by the arbltra-.H~w c~n we pos~1bly Justify such dlS- tor or hearing officer which were implemented

crrmmat1on or mtrusion in States by the administration. In one case the Unirights? verslty further reduced the discip11nary ac-

The title of this provision is mislead- tion beyond that which was recommended by ing. It suggests that the LLL does not the hearing officer. have a grievance procedure. That is not If your staff has questions about the conso. Employees at the Lawrence Liver- tent and appl1cab111ty of the law in Callmore Laboratory are University of Cali- fornia, we would appreciate the opportunity fornia employees and accordingly are to provide that information.

ed b . .t

1 1. Sincerely,

cover y un1vers1 y personne po icy. ARCHIE KLEINGARTNER That policy provides for an impartial Vice President. grievance procedure which meets all legal standards of due process.

In this regard, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from University Vice President Archie Kleingartner to the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEMWIDE ADMINISTRATION,

Berkeley, Calif., July 8, 1977. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Re

sources Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Ma. CHAmMAN: I am writing to you at the request of President David Saxon regarding proposed amendments to Title V of the ERDA Authorization Act. Since President Saxon wrote you on July 6 we have learned that you have received information which does not accurately reflect the status of the University, including the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, under California law regarding collective bargaining, and I am hopeful that this information may be helpful to you.

The State of Co.lifornia, including the State University and Colleges and the University of California, is covered by Sections 3525-3536 of the Government Code known as the State Employees Organization Act. This Act (Section 3527) provides for " ... the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations." Under Section 3530 the employer, which includes the State, the University, and the California State University and Colleges, has the duty to "meet and confer with representatives of employee organizations on request". Cities and counties are governed by Government Code Sections 3500-3511 (known as the Meyers-NiliasBrown Act) and employees of the elementa,ry and secondary levels in the public school system, including community colleges, are covered by Chapter 10.7 of the Educational Code (known as the Rodda Act).

The University, the State, and the State University and Colleges provide a grievance procedure which has as a terminus, fact finding hearings and recommendations as to remedial action. None of the statutes in California nor the Taft-Hartley Act provide for bind·ing arbitration of interest disputes as has been suggested.

The law applicable to employees at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the University procedures flowing from that law are equally applicable to the 92,000 other employees of the University of California. Similar procedures under the same law are applicable to 125,000 State of Calfiornia employees and 32,000 employees of the State University a.nd Colleges. All systems provide for considerations of grievances through a recognized grievance procedure. Under the University procedure (which provides for

CXXIII--14-07-Part 18

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Moreover, Mr. President, present California labor procedures for public employees are currently a matter of serious debate in the State legislature. I cannot believe the U.S. Senate would intrude in something which is obviously a State maitter, particularly at a time when the Legislature of California is in the process of debating, and may soon be deciding the same issue.

If, however, my colleagues wish to single out one portion of one State institution and legislate labor relations for that institution alone, I suggest it be done through the proper vehicle, the Senate Human Resources Committee. The sponsor of this provision, my distinguished colleague from California, has not even attempted to bring it up in that committee, of which we are both members. Since the chairman of that committee indicated his support for this provision I am sure he would be willing to hold hearings and allow the measure to take the proper legislative course.

Mr. Pre3ident, I do not believe the precedent which would be established, of Congress intervening in a specific labor relations situation, which deals solely with the State 'Qf California, is either sound or desirable. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join in support of my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elvira Orly, of my staff, have the privilege of the floor.


Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished junior Senator from California, and I agree with him. I compliment him for pointing out in this bill something that really runs contrary to the laws of this country and pointing out some difficulties in title V. I, for one, am very pleased that the Senator has pointed this out.

I see no particular reason why we should change the existing labor law specifically and specially to provide for such employees. So I compliment the Senator from California (Mr. HAYAKAWA). He is right in this matter, and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of his amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.

Who yields time? Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will

the distinguished Senator from ·Idaho yield me 10 minutes?

Mr. CHURCH. I am pleased to yield the Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I would like to explain briefly the reasons why the committee included title V in S. 1811, and I thank the committee for so doing.

The purpose of title V is to provide for an impartial grievance procedure at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, a federally owned heavy atomic production facility operated under a cost-plus contract for ERDA by the University of california.

Due to omissions in both Federal and State labor laws, the employees of Livermore Laboratory live in a vacuum for labor relations purposes. Their situation is virtually unique among the 64 federally owned, contractor operated ERDA facilities in the Nation.

For several years the 6,000 employees of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory have attempted to seek redress of many grievances through the university's grievance procedure at Livermore Laboratory. But the grievance procedures at Lawrence Livermore Lab cannot be called "impartial." In all cases, the laboratory director reserves the right to reverse a panel or arbitrator. Consequently, of over 300 grievances filed, only 2 have been resolved in favor of the employees. Clearly, the existing procedure is inadequate to redress the grievances of workers at the laboratory.

Title V redresses this inequity by requiring an impartial grievance procedure with final and binding arbitration. In addition, it provides for the right of employees to join labor organizations and to engage in collective bargaining subject-and I stress this-subject to a specific limitation barring strikes or lockouts.

Finally, the title authorizes the services of the Federal Meditation and Conciliation Service and the Atomic Energy Labor Management Relations Panel to assist in settling issues in a timely and fair manner.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is well suited to this purpose.

As an independent agency with nearly 30 years experience in mediating and conciliating labor disputes, the Mediation and Conciliation Service has become a key part of the collective bargaining process in the United States. As the 29th annual report of the FMCS notes:

The service ls no longer merely an adjunct to the collective bargaining process. It 1s part of that process ,and part of the growing trend toward better lwbor-management understanding and relations in the United States. It 1has become a. repository for new ideas and initiatives and a catalyst for change and improvement . ... It has become the positilon of the FMCS in recent years that the agency has an active role to play in settllng work stoppages and improving labormanagement relations.

This feature of title V is most supportive of the goal of establishing an improved labor-management understanding at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

I also wish to mention that title V is endorsed by the California State Department of Industrial Relations.

The following telegram was sent to me on July 7 by Donald Via.I, Director of the Department:


The California. Department of Industrial Relations supports amendment to ERDA authorization blll Which would establish grievance procedures and arbitration for employees of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

The provision is supPQrted by the Laborers International and the California State Employees Association.

Senator WILLIAMS, the distinguished chairman of the Human Resources Committee, in a letter printed on page 66 of the committee report on S. 1811, endorses the amendment as "an appropriate way to establish stable labor management relations at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory."

There is no constitutional problem here. Congress haS' the right to attach conditions to the expenditure of its funds. It is also well settled that Congress can apply labor relations standards to State bodies. In California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553 (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress had the authority to extend the Railway Labor Act to a State-owned railroad. In National League of Cities v. Usury, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1976) the Court expressly reaffirmed the California case. In ruling that application of the Fair Labor Standards Act to municipalities was unconstitutional, the Court expressly limited its holding to applications which would interfere with "integral operations in areas of traditional government functions." A State-owned railroad is not such a traditional government function, as the Court observed in the Taylor decision, nor is the operation of a heavY atomic production facility, in my opinion.

Given the overwhelming Federal involvement in Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, I have no doubt but that title V, as reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is appropriate legislation. In no way does the title infringe upon any significant operation of or policy central to the educational mission of the University of California. On the contrary, it deals in a straightforward manner with labormanagement relations in a federally owned atomic weapons production facility, similar to many others operated under contract for ERDA by universities recognizing elementary coID.ective-ba.rgaining and grievance procedures for employees of ERDA facilities.

Title V simply moves Lawrence Livermore Laboratory onto the same plane of labor-management relations as enjoyed by other ERDA facility employees.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from California yield for a question?

Mr. CRANSTON. Of course. Mr. HATCH. Are not the 6,000 em

ployees at Livermore employees either in the public sector or private sector who would come under the National Labor Relations Act or, if they are State employees, would come under the State labor relations act?

Mr. CRANSTON. They are university employees.

Mr. HATCH. They would be State of California employees.

Mr. CRANSTON. No, they would not be. They are--

Mr. HATCH. Would they be private sector employees within the National Labor Relations Act?

Mr. CRANSTON. No, they are neither. They are in limbo.

Mr. HATCH. They are in limbo. Who pays their salaries? This is done pursuant to--

Mr. CRANSTON. The Federal Government pays their salaries.

Mr. HATCH. In effect, but they are employees of which university?

Mr. CRANSTON. The University of California.

Mr. HATCH. That is a State university, right?

Mr. CRANSTON. Yes. Mr. HATCH. The checks they receive,

although backed up with Federal moneys through ERDA, are State checks; is that right?

Mr. CRANSTON. I believe they are State checks.

Mr. HATCH. Under pure labor law they would be State employees receiving State checks working for a State institution that is funded, which has a project funded by ERDA; is that not correct? There is no other way you can get around that.

Mr. CRANSTON. Under California law they are not State employees. For purposes of the National Labor Relations Act they may be considered California employees. But under California law they are not, and that is what places them in limbo.

Mr. HATCH. I think if you check the law you will find they are, but they certainly--

Mr. CRANSTON. Not under State law. Mr. HATCH. They certainly are not

covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. CRANSTON. I beg your pardon? Mr. HATCH. They are not covered by

the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. CRANSTON. That is correct. Mr. HATCH. I am assuming they are

State employees, but you are saying they are in a state of limbo.

Mr. CRANSTON. They are placed in a state of limbo by the State of California law that states they are not State employees.

Mr. HATCH. Can you cite the California law that states they are not State employees? If they are not State employees then they have to be private sector employees or Federal employees.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRANSTON. There are separate State laws governing normal State employees and those workers who work for the State university, the :Jniversity of California.

Mr. HATCH. I am sorry. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the

Sena tor yield? I am not sure whether this is an observation or a question.

Mr. CRANSTON. Certainly, I yield. Mr. McCLURE. I am no labor expert

and I am not a labor lawyer, Which is a commentary in itself. This would ordinarily come from the committee that

deals with labor law. My understanding of the Federal labor law statute is that the categories covered are specific unless they are specifically exempted, and if they are specifically exempted by Federal law as State employees that would be the exemption under which they would not be covered by the NLRB; and then the State could, I assume by their own action, exempt some of their own employees from the application of State law, although they would not be covered by Federal law because the Federal law says State employees are not covered.

Mr. HATCH. I do not know the Federal law.

Mr. McCLURE. If there is any hiatus or gap, it is a gap created not by any Federal statute but by the State legislature.

Am I correct in that assumption? I would assume that that is the case.

Mr. CRANSTON. I refer back to the preemption doctrine under which State law yields to Federal law and in this case contractual requirements are designed by title V to fill the void where these people are in limbo. The fact is they do not have any effective operative grievance procedure which they can follow.

Mr. HATCH. I agree that they may not have it, but if they stay under Federal law they are either covered by Federal law or State law.

Mr. CRANSTON. They are going to be covered by Federal law by this amendment-insofar as title V directs the Director of ERDA to act.

Mr. HATCH. Hopefully not, because this amendment would create a nuance in labor law that does not presently exist. This is what we are fighting against here. What we are saying is they are still State employees, and if it is defective it is on the part of the State and not on the part of the Federal Government. We should not create a new law.

Mr. CRANSTON. The amendment requires a new grievance procedure which will still be under State law, and the university will operate the grievance procedure. Now they do not have a grievance procedure.

Mr. HATCH. It is not that. The Senator is creating a Federal Mediation Board approach here. Let me give an illustration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 10 minutes allotted to the Senator from California have expired.

Mr. CRANSTON. The time has not exactly been used by me lately.

Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senator yielded to me to ask a question.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. I yield. Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I ask unani

mous consent . that Chris Somme of my staff' be accorded the privilege of the floor.


Who yields time? Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield my

self so much time as I may need for the purpose of asking questions of the Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON).

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.


Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator CRANSTON indicated that there is nothing unconstitutional about what we are doing here, and yet he cited the case of National League of Cities against Usery. Actually, as I read that case that would make what the Senator is trying to do unconstitutional because these people are not covered by the National Labor Relations Act; they are covered by State laws. If the State laws have a defect, then the States should take care of that.

For us to now impose Federal Government laws, and superimpose them on top of what the State should be doing, on State employees who are paid by State checks, I think would not only be unconstitutional but would be a violation of the law, and would create new labor law without having gone through the Human Resources Committee upon which Senator HAYAKAWA and I sit. Is that correct?

Mr. CRANSTON. My legal advice is to the contrary. What we are doing is attaching conditions to a contract. The case that I have cited substantiates the position that this amendment upholds.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield for a couple of comments?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. I yield. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I thank

the Senator. I have a letter which is dated July 6,

1977, signed by David S. Saxon, president of the University of California Systemwide Administration in which he makes this statement:

As you know, Laiwrence Livermore La.boratory employees are University of C'a.Iifomia employees subject to applicable State of California statute (the State Employee's Organization A-ct) regarding employee relations for University of California employees. The University, therefore, continues to be strongly opposed to the use of an authorization bill to modify the framework for employee relations in the University of California, a public agency of the State of California.

It goes on to outline the fact that there are two bills currently pending in the State legislature in California directly aimed at collective bargaining for public employees.

I also have a letter, dated July 8, 1977, signed by Archie Kleingartner, vice president of the University of California Systemwide Administration, in which he makes this statement:

The State of California, including the State university and colleges and the University of California, is covered by sections 31525-3•536 of the government code known as the State Employees Organization Act.

It covers the administration of the California system of colleges and their employees.

On July 8, ERDA wrote to Senator HAYAKAWA that the University of California is an agency of the State of California. Relationships between the university and its employees are regulated by California State law.

It seems to me that the administration of the State university system and the State agencies are not confused at all about the status of these employees.

Mr. HATCH. Not at all. These are State employees, and I do not think anyone who knows anything about labor law would consider them otherwise.

For instance, National League of Cities versus Usery basically stands for the principle that the Federal Government does not have the right under the commerce clause to prescribe overtime pay requirements for municipal employees, thereby interfering with the State and local employees' labor relations situations. This is exactly what this particular title V provision does which would be a violation of Usery, in my opinion.

Let me just go a little bit further, if the distinguished Senator from California will answer this. The July 11 "dear colleague" letter of the distinguished Senator from California indicates that about 50 percent of the current Lawrence Livermore Laboratory employees are in collective bargaining units and some 20 percent belong to labor organizations.

Is the distinguished Senator from California saying that these employees have collective bargaining rights, and if so under what law are these rights conferred? If so, why cannot the rest bargain for the same rights?

Mr. CRANSTON. I am consulting with my legal counsel on this matter. The situation is that there is no law that prohibits the workers from joining a union and there is no law that requires the university to negotiate bargaining with the unions, so again we are at an impasse.

Mr. HATCH. The contractual negotiations create a role within the contract. The union can do that. In other words, if they have a right to join a union, and 50 percent of them have, as I understand here, or at least are in the collective bargaining process, according to the letter, and 20 percent belong to labor organizations, they have a right to negotiate the contract.

Mr. CRANSTON. The reference in that letter is something to the effect that they work in units that are appropriate collective bargaining units. That does not mean they have the collective bargaining rights.

Mr. HATCH. Who determines that they are appropriate collective bargaining units? Who makes that determination? It has to be the State in this matter.

Mr. CRANSTON. Under generally recognized labor standards. The problem is they do not have collective bargaining. That is the issue here.

Mr. HATCH. The fact of the matter is they do according to the letter.

Mr. CRANSTON. We are talking here about the blue collar workers, the guards, productive workers, and so forth.

Mr. HATCH. That is right. If they want the collective bargaining units, they have to have collective bargaining rights. If they do not, the State has to provide them.

Mr. CRANSTON. That does not happen to follow given the way it works.

Mr. HATCH. The fa.ct is the rights are granted by the State. If the State has not granted them, that is a State problem. How can we as a Federal Government impose rights that are in contravention of those of the State of California?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRANSTON. I yield.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. If I may quote from the letter from Vice President Kleingartner, of the University of California Systemwide Administration:

The State of California, including the State University and Colleges and the University of California, is covered by Sections 3525-3536 of the Government Code known as the State Employees Organization Act. This Act (Section 352'7) provides for" ... the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation en all matters of employer-employee relations." Under Section 3530 the employer, which includes the State, the University, and the California State University i:tnd Colleges, has the duty to "meet and confer with representatives a! employee organizations on request".

The law applicable to employees of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the University procedures flowing from that law are equally applicable to the 92,000 other employees of the University of California.

Therefore, it is mandated by State law on both the university and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to meet and confer with organizations of their employees. It is already mandated. This is why the proposed amendment of the distinguished Senator from california is suiperogatory in the sense that it tries to override that which already exists. If the present employees of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are dissatisfied with that, it seems to me the remedy lies within the State law itself or within the actions, the behavior, and the judgment of the present individuals in charge of implementing that legislation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HAY AKA WA. I yield. Mr. HATCH. Let me ask the distin

guished senior Senator from California this question:. He says the existing grievance procedure at Livermore is not impartial because the laboratory director has great veto power over an arbitrator's position. Without arguing the merits of that situation, under what law or authority can the Federal Government interfere with the State labor relations situation?

Mr. CRANSTON. Basically, because it is our money, and rather obviously because we have the power to write into law conditions concerning the use of Federal funds. The general national policy is to seek to bring about appropriations opportunities for resolving labor-management differences, and it appears that there are no opportunities at LawrencP. Livermore.

Mr. HATCH. Let me ask this question: It is current national labor relations policy that many employees should be free to negotiate for wages, hours, and terms of employment. The right to negotiate has never been construed to force any substantive provisions from any employer. Yet title V mandates a grievance procedure resulting in binding arbitration. How is this justified when title V squarely runs afoul of our longstanding labor relations policy?

We are creating new laws here without the benefit of the Hwnan Resources Committee. As more of an afterthought, I would suggest that the senior Senator from California get together with the Governor from Galifornia. I think he may


have distinctly different viewpoints here. The Federal Government cannot superimpose its will upon the State governments.

Mr. CRANSTON. The Federal Government can. I have a wire from Donald Vial, director of the California Industrial Relations Department, who is the key person in the Governor's administration supporting this amendment. I would like to point out also that the Federal Government requires from State employees who handle Federal money to be hired under a merit system. That is a direct intervention by the Federal Government in State personnel matters of many years' standing.

Mr. HATCH. We are talking about labor relations here, and a major wholesale change in the labor laws just for the benefit of one specific group of employees in one specific area working as State employees in California.

Mr. CRANS'l:'ON. I cite the Federal law requiring State employees to be under civil service if they handle Federal moneys as an example of the power of the Federal Government to intervene in matters such as this. It was strongly opposed by the then Governor of Ohio, Frank Lausche, later a Senator in this body but he was overcome.

M{.. HATCH. The Senator is citing that as a precedent for basically violating the existing public policy in labor laws in our society today.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRANSTON. I do not yield because I do not have the floor. I will be glad to respond to a question, however.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Forty percent of the employees at the University of California are in one way or another funded by the Federal Government, but they are employees of the State of California for the purpose of administration. I happen to know this to be a fact because as former president of San Francisco State University we also had a number of programs going which were funded by Federal money. Whatever may have the status of the people who handled that money in the accountant's office, the cashier's office, or whatever, the people who received it as salaries were State employees and, in turn, they were free to join, and many did join, the American Federation of Teachers and other employee organizations which were on our campus. Therefore, what Dr. Kleingartner from the University of California administration says corresponds exactly with my own experience as a university president in those days.

If they worked for the San Francisco State University, wherever the money comes from, they worked for the San Francisco State University. They are State employees and are covered by the California S.tate Employees Administration, and are eligible to belong to the California State employee associations, and so on. The same is true of the University of California employees, including those at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

Mr. CRANSTON. I would like to cite another example of Federal action in

this area, the State employees involved in the realm of HEW in handling Federal funding. They are required to meet the affirmative action requirements established by the Federal Government. That is yet another example of how the Federal Government has exercised responsibility here.

I would like to read into the RECORD a letter from the Congressman who represents this area, Representative PETE STARK, who goes into great detail.

Mr. HATCH. Could I ask my previous question again?

Mr. CRANSTON. I have the floor at the moment. Let me read this letter into the RECORD. This is a letter addressed to MEL PRICE, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence and Military Application of Nuclear Energy, signed by Representative STARK, and dated March 24, 1977: Hon. MELVIN PRICE, Chairman, House Armed Service Subcommit

tee on Intelligence and Military Application of Nuclear Energy, Ray,burn House Office Building, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Ma. CHAmMAN: I recently received a copy of David Saxon's letter to you regarding my amendment to the 1978 ERDA authorization. I'm completely convinced that unfortunately there is stm a great need for my amendment and that the ERDA authorization is a perfectly legitimate vehicle for it, as the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is fully funded by ERDA. Let me give you my side of the story.

First of all, I wm agree with Mr. Saxon that there have been some improvements in the labor-management relations at LLL. However, complain.ts still continue to come regularly and frequently to my office; there is a general feeling that it is the threat of the amendment that has provided an impetus for improvement and that if the amendment were to be withdrawn the situation could easily revert back to what it was before. Furthermore, I can't understand why Mr. Saxon feels that my amendment would disrupt any improvements underway. Quite, the contrary, it would spur them along. And the improvements do need to be spurred along.

Mr. Saxon states that the employees of LLL are covered by University personnel policy which provides for an impartial grievance procedure. That statement is really a distortion of reality. At LLL, salaries, merit review, performance evaluations, working conditions, and job classification are not grievable. They are subject only to administrative review with no right to appeal before the University Hearing Committee or have a hearing officer hold a formal hearing. Furthermore, the Employee Relations Manager is responsible for the interpretation as to which appeals are grievable. Clearly, this is not an impartial grievance procedure.

Mr. Saxon goes on to say that university employees have the right to form or join or assist la.bar organizations. WhHe technically this is true, the management of the Lab is by no means sympathetic to such organizations. A telling example of this is that there ls pending a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaratory relief from the Lab's policy of denying use of LLL's auditorium by labor organizations for lunch-hour meetings.

He also states that the university through its own policies and under applicable California State law ls required t'o meet and confer with all employee organizations to resolve differences. What really happens is again far removed from the just situation

that the statement conveys. For example, the California State Employees Association was not informed that the salary levels of sergeants and lieutenants were to be reduced 16-25%. CSEA filed suit to meet and confer as required under the Meyer-Millas Brown Act. LLL relented and met. CSEA presented its case and demonstrated that LLL's data was obsolete and that it mistakenly compared the pay of sergeants and lieutenants to that of patrolmen rather than other sergeants and lieutenants. LLL went ahead and decided on the 25% reduction. As you can see, meet and confer came only after a court threat; even then, as was evidenced by the results, I can't really believe it was in good faith.

This particular example happened in 1973 and some time ago it did look like things were beginning to change. The CSEA, LLL management representatives, and U.C. officials a.greed to meet and confer on their differences and that any outstanding issues would be subject to third party arbitration. Progress seemed to be in the making until recently the CSEA was told that the University would decide what the outstanding issues are. Things are now at a total impasse.

This lack of communication is prevalent at all levels of management. Recently in a meeting between employees and low-level management, it became apparent that management was very unclear on the labor-relation policies.

In a sense, this is the heart of the problem. Since ERDA, the State of California, the University of Ca..lifornia, and the Laib itself all exert authority at times, a clear-cut policy has not evolved. My amendment would correct this very simply by guaranteeing the employees commonly accepted labor pra.ctices--.practices that are accorded to over 80,000 employees of government-owned, contractor opera·ted ERDA faciUties, but .not to the 5,600 in Livermore.

I hope you will agree that improvements notwithstanding many of the original problems have not been solved and the need for a legislative remedy persists. This one really means a lot to me and the 5600 employees of the Lab. I appreciated your support last year and hope you'll let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely, FORTNEY H. STARK, Jr.,

Member of Congress.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from California again consider my question, that it is current national labor relations policy not to force either the employer or the employee to reach substantive conclusions, but to allow them freely to negotiate for certain wages, hours, and conditions of employment; and that this particular provision, title Vin this bill, mandates grievance machinery which results in binding arbitration?

I just ask, how is this justified, title V, when it squarely runs afoul of our longstanding labor relations policy?

Mr. CRANSTON. Basically, the fundamental purpose is to afford equitable opportunities for adjustment of grievances to the employees of LLL that accord with general national policy for people working under Federal contracts.

Mr. HATCH. Is the Senator saying that making this exception to the National Labor Relations Act will be in accordance with national labor relations policy?

Mr. CRANSTON. I do not believe it is an exception to· the National Labor Relations Act.


Mr. HATCH. Let me ask the Senator this: Does the National Labor Relations Act in any way force an employee to submit to binding arbitration?

Mr. CRANSTON. I do not think that is particularly relevant.

Mr. HATCH. That is what we are doing here. That is what this bill does. My contention is that the National Labor Relations Act does not do that. I do not know of anything in existing law that requires employees or employers to submit themselves to binding arbitration, either in Federal law or otherwise. That is what this does, and that is what is objectionable.

That is why I complimented the distinguished junior Senator from California for pointing it out. I think it is a pretty important point. It is not some insignificant point.

Can the Senator state anywhere where that is required?

Mr. CRANSTON. The National Labor Relations Act does not prohibit this. It permits it.

Mr. HATCH. It may not prohibit it, but I have to admit it has not been done before. Can the Senator tell me where any section of the national labor relations law has been used to permit a violation of a longstanding labor relations policy?

Mr. CRANSTON. This is not a violation of the national labor relations law.

Mr. HATCH. It is not a violation, perhaps, but it is a variation. Does the Senator know of anywhere that that is permitted under the National Labor Relations Act, or in national labor relations policy today, where the Federal Government can come in and mandate grievance procedures in compulsory arbitration?

Mr. CRANSTON. There are many special exceptions, such as in certain industries where the cooling-off period of Taft-Hartley has been invoked.

Mr. HATCH. That is in existing labor policy and existing labor law.

The point I am making to my good friend and colleague is that he is varying the existing national labor relations policy that many people have asserted has served this country very well for many years for one specific group of employees, who are State employees, in violation of usery and the present labor laws.

Mr. CRANSTON. What this does is totally consistent with national labor relations policy. As the Senator well knows, the policy extends beyond the exact printed word.

Mr. HATCH. I should like to ask one more question, if the distinguished Senator will yield to me.

Mr. HAY AKA WA. I yield. Mr. HATCH. How can it possibly be

existing law when it forces an employernamely, the State of California, in this case--to do something which it would not otherwise be forced to do under presently existing labor law policy or presently existing labor laws?

Mr. CRANSTON. Present labor law policy permits this. Therefore, we are acting in ways consistent with that. I re-

peat, we have a wire from the State of California indicating that, far from forcing them to do something against their will, we are permitting them to do something they wish to do.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield to me for a statement?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Yes, I yield. Mr. HATCH. With all due respect to

my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from California-and I do have respect for him as a man of intelligence and a man of ability and as a distinguished Senator of this body-that is not the law, and, frankly, that is not the policy. What he is doing is not normal, it is not natural, and it does not, really, fit within the framework of what our present labor law and policies are. We are superimposing Federal dominance again and Federal individual laws over State policy and State laws, and even over the Federal policy and Federal laws at this point. I think anybody in this field would have to admit that we are, in essence, seeking to change existing Federal labor law by including within its coverage certain State employees because these same State employees apparently cannot obtain what the distinguished Senator from California thinks are full collective bargaining rights under State law.

If that is true, then it is up to the State to change that and not the Federal Government, in what I consider to be a very unique and individualized approach to this particular problem, which really runs counter to and is completely, I think, antagonistic to every basic labor law policy that this country stands for.

I think this is an ill-founded and unwise precedent. Where can we draw the line regarding other State and local employees' collective bargaining problems?

I recommend to my colleagues that we sustain existing labor law policy and existing rights of States to handle their own employees, which is existing labor law policy-the right for employees to bargain for wages, hours, and conditions of employment-and not to mandate from the Federal Government substantive labor law that it imposes upon the States things which are presently not empowered under our present act. I think it would be wise if we were to continue our present labor law policies rather than to disorganize them and disrupt them with something that I think is ill founded and unwise, and certainly a bad precedent for us to follow in this particular matter.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I submit that present national labor law policy has at its heart affording fairplay opportunities to those who labor in our society. This provision in this bill is totally consistent with that policy.

Mr. HATCH. My point on that is that, if we are going to have !airplay, let us allow fair negotiation and let us not suddenly impose by the Federal Government compulsory arbitration in a situation that does not deserve it. Also, if we are going to come through on this violent change in labor law, let us do it through the Human Resources Committee where we can take testimony, hear witnesses,

and hear experts in the field. I think we shall find that every expert in this field will disagree with this position. I would be shocked if they did not. I think that is the fair way to proceed.

The more fair way to proceed would be to continue the policy of both sides having a right to negotiate. I suspect that that is the policy even out in California today, and that we are trying to make an exception to that policy and provide for mandatory, compulsory arbitration where it really is not needed.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from California has 20 minutes and the senior Senator from California has 23 minutes.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I have little to add. I

am grateful, both to my distinguished senior colleague from California and to the Senator from Utah, for the additional light thrown upon this problem.

But I would like to stress most of all, Mr. President, the fact that the bUl as reported singles out one portion of one State institution for special treatment as regards labor relations.

The Lawrence Livermore La:boratory is one of perhaps 20 or more research institutions in connection with one branch or another of the nine branches at the University of California. There is a Lawrence Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley. There is a Donner Laboratory at Berkeley. In addition, there are educational grants, educational research projects, special projects in small business, and so on, being conducted at other university campuses of the University of california at La.Jolla, at UCLA, at Santa Barbara, at Riverside, and elsewhere.

out of all ._'lese many research facilities and special projects, we are picking out one institution-namely, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory-for special treatment as regards labor relations.

This seems to me, Mr. President, to set up a dangerous precedent.

If we are going to mess around with one such laboratory, what is to stop the Federal Government from intervening in other projects that may be going on in the State of California, thus disrupting State and State employee relations and dictating policy on the basis of the fact that we sunply all or part of the money from the Government?

If we are to acknowledge at all some kind of sovereignty within the States, then it seems to me we must not allow this precedent to be established. We have to see to it that the carefully constructed State regulations regarding State employees and the State should be cherished and protected from Federal interference.

This, Mr. President, is the reason for my proposal of this amendment.

I thank the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the

junior Senator from California yield to the Senator from Idaho for 5 minutes?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Yes, indeed. Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator

for yieldin~.

22358 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977 The PRE.SIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment to strike title V of the bill. I strongly believe that title V does great violence to the authorization bill before us. The Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON> is attempting to use this authorization bill and the contract for the Livermore Laboratory as a vehicle to obtain a change in the labor management relations at the laboratory, this Federal contract power is thereby being used to achieve results which our entire body of labor statutes does not impose. Additionally, the employer in this particular case is the University of California State system, an instrumentality of the State of California. Consequently, this is not only an attempt to impose an extension of Federal labor law generally, but in addition it is attempting to impose these results on one of our individual States.

It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court held last year in the case National League of Cities against Usery tha.t the powers of the Congress and the Federal Government under the commerce clause of the Constitution could not cover Federal imposition of a minimum wage on State and local governments. In this title of the bill, we are going even further than the proscription in that particular case. We are attempting to impose a direct Federal mandate on the labor relations of a State instrumentality. The only linkage by which we could possibly do that in this authorization bill is the contract for the operation of the Livermore Laboratory. It is not difficult for one to imagine the many possible results in terms of a specifically mandated labor result which might flow from a Federal contract with a State or local agency across the spectrum of all of our Federal activities. In each case, there would be pressure to achieve a particular result based on the proponent..5 intended objectives in that individual labor management situation. For instance, in this provision binding arbitration is mandated and the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service are made available to employees representatives. While this may be a desirable or meritorious result in any given situation or class of situa.tions, to specify it in the Federal law, by the vehicle of Federal contract, in a single instance, is violative of all good legislative practices.

Importantly, it is our understanding that the situation at the laboratory in the first instance does not even require any action of this body at all. We understand that there is in place a labor management procedure which adequately deals with the labor relations in the laboratory, and is consistent with the practices of the University of California as a State agency. Also, there is an extensive body of California State codes and court opinions dealing with the many facets of the State's labor relations clause. In fact, the State legislature now has under consideration a billand perhaps more than one bill-which

would attempt to modify some of those procedures towards a result previously suggested in similar Livermore Laboratory-specific legislation in the last Congress. The State legislature after all is the appropriate legislative forum to deal with this problem. The U.S. Congress in an energy research and development authorization bill is certainly not the appropriate legislative forum.

Consequently, I am greatly surprised that the chairman of the Human Resources Committee, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) has supported this particular provision as being consistent with their Federal labor law policies. It is noteworthy that such legislation should normally come from his committee, and I am astonished tha,t he would support this particular application of Federal contract authority.

t urge the support of all my colleagues of this amendment to strike title V from the bill before us.

While the distinguished senior Senator from California has said that he has a telegram-and he does, indeed-from one instrumentality of the State, there are at least two other letters from other instrumentalities in the State opposing this amendment and this form of preemption by the Federal Government of State rights to govern the relationships of its employees with State institutions.

Certainly, I think the Senator from Utah may be correct that the senior Senat·or from Califo'rnia should, perhaps, consult with the Governor of his State to determine what the State policy really is. Perhaps the Governor of the State ought to get his agencies together and determine what the policy of the State is. Perhaps, if they will make that determination, they can amend the State code to effect that policy without coming here to find a way to get State agencies to resolve what they apparently cannot resolve among themselves in California.

It seems to me this is the wrong kind of legislation upon the wrong kind of vehicle. Certainly, it is not the kind of thing we would want to see extended-at least, I hope we would not want to see it extended-across all Federal contract authority.

Are we going to now embark upon a course of piecemeal amendment of the Federal labor statutes by going out to each Federal contract recipient and imposing differing conditions of labor relations?

I hope we will not do that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator's time has expired. Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator

for yielding his time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time? Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I am

prepared to yield back the remainder of my time, if the other side is.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time?

Mr. CRANSTON. Equally divided. Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the time be charged against neither side.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield to the Senator from Idaho 1 additional minute?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection to the request that the time be equally divided between the parties? There is no objection, and it is so ordered.

The clerk will call the roll. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the quorum call be withheld for 1 minute.


Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, as I said at the outset, I am not a labor lawyer, but my understanding of the position of organized labor in the United States is that the AFL-CIO and Mr. Meany have stated repeatedly that they are violently opposed to compulsory arbitration. It seems to me a rather strange anomaly that the junior Senator from Idaho should be a spokesman for organized labor, while the senior Senator from California seeks to do violence to their position as often stated. But perhaps that is the way things happen where you seek, by expedients, to accomplish what you cannot accomplish by direct action.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the Senate formally agreed by unanim.ous consent earlier this morning not to hold any rollcall votes until noon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. CHURCH. It is now 1 minute past noon. However, I thought there was an informal understanding between the distinguished majority leader and the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) that no such rollcall vote would occur before 12:30. We are prepared to vote on this amendment, but in accordance with those understandings, I should like to suggest to the Senator from California that the vote on my motion to table his amendment-which I intend to make-should occur at 12 :30.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair believes that the junior Senator from California wishes to use some more of his time, so the discussion might be

moot at this time. Mr. CHURCH. If the Senator wishes

to use more of his time, I urge him to doso.

fMr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I do not think any further discussion is neces

sary on my part. The issue has been discussed quite adequately.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader has suggested that we might vote at 12: 20 on my motion to table the amendment offered by the Senator from California, and I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a vote on the tabling motion at 12 :30.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder whether the

manager of the bill will concede to the distinguished Senator from California the right to have his amendment voted upon up or down. It seems to me that this involves a very important question, a departure from labor relations law.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22359 Since we are trying by unanimous consent to accommodate everybody, I appeal to the distinguished Senator not to make a motion to table.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I join in that request.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I would like to accommodate the Senator's requests, but I had previously made a commitment to move to table, and I have to honor that commitment.

Furthermore, the committee did consider this particular provision, and it was included in the bill because the circumstances at the Livermore Laboratory in California are unique; and it was felt that, given those circumstances, this was an appropriate legislative method for dealing with them. I intend to uphold the committee's position; and in view of the commitment I have made, I feel obligated to off er a motion to table.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in 'ac

cordance with the unanimous-consent agreement to proceed to a tabling motion at 12:20--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no such agreement.

I.s there objection to the request? That would automatically wipe out the remaining time for debate on the amendment. The request is that at 12: 20 the distinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) may make a motion to table the pending amendment. That is the request: the vote to be held at 12:20.

Is there objection? Mr. HAYAKAWA. I object. I would

like the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question now, is, shall the distinguished Senator · from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) be allowed at 12: 20 to make a motion to table the amendment of the junior Senator from California, with a vote to take place thereon immediately? Is there objection to the request?

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think some of us would like a few moments to discuss this matter with the distinguished junior Senator from California. In that light, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time?

Mr. CHURCH. I prop05e that the time be equally divided.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMENIC!. I thank the Senator from Idaho.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.


Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield the Senator from Idaho 1 additional minute?

Mr. HAYAKAWA. I yield. Mr. McCLURE. I thank the distin

guished Senator for yielding. I think the minority recognizes that

there is no way to prevent the senior Senator from Idaho from making the motion to table if he desires to do so and is committed to doing so. It is not the desire of the minority to delay the vote upon this issue. However, we would have pref erred, had we been able to do so, to have a straight up or down vote on the amendment itself, rather than upon a motion to table.

However, I wish to respond ,to my colleagues suggestion that he is honor bound to support the position of the committee and tha.t the committee did include this section.

I might just state for the record that the committee heard no witnesses, took no testimony, and debated this subject not at all, but just put it in. So it was not really upon the basis of a lengthy hearing or a very deep consideration of the facts or the law behind it.

Therefore, I would not think the commitment of the committee is quite as deep as it would be to the ordinary processes of the committee or to the ordinary jurisdictional matters of the committee which otherwise are in this bill, unlike title V.

I thank the junior Senator from California for yielding his time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HOLLINGS). The Senator from California.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. I wish to withdraw my objection to Senator Church's unanimous-consent request with regard to a. rollcall vote.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to request the yeas and nays on the motion to table to be offered by the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. CHURCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.


The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is time

yielded back? Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I

yield back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from California yields back his time.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Is the parliamentary situation such that I might offer an unprinted amendment at this point?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment pending, and the time is controlled. It will require unanimous consent.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senator from New Mexico to offer an amendment at this point.


Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object-and I shall not object-that would not change the standing unanimous consent that the senior Senator from Idaho be recognized at 12: 20 to make a tabling motion?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request was not renewed. There is no unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. McCLURE. Well, Mr. President, I will make that unanimous consent request in case it is not ordered at this point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me put first then the request of the Senator from Idaho. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Idaho? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Chair. UP AMENDMENT NO. 637

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator from New Mexico's request to offer an amendment? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President. I send an unprinted amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Schmitt to the desk and ask the clerk to report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator f,rom New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) for himself and Mr. SCHMITT proposes

,unprinted amendment No. 637: On page 2, line 11, strike $196,900,000 and

insert $199,900,000.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the managers of the bill. I would like to off er a few words of explanation concerning the amendment I am proposing to S. 1811. As the distinguished floor manager for this bill is aware, my amendment would add $3 million to the amount contained in S. 1811 for operating expenses in this Nation's magnetic fusion program next fiscal year. Of this total, $1 million is intended to provide direct research and development for the intense neutron source project at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. The remaining $2 million will go to strengthen the high plasma density magnetic fusion program at Los Alamos.

The distinguished floor manager, Senator CHURCH, will recall that during markup of S. 1811 by the Energy ar ... d Natural Resources Committee a proposed rescission for the INS project, No. 76-5-b, was struck from the bill. Although I do not intend to seek the appropriation of additional construction funds for this project in fiscal year 1978, I believe that it is essential that we provide the minimum level of operating funds necessary to insure that the INS support effort moves ahead in the next fiscal year. The $1 million contained in my amendment will be used for completion of integrated

22360 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977

testing and checkout of the prototype INS system.

Mr. President, the magnetic fusion program at Los Alamos is unique in this country in that, although far from being our largest effort nationally, it concentrates on the high density plasmas which we will eventually have to use in commercial powerplants based on the fusion principle. In spite of receiving the endorsement of the Fusion Power Coordinating Council, a panel of national experts in this field, the Los Alamos program was cut by over 50 percent in fiscal year 1978. The proposed increase of $2 million would fund the program at a level that would allow for some progress in this area, while keeping the vital core of scientists and engineers together. I believe this approach represents a suitable compromise in our overall effort to balance expenditures for short- and long-term options.

As the managers of the bill will recall, I deferred on this amendment because Senator BARTLETT had some interest in another item that related to it, and I indicated to the committee that I would bring it to the floor.

This particular program has been the subject of some rather serious, almost deadly cuts. This small amount we are adding will see to it that the program will remain alive and on schedule. It is my understanding that the floor managers are- willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the magnetic fusion program at Los Alamos is unique in this country. Although it is far from being our largest effort nationally, it concentrates on the high density plasmas which we will eventually need in commercial powerplants based on the fusion principle.

I might say, Mr. President, we appear to be a long way from success in our effort to develop fusion technology. Nevertheless, everyone recognizes that if our efforts prove successful in the future we will have solved many of the difficult problems associated with nuclear fission, including the problem of safe management and storage of nuclear wastes.

I think this is a modest amendment. It .will keep one phase of this research and development program moving ahead on schedule, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I will state for the minority that we accept the amendment.

Mr. DOMENIC!. I thank both of my colleagues. I think the use of the word "modest" is correct. The House has added substantially more. We are not trying to put this completely back on the schedule it was prior to the administration's recommended cuts, but we are trying to keep alive a program and an excellent team of scientists.

I thank the Senators for their consideration.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. McCLURE. I move to lay that motion on the table.



Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.


The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows :

The Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE) proposes unprinted amendment No. 638.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows: Page 18, line 8, insert new section as

follows: "Section 310. TRANSFER PROVISIONS. In

the event that any of the programs authorized by this Act are transferred to a Department of Energy established by Act of Congress, the following procedures shall apply to such transfer.

(a) The Secretary shall designate one or more officers in a position of seniority in the Department, of not less seniority than Assista,nt Secretary, to serve as the administrator and manager of the research, development and demonstration programs authorized by this Act. The responsibilities of the designated officials shall include all functions associated with the program administration and management of all programs and projects authorized in Title I and all additional responsibilities included under Titles II, IV and V of this Act. Such responsibilities shall specifically include, but not be limited to the dissemination of technical information and all authority for agency determinations for all nonregulatory functions for such programs in Titles I, II. IV, and V under the Atomic Energy Act, the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act, the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act, the Geothermal Research, Development and Demonstration Act, the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Act, the Solar Energy Research, Development a,nd Demonstration Act, and responsibilities of the Administration under the Energy Reorganization Act and any additional functions, such as contract appeals, associated with the research, development, demonstration and other nuclear and nonnuclear programs authorized by this Act. Such authority for agency determinations for nonregulatory functions shall not be vested in any regulatory board or commission which is or may be established in the Department.

(b) All laws governing the conduct of the research, development, demonstration and other programs authorized by this Act including, but not limited to, the statutes specified in Subsection (a), and all procedures for Congressional notification and review, specifically including the requirements to keep the Congress "fully and currently informed", shall be continued in the Department.

( c) There shall be no change in the structure of any program authorized by this Act including, but not limited to governmentowned and contractor-operated facllities, headquarters components, the so-called national laboratories, energy research centers and _the operations offices managing such laboratories, weapons programs and other research, development, demonstration and related program activities, unless any such

changes are expressly authorized in a subsequent authorization act for the Department, notwithstanding any other provision of law."

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, this amendment simply provides for an orderly transfer of the programs that are authorized to ERDA under this legislation to the proposed Department of Energy in the event that that department is created.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I have reviewed the text of the amendment. Certain modifications were suggested and have been accepted by my colleague.

As modified, I find the amendment worthy and wholly acceptable and, therefore, move its adoption.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE).

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I move

to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.



Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, if we have time I would like to make a brief statement on the general subject matter of the bill.

NUCLEAR ENERGY-THE CASE FOR CREDIBLE LEADERSHIP

Mr. President, I call attention to a forceful column, written by Steven Ahrens of the Idaho Statesman, on the subject of nuclear power. The editorial by Mr. Ahrens, entitled "Carter Should Reconsider Nuclear Power," and published on May 8, 1977, accurately concludes that--

Nuclear energy unquestionably can do one thing for us, even if we decide it is not the long-term answer: It can buy us unlimited time to develop whatever other sources of energy we prefer.

It would be a grave mistake for the United States to bury its head in the sand rather than face a series of difficult nuclear problems. These problems will not go a way; they require the attention and cooperation of all those nations in the world which use or plan to use nuclear power.

The Ahrens column deserves a larger audience. For this reason, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: CARTER SHOULD RECONSIDER NUCLEAR POWER

(By Steve Ahrens) America seems to have a worldwide repu

tation for wasting the energy that fuels "Spaceship Earth."

But if we follow President Jimmy Carter's lead into what Sen. Frank Church calls "nuclear isolationism," we will be heading for the biggest energy waste in our history.

Carter has called for an indefinite suspension of commerical reprocessing of spent fuels from conventional nuclear plants, which yields the plutonium needed for breeder reactors.

Energy experts, including those at the Idaho Nuclear Energy Laboratory near Arco, say it would be possible to have breeder reactors on-line producing electricity by the late 1980s or early 1990s, if the research and de-

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22361 velopment program goes full speed ahead be

. tween now and then. But Carter wants to bring an end to this

program that could meet U.S. energy needs for centuries into the future.

There are valid concerns about the safety of nuclear plants. Undeniably, this nation and the world should be concerned a.bout proliferation of nuclear weapons. There's no question that storage of radioactive nuclear wastes presents a problem.

But it is foolish to the point of being a national embarrassment to have President Carter look these problems in the face and say that we can't handle them-they're beyond us.

The United States got where we are, with the highest standard of living in the history of the world, by being a. "can-do" nation, not a "can't-do" country. Starting from ground zero with our space program, we put a man on the moon in about 10 yea.rs.

Yet Carter has no faith in the abllity of this country to solve the problems of nuclear safety, waste storage and weapons proliferation? Incredible.

There are ways to control proliferation of atomic weapons, and congressmen like Church, Rep. Steve Symms of Idaho, Rep. Mike McCormack, D-Wash., and many others a.re talking about them and working out the details. They propose international authority over the use of nuclear fuels, so the world's energy needs can be met while preventing illegal military use of nuclear material.

As far as waste storage is concerned, the breeder reactor actually burns fissionable material left over from conventional nuclear reactors, so that takes ca.re of a major part of any storage problem while we benefit from the breeder's energy production.

McConnack explains the breeder reactor, while it is produclne energy, actually yields more fuel than it consumes. It sounds like a fairy tale, like a. "perpetual motion ma.chine," but that is the true potential of this technology, once it is perfected.

(Remember, INEL has had a. 20-megawatt breeder reactor in operation near Arco since 1963, which illustrates that we are indeed within reach of such technology in another 10-15 years.)

McCormack adds the U.S. has enough purified U238 already in stora-ge tha.t, if used in a breeder reactor program, it would produce electricity equivalent to more than 5 times all the oil possessed by all the oilexporting nations combined.

That is the energy resource that our president proposes we forget.

U.se of material that's already been mined and processed means there would be no further expense to mine it, which also requires significant energy, or environmental degradation, as there will be in ripping enough coal out of the ground to substitute for the energy that could come from the breeder reactor program.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader and his Raiders reportedly are disagreeing on this environmental consideration. Nader personally opposes nuclear power so strongly that he favors development of new on and gas sources, but some of his associates fea.r those development efforts oould damage the environment.

The thing that would be almost comical a.bout the Carter proposal-if it weren't so serious-is that we can junk the breeder reactor if we want to make that kind of unilateral decision, but that won't make a dime's worth of difference to the rest of the world's industrialized nations.

They don't have the other energy resources and potentials we do (coal, oil, .natural gas, solar, etc.), so the ones that have the a.bil1ty

a.re going to go full bore on their own !breeder rea.ctor progra.ms.

France, for example, announced Friday that it has found a new way to enrich uranium for power plants that eliminates the risk that the mater,ia.l could be used for nuclear weapons.

France, Japan and West Germany are not going to Ca.rterize their breeder reactor programs because the United States takes a. defensive , head-in-the-sand a,pproa.c.h.

These comments should not be mi&construed as a fervent pitch for nuclear energy as the ultimate answer to our national energy problems. Whether it is or isn't--that's a legitimate subject for national debate.

But nuclear energy unquestionably can do one thing for us, even if we decide it is not the long-term answer; It can buy us unlimited time to develop whatever other sources of energy we prefer.

A number of exciting energy developments a.re not too many years a.way: hydrogen fusion, a. completely non-polluting and unlimited technology; solar; geothermal, and others.

The breeder reactor can supply all our energy needs for as long as it takes to develop what now is exotic technology but a few years from now could be the everyday energy of America.

For all these reasons, it would be tragically foolish to turn our backs on the breederreactor program.

The name of Neville Chamberlain, who was head of the English government when Hitler was getting rambunctious in the late 1930s, has become a. synonyn for gutless government leadership.

The energy crisis is no less a. problem for America and the world now than the mllitary crisis 40 years a.go. Let's hope that, 40 year's from now, U.S. citizens don't look ba.ck on Jimmy Carter in that same light.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. As previously ordered, the Senator from Idaho is recognized for a motion to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to lay on the table the amendment offered by the Senator from California (Mr. HAYAKAWA) to strike title V from the pending bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Idaho to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from California.

The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the

Senator from South Dakota (Mr. AeoUREZK) , the Senator from Minnesota <Mr. ANDERSON), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. HUDDLESTON). the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH). and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) would vote "yea."

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. ScoTT) is necessarily absent.

I also announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLET!') is absent due to illness.

The result was announced-yeas 57, nays 36, as follows:

[Rollca.11 Vote No. 276 Leg.) YEAS-57

Bayh Gravel Bentsen Hart Bid en Haskell Brooke Hathaway Bumpers Heinz Burdick Humphrey Byrd, Robert C. Inouye Case Jackson Cha.fee Javits Chiles Johnston Church Kennedy Clark Leahy Cranston Long Culver Magnuson DeConcini Mathias Durkin Matsunaga. Eagleton McGovern Ford Mcintyre Glenn Melcher

Allen Baker Bellmon Byrd,

Harry F .. Jr. Cannon Curtis Danforth Dole Domenic! Eastland Garn Goldwater

NAYS-36 Griffin Hansen Hatch Hatfield Hayakawa Helms Hollings Laxalt Lugar McClellan McClure Morgan Moynihan

Metcalf Metzenbaum Muskie Nelson Pell Percy Proxmire Ribicoff Riegle Sa..rban.es Sasser Stafford Stennis Stevens Stevenson Stone Weicker Williams Zorinsky

Nunn Packwood Pearson Roth Schmitt Schweiker Sparkman Thurmond Tower Wallop Young

NOT VOTING-7 Abourezk Huddleston Talmadge Anderson Randolph Bartlett Scott

So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.



Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.



The Senator from California (Mr. HAYA· KAWA) , for himself .and Mr. HATCH, proposes an unprinted amendment No. 639.

On page 21, line 17 insert a period after "procedure" Beginning with "which" strike out all through line 11 on page 22 .

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, the reason for this amendment is that this should certainly satisfy my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from california, in his desire to have the Lawrence-Livermore employees protected by, an impartial grievance procedure without creating a number of other problems. This would fully meet his requirement that the employees of that laboratory have such an impartial procedure to handle their grievances.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, could we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.

Mr. HAY AK.AW A. The provision would now read:

SEC. 501. The Administrator shall not use any funds appropriated pursuant to thls

22362 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977 Act under a.ny contract in effect on or after October 1, 1977, for research services o·r material contract or supplies by the LawrenceLivermore Laboratory unless that contract specifically provides that the employees ot the Laboratory will be protected by an impartial grievwnce procedure.

That seems to be adequate protection, Mr. President.

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I understood my distinguished colleague was offering a different amendment, which I was prepared to accept or support I do not support the amendment whi~h has been offered by my distinguished colleague. Although the purpose of title V is to establish fair labor management procedures at the Lawrence Lruboratory, the amendment now proposed would strip essential pro'visions from the title that in effect have just been approved by this body in re'jecting the motion that would have eliminated the entire text.

First, the amendment proposed would deny basic bargaining recognition at Lawrence Laboratory to employees; second, the amendment deprives the management of Lawrence Lab and the employees of the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service; and third, it denies to both parties the experience and valuable offices of the Atomic Energy Labor Relations Panel. For those reasons I am strongly opposed to the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I believe the importance of this proposal is that the current national relations policy allows employees and employers to freely n~gotiate for wages, hours, and conditions of employment.

Here we have a bill that is going to completely negate that. Senator HAYAKAWA has conceded the one point, since they have been concerned about the grievance procedures, and perhaps there has !been evidence-or, at least, an indication-by the distinguished senior Senator from California that grievance procedures are not effective at the Livermore Laboratories, at least in his viewpoint. The distinguished junior Senator from California has conceded that by striking all after "grievance procedure,'' we shall allow impartial grievance procedures at Livermore, even though State law probably provides for that at this point.

The thing that I find particularly offensive is that, in title V, we enact a complete variance from labor laws that exist today-a complete variance. We do it without running it through the Committee on Human Resources, which is particularly set apart to review these matters, take testimony, look into them with everything it has, and then report this matter out if it wants to.

I think it also flies in the face of the National League of Cities against Usery case, and I think it may be unconstitutional from that standpoint.

The fact of the matter is-and I think this is the most flagrant of all-I think this bill, if we enact it with its present language, changes labor law and labor law policy that has existed for many years at the expense, I think, of ev~ry

employer and employee throughout America. I als·o think it is at the expense of the foresight, the vision, and the effort that are generally put in by the Human Resources Committee.

I strongly support the subsequent amendment by the junior Senator from California that, if they want to have grievance procedures, we cai;i;. at le~st give them that language, rmpart1al grievance procedures," but strike everything after that. Even though this still would be a departure from present. labor law policy, it would be not so grievous a departure, without the Human Resources input that we normally W?uld have if the full title V is enacted mto law pursuant to our votes this day or in the next few days.

I strongly urge every one of my colleagues, if we desire to support labor law principles and policies that have been long thought out and, in every other case to my knowledge, brought throu~h the Human Resources Committee for its input and the input of its technical and expertly trained staff members, then I think we should vote to sustain and support Senator HAYAKAWA's amendment. I urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I think the vote on the last motion to table was as stark a reminder of the inadequacy of debate in this body as any that I have ever seen. We saw people coming in through the door to vote who had not heard any of the debate. We saw very few Members on the floor of the Senate during the debate because committees were meeting this morning in important hearings and markup sessions. Member after Member came on this floor and voted in ways which are in direct contradiction to their normal pattern of voting on labor issues over the history of the Senate.

Without pointing to anyone-I certainly would not do that-it seems to me that many Members who have a record of supporting organized labor over the ye1ars find themselves on record now, on the last vote, in a position which is directly contrary to that which organized labor hais consistently contested for, pub-

. licly and privately, in Washington and across this land. They are definitely and without any very large measure of departure opposed to compulsory arbitration, on the ground that it deprives their members of the right to ba,rgain to conclusion. It deprives their membership of the ability to use the withholding of labor as a tool to force the bargaining to the conclusion which they desire.

I have heard spokesmen for the AFLCIO, on many, many occasions vehemently protest the deprivation of the rights of their members to strike, if need be, to enforce their labor demands in the free and open collective bargaining that has been charcteristic under the labor laws of this Nation for many years. Yet, Member after Member of this body came in and voted on the side of an issue which they would not ordinarily take.

Why did they do that? Because they think it is only a simple parochial issue, affecting only one labor-management relationship in a way which is desired by one Member of this body. I salute that Member of this body for having been per-

suasive enough to get his colleagues ~o vote against their own long-held positions in order to support his position on settling a fight that they, apparently, have not been able to settle, between divisions of the State of California go~ernment and within the State of Cahfornia under their law.

We are now being given another opportunity, and I hope that the Me:r_nbers of this body, who will now be given the . opportunity to vote again, may reflect for a moment upon the real consequences of their last vote and where that really positioned them on the fundamental issue of the right of the working men and women of this country to bargain collectively to finality, rather than having compulsory arbitration imposed.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a couple of questions?

Mr. McCLURE. I am happy to yield. Mr. HATCH. If these are public-sector

employees, would they not be covered by the Federal labor laws, and would not title V therefore be unnecessary?

Mr. McCLURE. If they are public-sector employees-Federal or State publicsector employees?

Mr. HATCH. In this case, Federal public employees. They would be covered by this law.

Mr. McCLURE. That is correct. Mr. HATCH. If they are purely State

employees, they are expressly excluded from National Labor Relations Act coverage.

Mr. McCLURE. That is correct. Mr. HATCH. If they have to rely, then,

on State labor relations laws for their collective bargaining rights, why should we now allow the Federal Government to come in and impose binding arbitration, which neither big labor nor, it seems to me, those who are antithetical to big labor desire in this particular matter?

Mr. McCLURE. I think the Senator from Utah is correct. People on both sides of that issue have stated their positions adamantly and often. The only justification for Federal preemption here is that it is desired to settle a problem that otherwise it seems is not being settled under the appropriate California State law and State procedures.

Mr. HATCH. Would not the distinguished Senator from Idaho admit that this seems to be a major departure from existing national labor law policy?

Mr. McCLURE. It is a very violent departure on two different ground~. First of all it injects Federal preemption under ~ contract authority. Certainly, if we are going to have a Federal preemption under all Federal contract authority, then the billions of dollars of Federal contracts are going to be the avenue by which •there is extensive change of labor law and Federal-State relationships.

The other is, of course, the fundamental change in the posture of the Federal labor law dealing with the question of the right of employees to bargain ~ollectively. This is a complete and radical departure from fundamental Federal labor law.

Mr. HATCH. I ask my friend and colleague from Idaho, was th~~e any ~eal discussion, during the addition of title v to this bill, concerning the labor law ramifications and impacts that would occur as a result of adding it to this bill?

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22363 Mr. McCLURE. There was no testi

mony taken by the committee, and almost no discussion.

Mr. HATCH. Was there any suggestion that the matter be referred to the Human Resources Committee, which particularly and specifically considers these matters and does so, generally, by taking testimony and utilizing other expert approaches to try to figure out what is the best approach for labor law in these certain areas?

Mr. McCLURE. I wish I could answer my friend more directly on that. But my memory is not sufficiently accurate to be able to say whether that was or was not suggested.

Mr. HATCH. The fact of the matter is that it was not referred to the Human Resources Committee for its consideration.

Mr. McCLURE. It was not. I think the Members of this body

ought to recognize what the implications are in terms of the extension of Federal preemption through the contract route.

Second, does this really indicate that this body is now prepared to change the fundamental labor law of this country, to impose compulsory arbitration as the law of the land on all Federal labor relations?

I think, certainly, the implication is that this body supports compulsory arbitration.

Mr. HATCH. Then is it not true these are State employees, employed by the State?

Mr. McCLURE. It is correct that they are State employees. We have letters from the University of California Systemwide Administration. Both the president and vice president have written letters indicating that these are State employees, not Federal.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters~ printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Berkeley, Calif., July 6, 1977.

Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Re

sources Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: s. 1811 as reported,

contains Title V which would prohibit the Energy Research and Development Administration from expending funds under the Act for the University of California Lawrence Livermore Laboratory programs unless the contract between the University and ERDA: . . . specifically provides that the employees of the Laboratory will be protected by an impa.rt1al grievance procedure which includes binding arbitration as the final step covering all "rights disputes" in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

The Contract shall further guarantee the employees the right to form, join, or assist Labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. If a question arises concerning representation of employees, the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service may be invoked to provide appropriate procedures for the determination of employee representatives. The employer shall bargain in good faith with the representatives of its employees on all matters dealing with wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. If the parties fall to reach an agreement, the services of the

Atomic Energy Labor Management Relations Panel shall be invoked for mediation purposes. All unresolved issues shall then be referred to such panel for final and binding arbitration. Nothing contained herein should be construed to permit any employee representative or person to engage in a work stoppage or to permit the employer to lock out its employees.

As you know, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory employees are Undversity of California employees subject to applicable State of California statute (the State Employee's Organization Act) regarding employee relations for University of California employees. The University, therefore, continues to be strongly opposed to the use of an authorization bill to modify the framework for employee relations in the University of California, a public agency of the State of California.

Currently, there are two bills in the State Legislature which are diirectly aimed at collective bargaining for public employees. S.B. 839 currently excludes the University of California, but the University has asked to be included. AB 1091 expllcitly includes the University, has passed tlhe Assembly, and !is currently being introduced in the Senate. This Bill would provide a specific structure for collective bargaining in the University. In view of the current applicable State laws and those now under consideration, we are extremely concerned with the inappropriateness and the serious consequences of using Title V to modify the framework for employee relations in the University. Further, we are advised that Title V would present the University with difficult constitutional problems which could foster disputes and extensive litigation. 'Ilhe problems are inherent in the conflict between the concepts expressed in Title V and the current State law governing the University's employee relations.

In addition to our concern with the use of an authorization bill to modify the framework for employee relations in an agency of the State, we are also opposed to the substance of Title V. Employees of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory as University of California employees are governed by University personnel policdes. These pollcies provide for an impartial grievance procedure which meets all legal standards of due process. Further, University employees have tlhe right to form, join, or assist labor organizations, and the University, through its own policies and current Californda State law, is required to meet and confer with all employee organizations to resolve differences. We therefore believe that our current policies, applicable State law, current collective bargaining bills before the State Legislature and the difficult constitutional problems created by '!11.tle V make such Federal legislation both inappropriate and unnecessary.

It is our hope that Title V will be removed from S 1811 before passage of that bill.

Sincerely, DAVIDS. SAXON,

President.

OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AND STAFF PERSONNEL RELATIONS,

Berkeley, Calif., July 8, 1977. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Re

sources Committee, Washington. D.C. DEAR MR. CHAmMAN: I am writing to you

at the request of President David Saxon regarding proposed amendments to Title V of the ERDA Authorization Act. Since President Saxon wrote you on July 6 we have learned that you have received information which does not accurately reflect the status of the University, including the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, under California law regarding collective bargaining, and I am hopeful that this information may be helpful to you.

The State of California, including the State University and Colleges and the University of California, is covered by Sections 3525-3536 of the Government Code known as the State Employees Organization Act. This Act ( Section 3527) provides for ". . . the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employeremployee relations." Under Section 3530 the employer, which includes the State, the University, and the California State University and Colleges, has the duty to "meet and confer with representatives of employee organizations on request". Cities and counties are governed by Government Code Sections 3500-3511 (known as the Meyers-MmasBrown Act) and employees of the elementary and secondary levels in the public school system, including community colleges, are covered by Chapter 10.7 of the Educational Code (known as the Rodda Act).

The University, the State, and the State University and Colleges provide a grievance procedure which has as a terminus, fact finding hearings and recommendations as to remedial action. None of the statutes in California nor the Taft-Hartley Act provide for binding arbitration of interest disputes as has been suggested.

The law applicable to employees at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the University procedure flowing from that law are equally applicable to the 92,000 other employees of the University of California. Similar procedures under the same law are applicable to 125,000 State of California employees and 32,000 employees of the State University and Colleges. All systems provide for considerations of grievances through a recognized grievance procedure. Under the University procedure (which provides for advisory arbitration) 129 cases were appealed to the final grievance step during fiscal 1975-76. One-hundred-twenty-three of these cases resulted in recommendations by the arbitrator or hearing officer which were implemented by the administration. In one case the University further reduced the disciplinary action beyond that which was recommended by the hearing officer.

If your staff has questions about the content and applicability of the law in California, we would appreciate the opportunity to provide that information.

Sincerely, ARCHIE KLEINGARTNER,

Vice President.

Mr. JA VITS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ator from :New York. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I would

like to ask Senator CRANSTON a few questions about this matter. It troubles me deeply because it is a fact that arbitration is not yet mandatory. Maybe it never will be in respect to labor disputes.

Also, it is a fact that we are still in a real twilight zone as to Government employees and whether or not we are going beyond, that is, into codified law and make public employees limited in their labor activities so they may not strike.

The courts will do that. They are enjoined where it deals with public health and safety. But we have not yet codified the law on this subject.

This is in an appropriation bill, a codification of law in a twilight area. I do not agree with my colleagues that this involves the basic question as to whether we are going to compel compulsory arbitration on labor. as such.

Mr. CRANSTON. One correction. This is an authorization bill, not an appropriation.

2·2364 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977

Mr. JAVITS. Excuse me. But it is not a labor bill. It is a peripheral bill and deals with a labor subject.

I have read the letter of Senator WILLIAMS, chairman of the committee on which I am the ranking minority member; that is why I am on my feet in respect to this matter. Moreover, I have a deep s·olicitude for the labor situation in our country.

Does the Senator from California agree with Senator WILLIAMS, who says at page 66 of the committee report:

The employees iat the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are not classified as federal employees nor as private sector employees nor are they considered to be state employees under the laws of the State of Oalifornia.

Mr. CRANSTON. Yes. Mr. JAVITS. And then he goes on to

say: The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory em

ployees work on a wholly owned federal production facility and are paid exclusively out of federal funds. They thus comprise a unique classification of employees who are not covered by any labar laws.

Mr. CRANSTON. I agree with that statement also.

Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator then respond to this point:

I voted with the motion to table and my guess is, right now, that I shall stand with the committee. But I am disquieted about it. It is a fact we did not discuss this in committee. I did not know anything about it, and we have had no opportunity to analyze the law. I think Senator HATCH, a member of our committee, is perfectly right about that.

· Therefore, I would like to make this suggestion:

This measure will undoubtedly go to conference. I will propose to Chairman WILLIAMS that we endeavor to develop a policy position from the committee and, if not, I will communicate myself with the committee in the expectation that if we do have pronounced views on the subject, the conferees will give attention to those views.

I realize all the hazards and the independence of the conference. But I do not think that this issue, because it is a pretty drastic proposition, should be considered closed by what we do in this particular bill.

Will the Senator comment on that? I do not want to foul up what he is

trying to accomplish; that is why I would like his comment.

Mr. CRANSTON. It is a very constructive proposal that has been made by the distinguished Senator from New York. I would be delighted to work with him to implement it.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague. Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator. Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, if the

~enator will yield on that point, I think it lS unfortunate that the Senator from New Jersey was not aware, apparently, of the facts of the relationship between the employees and the State of California.

Those facts are set forth in letters from the State of California which were made part of the record and figured in the debate earlier.

I just repeat for the information of the Senator from New York that a letter signed by David S. Saxon, President of the University of California Systemwide Administration, makes this statement, in his letter addressed to the Honorable HENRY M. JACKSON, dated July 6, as follows:

As you know, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory employees are University of California employees subject to applicable State of California statute (the State Employee's Organization Act) regarding employee relations for University of California employees.

A similar statement was made by the academic and staff personnel relations office of the vice president, Archie Kleingartner of the University of California, in which he also says that these employees are employees ,of the State of California. That letter is dated July 8, 1977, also addressed to Senator JACKSON as chairman of the committee.

There is also the letter of ERDA, signed by .Mr. Livermore acting for Robert Fri. That letter is dated July 8, and ERDA makes this statement:

The University of California is an agency of the State of California. Relationships between the university and its employees are regulated ,by California State law.

So both the Federal agency and the responsible State agency make a flat assertion contrary to that of the Senator from New Jersey that these people ;a.re employees of the State of California.

Mr. JAVITS. May I say to my colleague that I did not know about these letters, nor about the controversy. I do not pretend to what I do not know anything about. But I see enough in it to warrant consideration, certainly by me, and hopefully by the Human Resources Committee.

I am a Senator, I have to vote yea or nay, but I can vote against this committee on this issue at this time.

But knowing the processes around here, and with the assurance I have had from Senator CRANSTON, I believe, if we have reason to feel this is really something flagrant, that we can get to do something about it notwithstanding the passage of this bill.

Mr. McCLURE. If the Senator will yield further, certainly I recognize the possibilities that are inherent in our processes, particularly in conference with the other body.

The Senator from New York knows much better than I, however, that if there is an identical provision in the House bill when it is passed and comes to the Senate, that matter is not before the conference.

Mr. JAVITS. I realize that. 'Mr. McCLURE. If, as a matter of fact,

the House takes action the same as now being taken by the Senate, it would be beyond the ability of the conferees to effect that.

Mr. JA VITS. I understand. But this is an authorization bill. We still have to go through appropriation. It has a limited period of life, and I still believe that we can effect the result, the finite result, depending on what we find to be the situation.

If it really is the monumental precedent Senators say it is-and I cannot accept that yet--! feel we will find a way to do something about it if we consider it sufficiently flagrant.

Mr. McCLURE. Let me say to the Senator from New York that I certainly welcome that commitment on his part. As I have said before, I am not a labor lawyer. I know that the Senator from New York is very able and very learned in this area, and as he digs into it he may find reasons to be as concerned as the junior Senator from California and the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. JAVITS. The Senator from Idaho is an able labor lawyer. When I walked into the Chamber, he alerted me to this, and he took it very seriously.

I am not one given to hiding what I believe, so I have stated openly and frankly how I voted, why I voted, and what Lvoted, and what I believe we can and should do.

I assure the Senator, without any commitments, because they are not necessary, that this is a matter worthy of being looked into; and I will make it my responsibility to look into it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Sena tor yield?

Mr. JAVITS. I yield. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I should

like to praise the distinguished senior Senator from New York, the ranking minority member of the Human Resources Committee, for his earnest viewpoint here today, and for his usual candid observations concerning the matter.

Although I will vote for Senator HAYAKAWA's amendment at this point, · because of my belief that this should have come through the Human Resources Committee and we should have had testimony and many other analyses performed before this departure from the labor laws of this country occurs, I will cooperate in every way, assuming that the amendment is rejected, in doing everything I can to facilitate this matter and to assist the Senator from New York, my good friend and colleague, in the evaluation of this matter.

Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague very much.

I yield to my friend from California, Who is also a member of the committee.

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I reiterate what I said in the course of the earlier debate, that ,among my concerns which have not been expressed by others is a concern as a former university president, knowing of the relationships between the university, the Federal Government, and the State government and its employee organizations.

One of the great problems we have in the university is whether or not we can run it ourselves without undue interf erence from outside agencies. One of the great problems in university governance, as I know from my personal experience in the past several years, is the fact that Federal intrusions into matters of university governance sometimes have helped but more often have complicated our problems.

Employees of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, as fully expressed by the distinguished Senator from Idaho in his


quotations from ~etters he _has :eceived from the University of Callforma headquarters, are fully covered as _stat~ employees, employees of the Umversi~Y. of California, and therefore, are ehg.ible members of State employee organizations, as were the people who received Federal money on my staff at San Francisco State University, which also had Federal money. However, they were employees of San Francisco State University and were able to join, and did _join, employee organizations and negotiated with the administration in that way.

If we have this additional step, intruding the Federal Go:vernment into what is already an established and normal operating procedure in settling grievances between emp~oyeE:s and ~e administration at the Umversity of California, in the State university system, and at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, it seems to me that this whole business is superogatory.

The reason I have offered the amendment in the form I have done is essentially to preserve the essence of what my distinguished colleague from California has wanted, and that is an impartial grievance procedure to be established, w'hich I think will be established by State law anyway, and to guarantee that we enforce that without adding complexities that will interfere with the ordinary lawful and thoroughly thought-out relations between the State government and the universities.

Mr. JA VITS. I thank our colleagues for that explanation.

Mr. President, all I rose to state is that I will vote with the committee. I voted with them on the last matter, and I will vote with them on this one.

However, with the concurrence of Senator CRANSTON, I am going to look into this matter, and I am going to enlist the committee to look into it, to see if something is happening here that should not happen, that we do what is appropriate. That is the most we can do-at least, the most I can do-under these circumstances.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the issue that underlies the debate on the pending amendment is no different from the issue we voted upon when we tabled the earlier amendment. Therefore, I have nothing further to add to the debate.

However, I think it would be appropriate to include in the RECORD at this point a telegram addressed to Senator ALAN CRANSTON by the director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, in support of retaining title Vin the pending bill, and the letter sent by Chairman WILLIAMS of the Committee on Human Resources, dated June 27, 1977, addressed to the Honorable HENRY M. JACKSON, in which he takes no exception to the retention of title V in the bill.

I ask unanimous consent to have those items printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, D.C., June 27, 1977. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, U .S. Senate, Washington, D .C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Recently, as Chair

man of the Committee on Human Resources,

I have received inquiries concerning my views on subjecting the Livermore Laboratory to certain provisions of the National Labor Reiations Act. In response to these inquiries I wish to state that I would not oppose an amendment to the ERDA Appropriations Act which would grant certain of these rights to employees of the University of California at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

Normally matters of this type would fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Human Resources. However, this situation presents specific and unique circumstances. The employees at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are not classified as federal employees nor as private sector employees nor are they considered to be state employees under the laws of the State of California. The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory employees work on a wholly owned federal production facility and are paid exclusively out of federal funds. They thus comprise a unique classification of employees who are not covered by any labor laws.

It is my understanding that the amendment pending before your Committee would correct this unique situation and is, in my opinion, an appropriate way to help establish a stable labor system at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Handling this matter through the proposed amendment in this single unique instance would thus not impinge on the jurisdiction of the Human Resources Committee over state and local public employees, and I would therefore have no objection to your Committee adopting the proposed amendment for this one extraordinary situation.

With every good wish, I am Sincerely,

HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, Jr., Chairman.

Senator ALAN CRANSTON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

The California Department of Industrial Relations supports amendment to ERDA authorization bill which would establish grievance procedures and arbitratll.on for employees of the Livermore Lawrence Laboratory.

DONALD VIAL, Director, California Department of

Industrial Relations.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to lay on the table-

Mr. RANDOLPH addressed the Chair. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I will

withhold the motion in order to accommodate the Senator from West Virginia. I yield to him for such comment as he may wish to make.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPARKMAN). The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I thank the able manager of the bill.

Mr. President, with Senator JAVITS in the Chamber, I should like to clarify the matter for myself-I am not certain that others need the clarification-because I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber at the time of the last rollcall vote. I have been trying to acquaint myself with the issue. I am doing it especially from the standpoint of the Committee on Human Resources, on which the Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITs), the Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON), and I serve at the present time.

Was this matter ever discussed in the Human Resources Committee?

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I do not know of any discussion about it. I must be careful in saying that, because, naturally, I was not there every moment.

Apparently Senator WILLIAMS wrote a letter which is in the committee report, in which he pretty much signed off on it, on the ground that it was a unique situation.

Senator HAYAKAWA, Senator HATCH, and Senator McCLURE feel that it sets a very bad example. It is really not a precedent. It is not that big a deal. It involves several thousand employees. But it is an example of government arbitration in a Government employee situation.

This Senator because he is senior to all the Democrats on the committee other than the chairman, realizes that that is a twilight zone. We have not done that as yet. Naturally, they are using that as a reason why we should strike it out.

My point is that I cannot _go ag_ainst the committee which is dealing with a situation requiring greater research, and so on. But I do think they raise a point which is important enough that we should take a hard look at it. If we see there is something really offensive happening, we will find ways-whether . or not it is in conference here--to deal with it as a labor matter. Senator CRANSTON concurred in that.

I just stated that ·I would stand with the committee and why, but that I would not let the matter end at that point. I did think we should take a hard look at it.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I associated myself with the thinking of the senator from New York. That will. be the position I must take on the comm.g vote.

Mr. JAVITS. That will be very helpful. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the

Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I have

the floor. I have taken the floor for the purpose of making a motion to tabl~. We have discussed twice the same thmg. I have the floor, and my purpose is to move to table. We have discussed this fully .. We have many more amendments to consider today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr CHURCH. For what purpose? Mr: HATCH. For one statement on this

matter. Mr. CHURCH. Very well. . Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I pomt

out to all three of my colleagues on the the Western Union telegram from the California Department of Industrial Relations, it states that it "suopo~ts ~he amendment to the ERDA authonzation bill which would establish grievance procedures and arbitration for emuloyees of the Livermore Lawrence Laboratory." Nothing more.

The amendment of the Senator from California at this point does exactly that. In other words, it grants the grievance procedures, and it strikes out all the other extensions of labor law that are not requested by the State of California. I j~t want to point that out so that my dIStinguished colleagues who understand this area so well will have that bit of knowledge.


Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. CRANSTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that one moment?

Mr. CHURCH. Yes, I will withhold. Mr. McCLURE. It is customary on

Tuesday for the Republicans to have a conference luncheon, and it is also customary that the courtesy is extended to that body that it not be interrupted by rollcalls. I have made that request of both the floor manager and of the assistant majority leader, and both insist that the roll call be held now.

I ask unanimous consent, if they do not object, that the pending rollcall be withheld until the hour of 2 o'clock, at which time the Senator from Idaho <Mr. CHURCH) would be recognized to make the motion to table, and during that period of time we could consider other amendments and lay this one aside temporarily.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I am trying to conform with the desires of the majority leader. He has urged me repeatedly to move ahead with the legislation today in view of the fact we have many other amendments and now we are for a second time voting on the same amendment.

I am only following the directions of the majority leader. They have been reaffirmed by the assistant majority leader. For that reason I think we should proceed to a vote at this time.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, does the Senator object to my unanimousconsent request?

Mr. CHURCH. I am obliged to object to it.

Mr. McCLURE. I am obliged to make the request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.


The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

ouestion is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Idaho to lay on the table the amendment (No. 639) of the Senator from Calif omia. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.


Senator from South Dakota (Mr. ABOUREZK), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. ANDERSON), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE), are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from ·Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE) . would vote "yea."

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT)' is absent due to illness.


[Rollca.ll Vote No. 277 Leg.] YEAS-57

Bayh Gravel Bentsen Hart Bid en Haskell Brooke Hathaway Bumpers Heinz Burdick Huddleston Byrd, Robert c. Humphrey Cannon Inouye case Jackson Chiles Javits Church Johnston Clark Kennedy Cranston Long Culver Magnuson De Concini Mathias Durkin Matsunaga Eagleton McGovern Ford Mcintyre Glenn Melcher

Allen Baker Bellman Byrd,

HarryF., Jr. Cha.fee Curtis Danforth Dole Domenici Eastland Garn Goldwater

NAY8-37 Griffin Hansen Hatch Hatfle:d Hayakawa He!ms Hollings Laxalt Lugar McClellan McClure Morgan Moynihan

Metcalf Metzenbaum Muskie Nelson Nunn Pell Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Sar banes Sasser Sparlmnan Stafford Stennis Stevenson Stone Weicker Williams Zorinsky

Packwood Pearson Percy Roth Schmitt Schweiker Scott Stevens Thurmond Tower Wallop Young

NOT VOTING-6 Abourezk Bartlett Riegle Anderson Leahy Talmadge


Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON. I move to lay that inotion on the table.



Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I send such an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.



The !Senator from California (Mr. HAYAKAWA) proposes an nnprinted amendment numbered 640.

Page 22, line 11, strike the period and insert in lieu thereof the following: "Provided however that no employee rights or activities shall be guaranteed in such contract which would be in violation of the law of the State of California."

Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to make title V subject to California law. As I have said earlier, I have been very much worried as to possible conflict, overlap, or inconsistency between Federal and State law in this regard. I have discussed this amendment, which will make title V subject to California law, with my distinguished friend and colleague (Mr. CRANSTON). He has indicated he is willing to accept it. It is not my wish, the ref ore, to delay the consideration of this amendment any further.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is no objection to this amendment on our side and without hearing any we would be glad to accept it. I yield to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. CRANSTON. I would like to say that after opposing my colleague on his earlier two amendments. I am delighted to support him on this one and do recommend that it be accepted.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, there is no objection to the amendment on this side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr . . CHILES). The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT NO . 495

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.



Tho Senator from South Dakota. (Mr. McGovERN), for himself, Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DURKIN, Mr. ABOUREZK, Mr. GRAVEL, and Mr. McINTYRE, proposes an amendment numbered 495.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows: On page 22, after line 11, insert the follow

ing: TITLE VI-RADIOACTIVE WASTE STOR

AGE FACILITIES SEC. 601. Section 107 of the Energy Reor

ganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5817) ls amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(g) (1) The Administrator must notify (and publish such notice in the Federal Register) the presiding officers of the various chambers, where applicable, of a State legislature of its intent to explore a site in such State for the purpose of construction of a radioactive waste storage faclllty·.

"(2) The Administrator shall not permit contracting for or construction o! a radioactive waste storage facility at a site ,in a State where the State legislature of such State by joint or concurrent resolution or by law, or in States with a unicameral legislature by single resolution, states that the site shall not be used for such purpose.

"(3) The .Administrator shall not permit contracting for or construction of a radioactive waste storage faclllty at a site in a State where, by statewide referendum in such State, such use for such site has been disapproved.".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this the amendment on which there is a time limitation of 1 hour?

Mr. McGOVERN. That is correct, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on my own behalf and on behalf of Senators LEAHY, HASKELL, ABOUREZK, GRAVEL, RIEGLE, MCINTYRE, and DuRKIN.

The purpose is to allow a State legislature or the people of a State to express their judgment by resolution or referendum, respectively, on the construction of a nuclear waste facility within that State. The reason for acknowledging this particular public right is inherent in the unique dangers involved in disposing of


radioactive materials in an area where the decaying process is so slow that radiation damage possibilities must be considered infinite.

In February of 1976, the National Journal reported that a solution to the problem of nuclear waste was "nowhere in sight." The same opinions are being voiced today, more than a year later.

Some wastes last for 1,000 years, while other kinds of radioactive wastes remain lethal for over 200,000 years. And the different types of wastes cannot be separated out. Millions of gallons of nuclear wastes are sitting in temporary storage tanks around the country waiting for technology to come up with a solution. By the year 2000, it is estimated that 330,000 cubic feet of commercial nuclear power wastes will have accumulated. This, of course, must be added to the 11 million cubic feet of military wastes. As the problem grows, we continue to produce these wastes and get more desperate for a solution. Residents in an area that may be affected have a right to participate in the decision process even though the-nuclear industry has billions of dollars riding on our professed ability to solve the nuclear waste problem.

The history of nuclear waste disposal presents a rather sorry picture, indeed. The Government and the industry have constantly tossed the issue back and forth with no clear· resolution coming forth. The 500,000-gallon accident, comprised of more than 20 separate leaks, at the Hanford Reservation; the 700-gallon leak of high-level wastes at the Savannah plant; and the countless low-level leaks at Maxey Flats, all point to the truth in a 1966 National Academy of Sciences report on nuclear wastes, that "considerations of long-range safety are in some instances subordinate to regard for economy of operation."

Such a history demands that the States now being considered for potential permanent waste repositories be given extra assurances that the solutions now being suggested will actually solve the problem, and that they will not simply be another in the series of claimed solutions which led to disaster or near disaster-only to be relabled "temporary" and "interim" solutions.

In 1975, ERDA inherited the responsibility of recommending and carrying out the Nation's waste management policy. This responsibility is overwhelming . because without success, the potential for major development of nuclear energy comes to a halt, or even worse, it means that the long list of disposal failures will continue. It is apparent that this effort must be a united effort by both the Federal and State governments.

ERDA, in its December 1976 announcement of expanded data gathering for potential sites for geologic nuclear waste disposal from commercial sources, was careful to include in each phase consultation with State and local officials. This announcement stated flatly that ERDA ."will terminate a particular repository site selection project if the State raises issues of the project connected with selection criteria, and their application, that are not resolved through mutually acceptable procedures."

ERDA has carefully outlined State and local inclusion in the decisionmaking process for site selection; for example:

The expanded ERDA geologic study program is designed to proceed on a phased basis, enlisting review and cooperation by local and state officials, as well as by other Federal agencies. Public forums to discuss the program and to obtain local advice will be conducted in areas of the geologic surveys.

Public hearings on the generic as well as on the specific impact statements will be conducted as appropriate.

There will be a period for substantial public discussion of relevant concerns.

ERDA recognizes the need and will provide the opportunity for the public to participate in each phase of the National Terminal Storage Program.

B 1sed on envir,onmental analyses and other technical data developed in the interim, ERDA, in consultation with state officials, will re-evaluate the candidate site.

But the final statement directed to the third phase of the procedure simply states that--

ERDA will make a decision regarding the location of a repository.

It would seem that with all of the previous care that has been taken to include State and local officials and the general public, all of the involved would be willing to accept ERDA's decision; however, why not take that mutual effort to its logical conclusion and allow the States to have a part in that final decision? They will have worked together throughout, ERDA has stated that they would terminate over unresolved disagreements, ERDA has given Governors verbal assurances that they would have a part in the final decisionwhy then would we deny them the recognition of that assurance? Why not instead express our trust and support for them by affirming the fact that legislatures or the people of a State have a right if they wish to exercise it to approve or to veto, by resolution or referendum, the construction of a nuclear waste facility within that State?

Without this amendment, ERDA is already facing action taken by a growing number of States. Twenty-six States have passed or initiated legislation directed at allowing themselves some control over nuclear waste facilities. By confirming the right to act in the final site selection, ERDA may avoid the tremendous amount of resistance to placement of the six planned repositories in specific areas. ERDA has worked to coordinate efforts during each phase; it would be disastrous to promote bitterness, delay, and unresolved fears by excluding the States from the final decision.

The site selection time is approaching very rapidly, and I firmly believe that with this amendment, the process may proceed with even greater care, with more trust, and :finally with the sense that this is a national problem that needs a united effort in reaching a solution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a "dear colleague" letter, dated July 7, 1977, pertaining to this amendment, and signed by the cosponsors, be printed in the RECORD at this point.


WASHINGTON, D.C., July 7, 1977. Re: S. 1811 ERDA nuclear authorization.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: The Senate is expected to take up consideration of S . 1811 next week, and we intend to submit an amendment

which will allow a state legislature or the people of a state to veto-by resolution or referendum, respectively-construction of a nuclear waste facility within that state.

The need for such an addition to the Energy Reorganization Act has become very apparent as state after state has taken legislative action to allow themselves to be a part of any decision to place such a repository within their borders.

Those of us who are representatives from states that have laws or pending legislation which restricts the construction of nuclear waste repositories know the seriousness that is accorded that possibility. Citizens in South Dakota, Vermont and Michigan, as well as ten other states, examined the history of nuclear waste disposal and found few assurances of total safety-and to accept anything less is imperceivable. Other states with whole or partial restrictions that have passed or are under consideration are Montana, Minnesota, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Oregon, West Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine and New Mexico.

The documented history of accidents in temporary nuclear storage facilities combined with plans for additional sources has brought about the need for ERDA to concentrate on permanent underground waste storage sites. They are conducting geological studies around the country in search of sites for repositories. The major criterion in this search is ,that the site should be "geologically stable," but the local populations must be assured that this site is going to 'I'emain "stable" until the wastes lose ·their radioactivity-which will be at least 200,000 years.

,Meanwhile, the pressure is building for a permanent repository. The current "interim" and "temporary" fac111ties are scheduled to be replaced in 1985, which is when the new, permanent, "geologically stable" repository will take over. If unforeseen problems occur in the site selection or construction, no alternate dates have been set. Further, there won't be any time to test the facility; its initial use will be the actual test period. The states under consideration for the facility have perceived that this is not much of a dry run for a repository which is supposed to come with a 200,000 year guarantee.

With this in mind, we are offering this amendment which would counteract the possibility that site selection and waste treatment will be based on expediency rather than on a thorough review of the possible dangers to a local population. If the Energy Resea,rch and Development Administration's plans are as safe as they are claimed to be, then there should be no problem convincing state legislatures and communities that this is so. We believe that the amendment would provide a greater incentive to avoid the mistakes of the past, to give priority to waste management, but avoid the possibility of sacrificing security for a set time schedule-at the expense of generations to come.

This bill would in no way interfere with ERDA as it continues its studies which should lead to a suitable solution. However, ERDA's decision should be subject to question and, ultimately, to veto if justified, by either the people of a state or their elected representatives.

If you would like additional information or would like to co-sponsor this amendment, please contact Mary Crosby at 4-2321, Theresa Brady at 4-8851, or Judy Heffner at 4-4242.

Sincerely, GEORGE McGOVERN, PATRICK J. LEAHY,

FLOYD K . HASKELL, DONALD W. RIEGLE, ,TR., JAMES ABOUREZK, and MIKE GRAVEL.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.


Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.


Mr. SCHMITT. I thank the· distinguished Senator.

Mr. President, I believe most New Mexicans, if they had time to become informed about this particular issue, would have deep concern over the loss of State prerogatives if such prerogatives were in fact usurped by the Federal Government.

I have voted on many occasions to insure that State prerogatives are retained-unsuccessfully, I am sorry to say, in many of those cases. However, in the case of nuclear waste, we are dealing with a truly national issue. I think the people of New Mexico are beginning to realize that.

The impact of this amendment is not known. It could be much more significant than the vote we had yesterday on the breeder reactor. There are a number of areas of unknown impact. I strongly recommend that, prior to any enactment of legislation of this kind, we have extensive hearings on this national issue of nuclear waste.

The discussion of national energy requirements, despite the inability of the present energy policy of this country and the proposed policy by the administration to meet those requirements, is going to include the disposal of nuclear waste. We have no other alternative, but to dispose of it. Commercial plants now exist that are producing radioactive waste. Military high level radioactive waste at the present time is 10 times the amount of the commercial waste. They all must be disposed of.

My chief concern is based on the fact that ERDA is presently relied upon for siting nuclear waste disposal facilities. With the McGovern amendment the United States can get into a position where there is no guarantee that the Government can, in fact, dispose of the. wastes. The utilities would have even more uncertainty about where to store their existing waste temporarily. This would discourage new plant starts, increase the cost of temporary storage, and impose major restrictions on the increased use of nuclear fission energy.

There is some question about the constitutionality, with respect to State constitutions, of the wording of this amendment; that is, whether State veto can be accomplished by resolution in the legislatures or by a referendum. What is the role of the Governor in this particular process? We need hearings to allow the States to present their constitutional practices to determine if such an amendment is compatible with those practices.

There is a basic question of weapons waste disposal. That waste exists and it must be disposed of in some way. This amendment would, potentially, present the dilemma of not being able to dispose of it. We need hearings in order to look at that problem in great detail.

There is ·the question of temporary storage. That is a major cost factor, at the present time, in nuclear plants. It would become an even greater cost factor if this amendment were agreed to.

There is also the question of what waste should be included; specifically, the question of low level wastes, which are presently not ERDA's siting responsibility. Should these be included in a broad national policy? This should be discussed in hearings in great detail.

There is the question, also, of what type of land a national waste disposal policy should involve. Should it involve private, State, and Federal lands all together? Should the States only have the right of veto on their own lands? I do not believe this has been discussed in anything like the detail required.

It may be that one alternative to provide for the national interest is to have a Presidential override. Should the President have the authority, if it is in the national interest, to override the State veto if, in fact, no adequate disposal site is available? I do not know the answer to that. I do not have an opinion on that. It is just one of the many issues which should be discussed in a series of hearings. I think those hearings must be held.

There are these and other issues, as well as the question of whether we are, in fact, pursuing the right course in nuclear waste disposal. We have committed ourselves, almost completely, to a terrestrial geological disposal option. There are many indications that that would be an adequate choice. However, we have not explored ·the use of the oceans, of isotope separation, of transmutation, or of space for waste disposal. These alternatives, including the most recent advancements, must be explored before there is a final national policy on this critical issue.

Mr. President, .I hope that my colleagues will, in fact, vote either to table or reject this amendment. The time is much too_ premature for this kind of action.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Dakota yield for a question?

Mr. McGOVERN. Yes, I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. HART. I was wondering what the legal constitutional effect of the Senator's amendment would be on the right of the State to prohibit the disposal of nuclear waste on federally owned property in that State.

Mr. McGOVERN. The effect of the amendment would relate to the -borders of the States, so it would include Federal property as well as State property.

Mr. HART. Is it the Senator's opinion, then, that the State does have jurisdiction over the Federal property within its boundaries for this purpose?

Mr. McGOVERN. It would if this amendment passes, as far as nuclear waste facilities are concerned. The amendment makes no exception for Federal property within a State. The Senator's question suggests that that might be subjected to a constitutional interpretation. Perhaps it would, but, as the amendment now states, it makes no such exception.

Mr. HART. Is the Senator aware of any constitutional law on this subject, as to whether Congress has, in fact, the authority to delegate a State power over federally owned property?

Mr. McGOVERN. I am not. Mr. HART. I thank the Senator. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. JOHNSTON) be added as a cosponsor to this amend-

ment.


Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Vermont <Mr. LEAHY), a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly

on the need for this amendment, of which I am a cosponsor.

Many citizens harbor serious doubts about the safety of our current generation of reactors, and are still more wary of the potential dangers posed by the next, more complicated generation.

An even more immediate concern focuses on the problems involving disposal of nuclear waste. The findings of a recent Harris poll confirm the seriousness with which the public views the radioactive waste problem. According to this poll, 67 percent express the view that-

The disposal of radioactive waste materials which remain radioactive for many centuries to come ls a major problem.

The concern is so great in my own State of Vermont that, in a series of town meeting votes earlier this year, more than 30 Vermont towns approved proposals to ban construction of nuclear facilities, atomic waste storage, and transportation of atomic wastes within their boundaries.

The Vermont General Assembly has also enacted legislation that would prohibit construction of a facility for the deposit, storage, reprocessing, or disposal of spent nuclear fuel elements or high level radioactive waste materials without its approval. Nine other States, including Michigan, South Dakota, and Colorado, have enacted or are considering similar restrictions on the construction of nuclear waste repositories.

Earlier this year, I introduced legislation which would give the States a role in the decisionmaking process over the selection of waste storage facilities. The bill would require the Energy Research and Development Administration to publicly notify the presiding officers of a State legislature of its intent to explore a site in that State for the purpose of constructing a radioactive waste storage facility. It would also forbid ERDA from contracting for construction of a radioactive waste storage facility at a site in a State where the State legislature, by joint or concurrent resolution, disapproved.

Mr. President, while I share the concern of my fellow Vermonters and others who have expressed serious reservations about nuclear power, I also realize that we may be forced to resort to this power source in some measure until we can enact the proper environmental and safety standards and acquire the necessary physical plant to make coal a major option. Solar energy and other alternative sources will play an increasingly important role, but they cannot take up all of the slack in the immediate future.

A safe means of disposal for these long-lived, high-level radioactive wastes must be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt before the further expansion of nuclear power should be undertaken. ERDA concurred in this view in the overview of their national waste terminal storage program issued last December. A coordinated, responsible, and responsive management of this effort must also

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22369 be demonstrated by those responsible for its implementation. Neither has been forthcoming.

The ERDA report went on to outline the basic program objectives, which included provision of terminal storage facilities for commercial radioactive waste at multiple locations throughout the country; establishment of such facilities in a time frame that assures nuclear power as a viable energy option; and assurance that these facilities provide for the safe disposition of commercial radioactive waste.

The report also stressed the need for intergovernmental coordination and public participation in each phase of the program. A "working relationship" between ERDA and State officials would be established; ERDA would confer with the Governors on potential regions of study· in the State. State officials would be kept informed of the data collection progress and study results. ERDA would even confer with State officials regarding the geologic study areas identified in the initial phase and obtain their recommendations as to which areas should be studied first, and would be consulted regarding the selection of candidate repository sites. But ERDA has also stated that it will make the final decision regarding the location of the repository.

Who will be consulted? And by whom? How and when will this consultation take place? Will there be public meetings? Will the Governor be consulted in a pro forma meeting after the actual site selection has taken place? What mechanisms will be provided for citizen or governmental input? Because ERDA has stated that it will make the final decision, where is the guarantee that citizen or legislature will have an opportunity to make their feelings known or have a voice in the final selection?

Mr. President, the outlines of ERDA's plan are just that, outlines. They are disturbingly vague for a program that professes to be "up front" and open. I might remind my colleagues, too, that Congress has never taken any action specifically relating to high-level radioactive waste disposal other than to pass appropriations legislation.

With this in mind, we are offering this amendment, which would counteract the possibility that site selection and waste treatment will be based on expediency rather than on a thorough review of the possible dangers to a local population. It would allow a State legislature or the people of a State to veto-by resolution or referendum, respectively-construction of a nuclear waste facility within that State. If the Energy Research and Development Administration's plans are as safe as they are claimed to be, then there should be no problem convincing State legislatures and communities that this is so. We believe that the amendment would provide a greater incentive to avoid the mistakes of the past, to give priority to waste management, but avoid the possibility of sacrificing security for a set time schedule at the expense of generations to come.

Even if we never build another facility capable of producing radioactive waste, we will still have to deal with high-level

CXXIII--1408-Part 18

waste being generated by ERDA programs at the rate of 7 .5 million gallons a year, and the estimated 60 million gallons of liquid high-level waste that the commercial nuclear power industry in the United States will have generated by the year 2000. In addition, existing military radioactive waste alone is approximately 215 million gallons of liquid waste.

This bill would in no way interfere with ERDA as it continues its studies, which should lead to a suitable solution. However, ERDA's decision should be subject to question and, ultimately, to veto if justified, by either the people of the State or their elected representatives.

Mr. President, by introducing this amendment, we are not trying to turn back the clock or deny Vermont or any other State an adequate future energy supply. We are merely putting those responsible for the safe disposal of our atomic waste on notice that, until they have demonstrated their grasp of this serious problem, to the public's satisfaction-and I am not convinced that they have--the people of this country will have the power to veto what may be dumped in their own backyard.

I yield back to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, how much time remains to the opposition?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opposition has 9 minutes remaining.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.

First of all, I can understand the need for State governments to have a more significant role in determining questions relating to nuclear waste within their own jurisdiction. I remember, some years ago, when I inquired into the ways that the Atomic Energy Commission, at that time, was storing certain kinds of wastes at the national reactor testing station in Idaho.

I found that the wastes were being stored over the subterranean aquifer which supplies the water to the Snake River on which most of the lives of the people of southern Idaho depend.

That problem is not yet resolved. The controversy that ensued led the Atomic Energy Commission to make improvements in the method of storage. But the waste material is still located over the aquifer.

The difficulty that I have with the Senator's amendment is partly procedural. We have not had the hearings required to properly determine how to handle problems of this proportion. We need such hearings, and I would be the first to agree that neither the Atomic Energy Commission nor ERDA have yet satisfactorily solved the problem of waste disposal.

In going forward with such hearings we should consider not only what the Federal role will be, but what the proper role of State and local governments ought to be.

However, I think it would be a serious mistake to adopt this amendment in its present form.

Radioactive waste storage facilities, subject to a State veto, would refer to low level and high level wastes.

The bill would permit States to veto the construction of any new waste tank.

Now, consider what that means. Take, for example, the reactor in the State of Minnesota to which my attention was recently called. Existing reactors have waste storage tanks for the spent fuel rods. This particular reactor needs to extend that waste storage facility to accommodate additional rods.

If we were to pass such an amendment and the State legislature were to refuse permission, then we could create a new and serious health hazard by overcrowding the present storage facility or, alternatively, force the closure of the plant.

As this amendment is written, radioactive waste storage facilities will affect the entire weapons program of the country, and thus entail the most serious considerations for national security.

The weapons program cannot go forward without additional waste facilities properly built. This, necessarily, is a decision that the Federal Government must make in the national interest, and one that cannot be properly subjected to the veto of individual States.

So I say to the Senator from South Dakota, my good friend with whom I am seldom in disagreement, that as much as I appreciate the need to formulate an adequate program to handle waste management in the nuclear field, and as much as I believe that the States ought to have a role along with the Federal Government in the implementation of such a program, this amendment is premature. It is designed in such a way that if taken and enforced literally it would bring a halt to the entire nuclear program, both the civilian program and the military program, in this country.

There is no way that the language of this amendment could be applied without that effect.

Mr. McGOVERN. If the Senator will yield on that point, is the Senator assuming that all of the States would automatically cast a veto over the location of nuclear waste facilities in their States?

The amendment does not call for that. It gives the State the option either of approving or vetoing.

It seems to me the thrust of the Senator's argument as I understand it really is that the public opposition is so strong that every State would automatically veto the location of such a facility.

Mr. CHURCH. I do not know what the decision of every State might be. That is part of the mischief of this amendment. We are legislating without knowing the effects of the legislation by subjecting a national policy to the veto of individual States. We are doing it in a manner which affects not only the civilian reactor program pertaining to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but also our military program, because both entail the necessity for new waste facilities.

I could best answer the question by quoting from my good friend the Senator from Arkansas, who said in committee, as I recall, that although he could not support this amendment, he thought the National Government should have the overriding say where national interests

'22370 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977

were concerned, as long as they did not locate any waste facilities in Arkansas.

I am just afraid that if that is the approach we are going to take, that is the answer we are going to get, and it is one that we simply cannot live with.

Mr. McGOVERN. If the Senator will yield further just for a brief point, a moment ago the Senator from Colorado asked me if there was any precedent involved in the constitutional history for a State having a right to overrule the Federal Government in an area involving Federal land.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from the attorney general of the State of Michigan, Mr. Kelley, the Governor of that State, dated April 21, which does, in fact, cite a number of Supreme Court cases where the States were, in fact, upheld in their right to make such judgments.

I do that simply so that the record will be clear that this is not an unprecedented measure.


STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,

April 21, 1977. Hon. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor, The Capitol, Lansing, Mich.

DEAR GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I am writing in response to your recent letter regarding my views on Michigan's legal position regarding a federal proposal to establish a nuclear waste disposal site in this state. In summary, it is my judgment that, by adoption of appropriate legislation, the state may prevent location of a nuclear waste disposal facility in Michigan.

My research 9f the law discloses that, while the State does not have the legal power to prevent the federal government from acquiring land in Michigan, we can draw an effective environmental defense line at the proposed use of land, for this purpose.

My staff has developed a proposed package of legislation on this subject based upon the legal analysis set forth below. I have asked Solomon Bienenfeld to coordinate this matter for me and suggest that appropriate persons on your staff contact Mr. Bienenfeld to discuss specific statutory language.

Any discussion of this issue must begin with the observation that this is an area of law in which there is no clear answer available to us . Predictably, the Federal Lawyers take an aggressive position saying that the Federal Government has power which is preemptive. Too often, such questions have been determined in other states by default. The states' laiwyers have failed in many instances to challenge this claim of federal supremacy. This jurisdiction by default is not a reflection on the competency of the attorneys general of other states, but is rather a reflection of the complexity of these state and federal constitutional questions and the fact that such questions have .not been treated by legal scholars or teachers in any definitive sense for a generation. I, as Attorney General of Michigan , am prepared to litigate the question. I believe that their are good sound policy and legal reasons why the court should reach a result other than total preemption. In all candor to you, however, I do not suggest that there is only one sound alternative available or that a particular result in such litigation is guaranteed.

The constitutional power of the Federal Government over property has two sources. The first is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,

of the Constitution of the United States. This clause has to do with the creation of the District of Columbia and certain other federal property over which, with the consent of the legislature of a state, the Federal Government has acquired the power of exclusive jurisdiction.

Under the traditional view, Article I , Clause 17, enclaves are viewed as havin,6 been excised from the territory of the State. Such enclaves are geographically removed from the territory of the State.

The second source of power arises from the language of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that the Congress shall have the power to make all "needful rules and regulations" respecting territory or other property belonging to the United States. Generally, this Article IV Clause applies to all property that is owned by the Federal Government including a great deal that is not covered by the Article 1, Clause 17, property clause, such as the Public Domain.

It has always been recognized that the Article IV property clause gives to the Federal Government all of the proprietary powers that a private landowner would have over his land. The difficult question, historically, is whether the United States has anything more than a private landowner and, if so, how much more. This is the question of governmental jurisdiction as distinguished from proprietorship . An ordinary landowner owns his land and has certain rights but the state has governmental jurisdiction over such land. A class question, much litigated with occasionally different results, is whether the state also has •Jovernmental jurisdiction over federal land even though the Federal Government has, title and the ;right to be an occupier of the land. The classic view of legal scholars was that the states, and not the Federal Government, have general governmental jurisdiction over Federally owned land within their boil"ders.

Thus, for example, in Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896) the United States Supreme Court held that Wyoming statutory law controlled hunting on federal land in the State of Wyoming, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of a Federal Treaty with certain Indian groups. The constitutional rationale behind this holding is the principle that the states cannot be denied their general governmental jurisdiction over federally owned land. As to the regulation of fish and game, Ward v. Race Horse still remains the basic case recognizing that ownership of fish and game is in the respective states regard~ess of whether the fish and ,6ame in question 1s located on federal lands.

In Kansas v. Colorado, 206 US 46 (1907), the United States Supreme Court, reflecting the traditional property power viewpoint said that feder.al rules for recl:a.mation of arid federally owned land would not override state reclamation laws.

In Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc., 411 US 325 (1973), the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court opinion that had held in valid an attempt by the State of Florida to control oil spill pollution by the shipping industry in waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the state of Florida. Even though there were specific Federal statutes on point, and even though the Congress had obviously a legitimate right to regul.ate interstate and international commerce by waterway, there w.as still legitimate room for regulation by the state.

In Huron Cement Co. v. The City of Detroit, 362 US 440 (1960). the United States Supreme Court held that the State of Michigan's interest in controlling air pollution justified controls over smoke pollution from federally licensed navigable vessels.

It is true that the United States Supreme Court, in a summary affirmative without de-

cision, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed a feder.al trial court decision that an effort by the State of Minnesota to control radiation effects from a nuclear power generating fac111ty was preempted by the atomic energy act. This decision, Northern States Power Company v. Minnesota, 447 F.2d 1143, aff 'd 405 US 1035 (1972), is app.arently the key precedent relied upon by the federal attorneys in arguing that Michigan is preempted from exercising any regulatory authority over the proposed atomic dump site. As I read this case, however, the decision is predicated upon a judicial finding of a compelling need for uniformity. The court was of the opinion th.at there were strong and Justifiable federal interests in assuring that the containment ,and equipment requirements for generating facilities be substantially identical from state to state. This is apparently predicated upon a Judicial finding th.at federal inspectors and monitors should be able to deal with ,atomic generating fac111ties as a class, rather than becoming mired in engineering idiosyncrasies of hundreds of different plants. Thus, an .attempt by the State of Minnesota to require different equipment and different operational practices for an atomic generating f:ac111ty located in Minnesota was an unreasonable interference with the subst.anti-al federal interest in uniformity. I do not perceive there to be any compelling federal interest in uniformity as between dump sites. Indeed, it is my understanding that such uniformity i.s impossible to achieve as between different dump sites due to the differing geological formations involved from site to site and state to state. Accordingly, I am not prepared to accept this precedent as leading to the conclusion th.at Michigan is without authority to regulate such a dump site.

In Colorado v. Toll, 268 US 228 ( 1925), which involved the Rocky Mountain National Park at a time before the State of Colorado had, by statute, ceded Jurisdiction over such parks, the Supreme Court held that the park administrator, acting pursuant to a Federal Statute giving him authority to administer the parks, could not act in violation of state law.

Similarly, in Wilson v. Cook, 327 US 474 (1946) , the United States Supreme Court held that the states have legislative authority over federally owned lands to the same extent that they have over similar property held by private owners.

There are different judicial theories which carve exceptions to the general principles I have so far stated. Thus, for example, in Hunt v. United States, 278 US 96 (1928), the United States Supreme Court held that in protecting federal property from harm, the Federal Government in certain circumstances enjoys somewhat greater power than a private landowner. I do not see this general protection concept as having any application to the issues involved in the location of an atomic dump site. Indeed, it would appear to me that an opposite principle would be recognized by the Court in any case involving a dump site. Since the State of Michigan unquestionably owns the wild animals and fishery resources which could be affected by the Federal Government's actions in any land which the Federal Government acquired for purposes of such a dump site, the State should have a legitimate interest in protecting its fishery and water resources from potential contamination.

You ask me in your letter to estimate our chances of successfully pursuing my theories of the law in court. I view our chances of success as substantially better if a reasonable attempt to regulate this type of facility is made by state statute. While I support your efforts to achieve a political solution to this problem by obtaining a federal agreement that they will honor your veto, as Attorney General I doubt that would


prevail in court based upon a political arrangement. If, however, I were in Federal Court defending the public policy of this state as embodied in a statute duly enacted by the legislature, I feel that our chances of success would be substantial.

Beyond my responsibilities as Attorney General, I feel a special concern about the location of this type of facility in Alpena where I lived for many happy years and which I served as City Attorney. I remain prepared to work with you and your staff to insure that any such project, if constructed anywhere which might affect the resources or people of Michigan, is constructed in con -formance with all appropriate state and federad standards upon a full, complete, and open review of all potential environmental impacts and implications.

Very truly yours, FRANK J. KELLEY,

Attorney General.

Mr. CHURCH. I think the Senator is quite right, and I think the effect of his amendment would be a congressional declaration delegating to the States the right to decide whether or not the nuclear energy program shall proceed.

Mr. McGOVERN. But which is a right that has been recognized in other areas, such as fishing and hunting rights, control of water pollution, and even one case involving the State of Colorado in an action versus the State of Kansas, which held that Federal rules for the reclamation of federally owned land would not override a State action in that field.

Mr. CHURCH. I remind the Senator that for years now we have been trying to find a permanent depository for the wastes we have already created. As yet, we have not found a State government that has been willing to accept that depository. I think that is a suggestion of what lies in store for the country if we adopt this amendment in its present form. The problems we face would be-come unsolvable. ·

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. McGOVERN. I would yield, but I have only 2 minutes left.

Mr. HART. I am sorry. Mr. McGOVERN. I promised the Sen

ator from Michigan I would yield. I would like to yield to the Senator from Colorado, but I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the Senat<;>r from Michigan.

Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. McGOVERN).

As a cosponsor of the amendment, I have come to realize that the disposal of nuclear waste presents the Congress and the Nation with a critical responsibility. In light of the highly toxic nature of the material which nuclear facilities are using and generating, and the enormously lengthy life span of these deadly wastes, we must find a permanent disposal system which does not jeopardize the environment and yet still meets the energy demands of the present. The need to manage the storage sites in the most efficient and safe manner requires that the legitimate interests of the people most

directly affected be considered. This is not done, under the present legal framework.

It must be noted that ERDA and NRC are presently under no legal obligation or direction to consult with, or even notify, localities and their residents in the consideration of construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility. The men and women whose homes, workplaces, and very lives are affected by the decisions of Washington bureaucrats have no influence on those vital decisions. This is not an equitable or a reasonable approach to the waste disposal issue.

A number of States have reacted to this unfair and unilateral decisionmaking process taking legislative action, requiring that they be a party to any decision to place a nuclear waste repository within their borders. In my own State of Michigan, the people of Alpena, Presque Isle, and Montmorency Counties, where ERDA is considering creating a nuclear waste dumping ground, voted 9 to 1 against having the ERDA site located in their area. In addition, the State Senate of Michigan passed a bill banning the future disposal of nuclear waste within the State. The Michigan House is currently considering the measure.

The House Subcommittee of Energy and Environment held hearings in Lansing and Alpena, Mich., last year which demonstrated the high level of citizen involvement and concern with the safety of the Government's plan. Citizens are worried and they want to be heard. Public interest groups including the League of Women Voters, the Public Interest Research Group of Michigan, and the Michigan United Conservation Club all stressed their desire for citizen participation in the planning process and their demand that the site chosen be as safe as possible.

Joining these citizen groups were members of the Michigan State Legislature, including Representatives Thomas Anderson, Dan Stevens, Lynn Jondahl and State Senator Robert Davis. Additionally, local technical experts and individual citizens were joined by U.S. Representatives CARR and RUPPE in expressing alarm over the procedures followed by the Federal Government in this program.

As an example of the failure of ERDA to insure the greatest degree of safety possible for this particular site selection and construction, it was discovered that the requirement for a thorough environment assessment, as mandated by the National Environment Policy Act, before drilling, had not been met at the Alpena site. Fortunately for the residents of the Alpena area drilling was halted.

The experience gained here caused Michigan's Governor to establish his own special t'lsk force on nuclear waste.

Several incidents point to the Federal Government's carelessness and lack of cooperation in dealing with the States in this field.

Salt formations, according to ERDA, provided the best storage beds for nuclear waste, as the formations prohibit migration by the toxic wastes back into the environment. But, in practice, this theory has been found wanting.

The salt mines studied in Lyon, Kans., in 1970 were found to ultimately be unsuitable and a potential health and safety hazard of great magnitude, after the local citizens protested AEC plans to bury nuclear waste in the salt formations. The initial Government study, which had approved the location, was found to be grieviously in error.

A similar instance occurred in Carlsbad, N. Mex. in 1972 where the site selected for a storage compound was discovered to contain a large pocket of brine, deep inside the salt formation.

The legacy of governmental error is still borne by the people of Hanaford, Wash. There the disposal of large amounts of nuclear waste was carried out in metal tanks, buried deeply within the soil. Once installed 18 tanks and numerous connecting pipes, developed serious leaks. Approximately one-half million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes have seeped into the Hanford soil and permanently contaminated it.

Other breaks or leaks of a similar nature have taken place in Maxey Flats, Ky., and West Valley, N.Y.

ERDA has a legal obligation to determine a national nuclear waste repository by the year 1985. They have also stated that they intend to establish such a facility or facilities in a timeframe that assures nuclear power as a viable energy option. These two goals, combined with t.he abysmally poor record of the Government agencies, could very likely mean that ERDA will trade expediency for safety. Granting the States a veto power will guarantee that this would not be the case. The locations for waste storage would then be scrutinized by officials who have more than a routine interest in the well being of the locality. In addition, a veto power will insure that the citizens will have the opportunity to speak out. Verbal assurances from ERDA are not enough and certainly not binding. Because no statute existed, the State's efforts t.o insure personal safety and environmental protection with the Seafarer project were virtually ignored. Unless we enact this legislation, I am afraid that the same thing will happen with ERDA's assurance that the people will have influence with regard to the Alpena site.

The legal question is raised, Mr. President, asking whether or not the actions of 26 States in attempting to achieve some influence over the important activities of the Federal agencies dealing with nuclear wastes, will have the power to do so. This amendment, which I have cosponsored, would guarantee those States a voice in the councils of Federal nuclear energy decisionmaking. It does nothing more, and nothing less, than allow the people most directly affected to exert minimal control over decisions made affecting their lives.

So, Mr. President, I express my very strong support for the amendment the Senator and I, and others, off er here today.

I think the colloquy that has just gone on is important because, as the Senator from Idaho has suggested, there is great resistance building up around the country by communities and States which

22372 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977 have very serious reservations about the storage of these materials in and around places where people live.

I share those concerns. Right now, we are faced with the v~ry

same problem in Michigan. I say this to the people here who are very strong advocates for the development of nuclear energy in the future, that one very essential part of this question is the waste question. If we are going to find and if the fear is that 50 States out of 50 States are not going to want these wastes put in their States, then it seems to me that brings back to life the entire question of how far down the road we want to go.

We have this problem in Michigan right now where there is a proposed nuclear waste site. Under the present law, there is absolutely no obligation by the Federal Government to counsel with the people of the area, to give them some say in this decision; and as people have caught up with the facts in the case there is great alarm and great concern about it. I share that concern.

Quite frankly, I have not seen anything yet that justifies in my mind storing these wastes in populated areas, whether in Michigan, in New Mexico, or some other place.

But I think it is clear that the various States ought to have the right and the people of the States whose well-being and whose circumstances are most directly affected ought to have the right to participate in the decisions.

If the Federal Government is not in a position to make a persuasive enough case in 1 of the 50 States, if not more, that sites can ·be found that are safe and ·that people can feel secure about, then I think we are making a mistake in roaring down this road. For people who are fans of nuclear energy to set aside these real and serious objections is shortsighted.

I hope this amendment will be agreed to. All it does is place the burden of proof where it should be placed, and that is on the Federal Government, if it wants to estaJblish a site of this kind in some State, to be so persuasive in its arguments, to be so compelling in terms of security requirements and threats to public health that the people of the State will be willing to accept that kind of facility. Should they not be, then the case is not sufficient, and it should not be placed there. If somebody may like this in some other part of the country, let them propose to put it in their State.

We in Michigan feel as strongly as we can that, based on our experience where the Federal Government has come in to try to establish a site of this kind, we are not satisfied with the way it has been done, and we do not want it placed there. We would like to have the right to be able to say so, and not have this kind of thing rammed down our throats.

I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from South Dakota?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from South Dakota has expired.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, if we adopt this amendment, we have dug ourselves a hole out of which it will be very difficult to climb.

First, any applicant for a new n~clear reactor must demonstrate that 1t has plans for the management of the wastes generated by the reactor. If we adopt this amendment, no new application can be approved, because no applicant will be able to show that it has a plan that is not subject to the veto of a State government.

Second, as to present reactors, we will have 27 next year that are presently on line, which will need additional waste storage space. If this amendment is enforced, those reactors would go off line, would no longer generate power, if the State government did not approve the waste space.

Finally, we have a military program. The national security is involved, all of which involves additional waste storage space. Yes, we have a problem, but it is a problem that is a national responsibility. We cannot duck it by delegating it to the States to decide.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I wish to register my agreement with the thrust of this amendment-to give a State some voice in any decision that would make that State a dumping ground for nuclear waste.

In some instances, as a preliminary step, the Energy Research and Development Administration has proceeded to take core samplings of geological formations without even consulting State officials.

This happened last year near Alpena, Mich., amid a storm of protest from the people in my State.

Those protests prompted the Governor of Michigan to initiate hearings in order to take testimony from citizens with respect to whether nuclear waste should be stored in Michigan.

Only last week, the 'Michigan State Senate adopted legislation by a wide margin designed to block any Federal Government effort to locate a nuclear waste disposal site in Michigan.

The only assurance I have received from ERDA on this matter was contained in a letter dated December l, 1976, from former ERDA Administrator Robert S. Seamans, Jr. In that letter Administrator Seamans stated:

It is ERDA's position that the project will be terminated if the State raises issues on the project ... that are not res·olved through mutually acceptaible procedures.

While that statement by the former ERDA Administrator was somewhat encouraging, there has been no confirmation of that position ·by the Carter administration. Even that statement, however, does not give the Governor of Michigan a veto power-which he has requested with respect to such a project.

Since I believe a State should have more say than is the case today, before it can be turned into a nuclear dumping ground, I intend to support this amendment.

Mr. CHURCH. Therefore, Mr. President, I move that the amendment be laid on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.

The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.


The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.


Senator from Georgia (Mr. NUNN), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) are necessarily absent.

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT) is absent due to illness.


[Rollcall Vote No. 278 Leg.) YEAS-58

Allen Ford Baker Glenn Bayh Go!dwater Bellmon Hansen Bentsen Hathaway Brooke Hayakawa Bumpers Heinz Burdick Hollings Byrd, Huddleston

Harry F., Jr. Humphrey Byrd, Robert C. Inouye Case Jackson Chafee Javits Chiles Long Church Lugar Curtis Magnuson Danforth McClellan Damenici McClure Eagleton Metcalf Eastland Morgan

NAYS-39

Moynihan Muskie Nelson Percy Randolph Ribicoff Schmitt Scott Sparkman Stafford Stennis Stevens Stevenson Stone Thurmond Tower Wallop Weicker Young

Abourezk Anderson Biden Cannon Clark Cranston Culver DeConcini Dole Durkin Garn Gravel Griffin

Hart Melcher Haskell Metzenbaum Hatch Packwood Hatfield Pearson Helms Pell Johnston Proxmire Kennedy Riegle La'Kalt Roth Leahy Sar banes Mathias Sasser Matsunaga Schweiker McGovern Williams Mcintyre Zorinsky

NOT VOTING-3 Bartlett Nunn Talmadge


Mr. McCLURE. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HANSEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.


Mr. CURTIS and Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

AMENDMENT NO. 497

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 497 which is at the desk and ask that it be stater:l.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. . .

The second assistant legISlative clerk read as follows: .

The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS), for himself, Mr. GOLDWATER and Mr. ScOTT,

proposes amendment No. 497. on page 12, beginning with line 20, strike

title II.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 90 minutes, under a previous order, to be equally divided on the amendment.

The Senator from Nebraska may pro-ceed. ·n

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, the b1 as written would cause a very sub~tantial increase in the price of enriched uranium. It would affect every nuclear power project that expects to b~y or o~tain in any way enriched uramum. It IS a very substantial increase. It is a proposed increase without logic or sound reason. It is an anticonsumer proposal.

My amendment would strike out title II entirely.

Mr. President, may we have order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen

ate will be in order. The Senator from Nebraska. Mr. CURTIS. This amendment is

supported by wide interests. It is supported by the Edison Electric Institute which represents the investor-owned utilities. It is supported by the National Association of Electric Companies, the American Public Power Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Consumer Federation of America and the .AFL-CIO. These groups ~ant title II stricken from this bill because, if it remains in the bill an~ becomes the law, the Government will be charging much more for enriched uranium. It is a very sizable amount. I am told that in reference to the Nebraska public power system the bill as written will increase their costs by $13 million over the next 5 years.

Mr. President, there are only 1,400,000 people in Nebraska. This is a very sizable overcharge. There is no place to get this money but from the consumers and users of electric power. It is unfair. It is without justification.

Mr. President, here is how this matter comes about: Under the present law the Government-provided enrichment services are to be priced to recover the Government's costs over a reasonable period of time. That is the present law. In practice the Government charges prices for these services which cover costs plus a 15-percent contingency. This pricing formula is similar to the "just and reasonable" formulation employed to regulate prices of other essential services in fuels.

By contrast, S. 1811 would allow ERDA to set the price of uranium enrichment services at a level which "will not discourage the development of domestic supply independent of" ERDA.

Mr. President, also, the policy of this Government as laid down by the present administration is not to give the rights to perform this service to any non-Government agency. In other words, it is a rather vague disincentive index. It will result in a very sizable increase. It will

be a corporate profit to the Government at a time when the Government has a monopoly.

In 1976 language along this line was under co~sideration. ERDA estimated that the cumulative costs for the next 5 years under that proposal woul<;I ha~e been $760 million. They based this estimate upon a projected charge of $76 per separative work unit, or a 42-percent increase over the present price of $61.30.

A separative work unit, or SWU, is a measure of effort required to separate a given quantity of uranium feed into two streams, one having a higher percentage of U-235. However, ERDA itself now proposes that the price be set at $90 per SWU, or a 62-percent increase over existing prices.

Imagine that, Mr. President. This language says that it should be priced so that non-Government sources could get into the act. The catch to it is that the Government is not going to let any nonGovernment sources get into the act. There is all the problem of proliferation and control in this area of actiivity, and they have openly stated that no one but ERDA will engage in this activity.

Imagine this Congress voting to increase the price of fuel-and that is what it is-by 62 percent. At the present time they have authority to charge all the costs plus 15 percent, and according to that formula an SWU of uranium, or the service for that, is $61.30. If we do not change this bill, it raises it to $90, a 62-percent increase. It will be well that Senators get the figures for their States. If this bill were to pass, the increased charge to the Nebraska Public Service District will be $13 million over the next 5 years.

Mr. President, ordinarily, the Senator from Nebraska would be in favor of a Government pricing policy in most situations so that private enterprise could get into the act. That is not the situation at the present time.

There are not any private enterprise sources about to get into the act. 'Ibe policy of the Government is not to let them. This is purely a move on the part of a Government bureau to increase their income, when without this new language they have authority to charge their costs plus 15 percent as a contingency fee.

Mr. President, this is a basic change of policy. It should not be made. There have never been hearings on this proposal.

The users of enriched uranium in my State or your State have never had an opportunity to come in and testify and recite what it would do to them. The general public has not had an opportunity to testify. There have been no hearings.

Mr. President, to say the least, we ought to delete from the present proposal all of title II, for the present. If it is to be pursued farther, then we should hold hearings and see what the hearings produce.

Mr. President, it is not by accident that this long list of people are opposed to title II. Why is it that the Consumer Federation of America is opposed to title II? It will raise everybody's electric bill

without any justification, merely for a profit for a Government bureau.

Why is it the .AFL-CIO is opposed to it? For the same reason.

Why does it happen that the investorowned electric companies, the co-ops, and the American Public Power Association are joining hands in opposing this title? Because it will cost them millions of dollars that they must pass on in electric charges, at the very time when all energy costs are going up and up, at a time when we have all manner of other problems.

I say it will cost $13 million in my State. That is true. They will have to pass it on to the users. Some of those users are in business. They will have to raise their costs. So it is all across the land.

Mr. President, I have a fear-I hope it is unfounded-based on my observations of what has happened on the floor today, that there mig'ht be an attempt to table this amendment. I have heard nothing directly to that effect. I hope it is not true. I appeal to the managers of the bill to be fair to all those who support this amendment, and again I read the list: The Edison Electric Institute, representing investor-owned utilities; the National Association of Electric Companies; the American Public Power Association; the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; the Consumer Federation of America; and the AFL-CIO.

I say that is a significant bloc of the American public, and they are entitled to have an amendment in which they are interested voted upon its merits.

Therefore, I earnestly plead that there not be a motion to table. A motion to table is not a fair test. Others coming to the Chamber are confronted with all sorts of questions in their minds. Maybe it is not a proper joinder of facts; maybe they are planning for another bill. All sorts of strategy questions are involved in a motion to table. Thus, the tendency is to follow those in charge of the bill and to vote to table when it is requested.

Sometimes it becomes a tyranny of the majority. I believe it should be used very sparingly.

Mr. President, I ask that title II be stricken from the bill, and I reserve .the remainder of my time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MELCHER). Who yields time?

The Senator from Idaho. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I yield

myslf such time as I may require. The committee considered the ques

tions the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. has raised and rejected them. The Senator from Nebraska speaks of a 62-percent increase in the charges that the Government will make for enriched uranium. That may sound like a very startling figure. When it comes to a nuclear reactor, the cost of the fuel is relatively minor as compared to the cost of construction of the reactor itself and its operation.

Unlike fossU fuel plants where the cost of the coal or the oil is very sizeable, the relative cost of nuclear fuel is such that even a 62-percent increase will have only a modest effect upon the actual rate that needs to be charged to the con-

2'2374 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977

sumer. So let us not talk about such big figures. The impact of this provision in the bill will have only a modest effect upon the actual rate for the electricity itself.

Why has this provision been included in the bill? It is because today the Government is subsidizing, in effect, the sale of fuel for conventional reactors. I do not think the Government should subsidize the cost of tha.t fuel. We are doing it not only for the benefit of the 1arge utility companies in this country, but we charge precisely the same price to foreign countries, so that we end up subsidizing not only our own reactor plants but foreign reactor plants as well.

Mr. CURTIS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CHURCH. Yes, I yield for a question.

Mr. CURTIS. Is it true under existing law we charge actual cost plus a contingency of 15 percent?

Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is both correct and incorrect. If I may put it a little differently, the Senator is correct in his statement, and I am correct in mine. The reason is that the present formula actually does not cover those elements of cost that a private company would have to incorporate in determining what constitutes cost.

For example, the present formula does not include provision for taxes or insurance or return on equity, which any private company would have to consider as a part of its costs. The Government, the ref ore, is charging less than the actual cost to the Government when these other factors that are normally figured into such a formula are included.

Mr. CURTIS. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. CHURCH. Yes. Mr. CURTIS. Is it the policy of the

Government at the present time to have non-Government sources come in and provide enrichment of uranium?

Mr. CHURCH. No. Presently, all enriched uranium is produced at Government plants, but there is always the possibility, in the future, that that policy might be enlarged to permit private companies to engage in the enrichment service. If that is so, then there is all the more reason to adopt the provisions in the bill. Otherwise, the differential between what the Government could sell its services for and a private company would be such that the private company could not operate.

Mr. CURTIS. My information is that the Government has a policy that is opposed to having any private enterprise in this field.

Mr. CHURCH. I say to the Senator that, at the moment, I think the sale of enrichment services being confined to the Government represents the current policy. I find no fault with it. But there are those who have argued, and the matter still is subject to lively controversy, that this policy should be changed, and that private companies should have an opportunity to furnish enrichment services to provide the fuel for conventional nuclear reactors.

All I say to the Senator is that those who favor a change in the policy should

have no reason to support the Senator's amendment because, by adding these factors into a determination of what constitutes cost to the Government, we are simply adding factors that any private company would have to include in determining its cost. · This, I should think, would ·be consistent with the views of those who think that the policy should be changed.

Mr. CURTIS. Have there been any hearings held on this subject? Has notice gone out and the individuals concerned over the country had a chance to come in and state their position on it?

Mr. CHURCH. In this case, the committee requested that ERDA present its arguments in support of changing the formula in written form. They were considered in written form. No separate hearings were held; no separate witnesses were called on this question.

Mr. CURTIS. Were the American public power interests invited to make their comments?

Mr. CHURCH. I think I have answered the Senator's question.

Mr. CURTIS. It seems to me that the committee ought to accept this amendment and, if they decide to proceed further along this line, they should hold hearings. I am firmly committed to the proposition that Americans are entitled to their day in court. I think that is generally accepted. Sometimes, well-meaning Government bureaus make a request for legislation and they like to have something slipped . into a bill. Many times, it may have great merit, but I think it is a very wrong and dangerous procedure. It is my hope that title II can be stricken at this time and, at a later time, hearings can be held.

I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. CHURCH. I understand the Sen

ator's argument. I can only reply that, had the committee not felt that the justification for this formula was very compelling, it would have set the matter aside for special hearings. But we had written evidence submitted by ERDA and also by representatives of the Edison Electrical Institute, so that we had the benefit of both arguments in written form. Having examined both arguments, the committee felt that it was in the interest of the Government to take the subsidy out of the price, and to make the cost reflective of those factors that normally would be included if private companies were to determine their actual costs. That is what we endeavor to do with this new formula.

For that reason, Mr. President, I hope that the Senate will support the committee and reject the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.


The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 31 minutes remaining.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Here we have a matter before us that has never had a hearing. On the face of

it, it means an increase of 62 percent in the cost of enriched uranium. This uranium will go into the manufacture of electric power. This is at a time when we need more electric power, a time when we are importing more than half of our petroleum. So we need other sources. The policy of the Government should be to encourage those sources. Here we are throwing down a roadblock, a 62-percent increase in the cost of fuel.

The argument about how the Government figures costs and how private enterprise fixes costs would be relevant if we were faced with an issue of fair play between private enterprise and government. We do not have that. The policy of the Government is not to let private enterprise into this field. Under existing law, they have authority to charge their actual costs, plus a 15-percent contingency. It was placed in here at the request of a Government bureau.

Is the Senate going to vote and say no to all the people, saying, "You are not entitled to be heard; this is sound and good because a great bureaucracy wants it"? .

Mr. President, that is not a procedure that enhances the prestige and standing of the Senate. No harm will be done by a delay here for the time taken to hold some hearings. Again, I express the hope that this amendment will be accepted.


The Senator from Idaho is recognized. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I am pre

pared to yield back the remainder of my time. The basic argument against the amendment is that the present formula does not recover for the Government all of those elements that ought to be considered in the Government's real cost. Therefore, the Government is subsidizing the price, not only for American companies that are buying enriched uranium as fuel for their reactors, but for foreign companies or foreign governments, as the case may be, that are buying enriched uranium. I see no reason why we should subsidize either foreign companies or foreign governments. I see no good reason why we should subsidize our own utilities. For that reason, I hope the amendment will be 'rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all remaining time yielded back?

Mr. CURTIS. I am informed that there are one or more Senators who want to say something on this.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. CURTIS. I am happy to yield. How much time does the Senator want?

Mr. McCLURE. Two minutes. Mr. CURTIS. I yield the Senator 5

minutes. Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator

for yielding. Mr. President, I rise in support of the

amendment to strike title II, "Basis for Government Charges for Uranium Enrichment Services." I support the amendment because title II will raise these prices for utility ratepayers by 50 percent and increase charges by a billion and a half dollars over the next 5 yearsand all, for no good public policy reason.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 22375 Title II is an administration requested

provision to grant new authority to ERDA to increase the charges for Federal enrichment services. As we know, the Federal Government has had and continues to have a total monopoly on these services. The current statute, section 161 (v) of the Atomic Energy Act, provides for charges based on "recovery of costs over a reasonable time." The price today, $63 per unit of services, is based on that "recovery of costs over a reasonable time." In fact, it is my understanding that ERDA shows a slight profit overall, in terms of the services actually delivered.

The $63 price, which has increased to that level over time, is less expensive than would be the cost for a brandnew business with new equipment and facilities. There are several reasons, partly historical, for the lower price. These Federal enrichment facilities in some cases are 30 years old, and for many years they provided enrichment services for our nuclear weapons programs. The current generation of equipment and facilities, in fact, were originally developed and paid for by the American taxpayer as part of our national security program. Since then, the facilities have been and are being improved and upgraded, and they gradually have become more and more committed to providing enrichment services for reactor fuel rather than for weapons. Consequently, today we have enrichment facilities which have been long since paid for and depreciated for cost-accounting purposes.

The other major reason for the lower price is that the enrichment services are provided by a Federal monopoly. There are no real costs for taxes, insurance, business risks, fees, or profits, et cetera. The fact that historically these services were an integral part of the weapons program led us to the Federal monopoly position. As the services become morecommitted to civilian nuclear power fuels, there have been pressures to commercialize the services in future enrichment facilities, as in the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act of the last Congress. But today, and for the purposes of title II, we do not have a new commercial business with all of its particular costs, we have a much depreciated Federal monopoly.

Title II would result in ERDA raising the prices by setting the current price basis as a minimum or floor and allowing the Administrator discretion to increase the price above that floor as necessary to not discourage the development of commercial enrichment businesses. ERDA has stated that it would use this discretion to impute commercial costs to its operations for taxes, insurance, business risk, commercial interest rates, and other pretend costs. ERDA further stated that these additional pretend costs would result in an immediate new price of $90 per unit, a 50-percent increase which will increase charges by $1.5 billion over the next 5 years.

The administration justifies this increased pricing as necessary to reduce the subsidy to the nuclear power industry. Indeed, the $90-per-unit price would

increase the cost per kilowatt-hour by over 4 percent--a cost ultimately borne by utility rate payers. But where is the subsidy. American taxpayers paid for the facilities as part of the weapons program. In fact, utilities all have entered into contracts to use these services because there was no alternatives. The utilities even agreed to a new contract approach at the request of ERDA, and now ERDA proposes to change the pricing rules. The current law provides for full recovery of costs and Congress has been more than liberal in what costs it allows ERDA to recover, such as the enrichment R. & D. program. So, there really is no subsidy. In fact, these additional imputed costs would realistically by a penalty, penalize the utility ratepayer over 4 percent in additional costs merely because of this sudden abhorrence to the historical fact that we have a Federal monopoly for these services.

Notwithstanding the administration's assertion of the subsidy argument, this authority was first sought as part of the last administration's enrichment commercialization proposal. In fact, today's letters from ERDA are the same statements, with the exception that the previous primary justification to support commercialization by making the Federal costs for the services closer to a commercial basis-has now been removed. Even the language in the title of "not discourage" the development of an independent supply of these services is still couched in the language of commercialization.

Without passing on the merits of commercializing future enrichment services, it is fair to say that current Government policy does not commit the United States to commercializing uranium enrichment. In fact, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee acted in the report on this bill to prevent ERDA from committing to such a policy in the new centrifuge area. So, clearly, we are not today embarked on the commericalization course. Even if we were, I would question seriously whether increasing the Government price would have any real incentive value to potential commercial entrants into the field. The competition will not be with the Government, which is now and will remain fully contracted for its full capacity over time. In short, the underlying rationale is simply not defendable today.

What remains then as the only justification of any validity-and that simply is additional revenues for ERDA and the Federal Government. The 50 percent price increase and additional billion and a half dollars over 5 years-and probably much more in later years-would be another way to squeeze more money out of the American people, in this case a penalty of over 4 percent to ratepayers of utilities with nuclear powerplants. It also is important to note that the discretion of the Administrator in title II is completely unlimited with regards to the basis for the charges and the ultimate price.

An ironic aspect of this debate is that these increased prices would be charged of foreign customers, as well. The irony

is that there is a significant nonproliferation objective of getting foreign nations to use our services. The reason is that with our services come a series of safeguards requirements governing· the use of the enriched fuel. The whole concept of the United States as an assured fuel supplier is built around our providing these services in exchange for the recipient nation's agreement to accept United States and international safeguard controls. Title II raises the prices by 50 percent to these foreign customers. Since there are foreign enrichment service .suppliers with ever increasing ca,pacity, the new pricing works directly against the nonproliferation objective. Why should a foreign nation pay a revenue or commercialization or subsidyjustified penalty and also agree to our stringent safeguards, if there is a choice?

The administration has no answer for this nonproliferation question. On one hand we are prepared to shut down our own energy R. & D. programs in the name of nonproliferation. But, on the other, we are anxious to cut off foreign customers of OU!' enrichment services. Our energy and nonproliferation policies again appeared unbalanced and ill-advised in this area.

Mr. President, it is clear that title II is an injustified and poorly conceived proposal whose time has passed. If we return to the debate on a Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act, we can revisit title II at that time. For now, we should lay it with the rest of the debris of the previous debate. I urge Senators to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I am troubled by the provision of the bill for some of the reasons which the Senator from Nebraska has outlined. I am not certain that the action we took is supported by the facts. I am not satisfied that the opposition to it is necessarily, itself, correct.

But I am concerned with the fact that we did not hold the extensive hearings that might have preceded the ordinary course of legislation. I am concerned, too, that an identical provision is in the House bill and likely to stay there, and there- would be no likelihood then that this matter would be subject to any further discussion in the conference.

I am mindful of the charge that has been made that the nuclear industry is subsidized by the Government. That again is easy to beg, and I am not certain it is easy to refute, but it is certainly not easy, either, to sustain the charge except by statements made by the bureaucracy itself, as the Senator from Nebraska has indicated.

Feeling as I do that this may be a substantial departure from where we have been, in a direction from which there is very little likelihood that we can then move •back, it seems to me that it might ·be more prudent to strike this provision at this time, at least have the opportunity to discuss it in the conference, and perhaps delete it entirely until we have had the opportunity to explore whether or not the cost computations upon which the judgment was made are accurate.


I am frank to say that I do not know. There are those who raise the issue, and raise it persuasively, that the computations are not accurate and that · the subsidy, as a matter of fact, might go in the other direction.

While I might support a subsidy for a domestic industry, certainly I do not desire to support a subsidy for a foreign industry and we may, indeed, be doing that.

But I do not believe that the record is irrefutable on that point. I think it is quite possible to postulate quite the contrary, that the cost allocation system that is instituted within the bureaucracy may be just as inaccurate now as it is charged to have been in the past.

One of the most persuasive arguments to me, and I might just ask the Senator from Nebraska if he would repeat it again for me, is the list of the organizations that are in opposition to this title of the ·bill, because certainly that broad spectrum of organizations must mean something.

Mr. CURTIS. I can summarize it. The entire country is ·against this bill except the ERDA officials. It is bureaucracy against the people.

But I can enumerate. There has not been a telegram, there has not been a letter, there has not been anything coming in here from any part of our citizenry in support of this provision.

Those who have crone out against it included the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. The National Association of Electric Companies. The American Public Power Association. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The Consumers Federation of America, and the AFLCIO.

I do not belong to any of them, and I am opposed to it.

Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for reviewing that.

There are some historical reasons, which I will not take the time of the Senate now to recount, for the difference in the lower cost basis.

I have listed in remarks for the record the reasons why the original costs were somewhat lower than the current allocation might be in a commercial operation or .if this program had had a different evolution from its inception.

But all of that impels me to the belief ·that the greater prudence might be to remove this section from the bill at this time and at least discuss it further in ·the conference, if not possibly hold further hearings on it, before making a final decision, which in itself then becomes irreversible change from our current and historic position on pricing.

Certainly, the change in price from $63 to $90 ought to signal a rather radical change in fundamental policy that perhaps justifies a more thorough inquiry than the Senator has given it.

Mr. CURTIS. I thank the Senator for his help.

Now, :Mr. President, I yield myself 3 additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator frron Nebraska.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, not only have all the people I can think of been

denied a hearing here, but other branches of the Government have not been asked to testify.

There is a foreign policy issue here. There is a military issue. I would remind the Senate that there is a question of nuclear proliferation involved.

The current administration has offered to provide enriched uranium to the world in the hope that the nations would forego their commitments to a plutonium economy. However, by insisting on a plan of commercial pricing for uranium, the administration is asking other nations to pay an exorbitant price for enriching services while, at the same time, redirecting their nuclear programs away from reprocessing and breeder reactor technology at great financial expense.

We are in this energy crisis all together. If we reverse our policy to foreign countries for enriched uranium, we have not helped them with their struggles over the oil shortage.

The industrial nations and the undeveloped nations, all of them, are involved in this worldwide energy problem. Therefore, before we raise the price at home and abroad, we ought to have hearings; we ought to hear from those who are involved in our international affairs to hear what they have to say about it. We ought to allow our own people a chance to testify.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. CURTIS. I am happy to yield. Mr. HEI.JMS. Mr. President I ask the

~enator if his amendment re~lly is not simply a consumer amendment, because are we not talking about the increased cost of electric power to the consumers of this country if title II stays?

.Mr. CURTIS. Very much so; and they will have a double increase. They will h~ve an increase in their electric power bill at home. But if their grocer and the :garageman and the manufacturer of things has an increase in his utility costs the consumer is going to pay again. '

This is an increase in cost in one of the most vital areas of our total economy the energy situation. '

~r. HELMS. I ask the Senator this: Is 1t not true that the enrichment facilities involved were bought and paid for by these same consumers as taxpayers?

Mr. CURTIS. That is correct. It is a cont_ribution to our national energy policy; 1t has been paid for up to date and it should be made available now.

Mr. HELMS. So, really, what title II really means is an additional tax on the consumer?

Mr. CURTIS. That is correct. Mr. HELMS. That is the simple bottom

line. Mr. CURTIS. That is correct. Mr. HELMS. I commend the Senator

~m his amendment, and I shall support It.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 20 minutes remaining. The Senator from Idaho has 32 minutes remaining.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. CURTIS. I yield back the remain-

der of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.


The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All re

maining time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. CRANSTON. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. McINTYRE) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) are necessarily absent.

Mr. STEVENS. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT) is absent due to illness.


(Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.] YEAS-39

Abourezk Allen Baker Bellmon Bumpers Burdick Chafee Curtis Danforth Dole Domenici Garn Goldwater

Gravel Griffin Hansen Hatch Hayakawa Helms Humphrey Laxalt Long Lugar McClellan McClure Ne:son

NAYS-58

Anderson Glenn Bayh Hart Bentsen Haskell Biden Hatfield Brooke Hathaway Byrd, Heinz

Harry F., Jr. Hollings Byrd, Robert C. Huddleston Cannon Inouye Case Jackson Chiles Javits Church Johnston Clark Kennedy Cranston Leahy Culver Magnuson DeConcini Mathias Durkin Matsunaga Eagleton McGovern Eastland Melcher Ford Metcalf

Pearson Pell Roth Sasser Schmitt Scltweiker Scott Stevens Stone Thurmond Tower Wallop Zorinsky

Metzenbaum Morgan Moynihan Muskie Nunn Packwood Percy Proxmire Randolph Ribicoff Riegle Sar banes Sparlanan Stafford. Stennis Stevenson Weicker · Williams Young

NOT VOTING-3 Bartlett Mcintyre Talmadge

So the amendment was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

JOHNSTON). The bill is open to further amendment.





The Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE) proposes unprinted amendment No. 641.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows: Page 14, line 12, strike all after the colon,

and insert in lieu thereof. "Provided, That any change in. enrichment services prices in the first proviso above shall not be implemented for a period of sixty days, durtng

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22377 which the Congress ls ln contlnous session, after the transmission of the proposed price to the President of the Senate, ,the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Science and Technology. Such prices shall be considered authorized by the Congress unless either House of Congress approves a resolution of disapproval of such prices prior to the expiration of the aforementioned sixty day period. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Science and Technology shall have single jurisdiction over any such resolution of disapproval introduced pursuant to ,this section. If such a resolution of disapproval has been introduced, but has not been reported by the Committee on or before the fortieth day after transmission of the message, a privileged motion shall be ln order in ,the respective body to discharge the Committee from further consideration of the resolution and to provide for its lmmediate consideration, using the procedures specified for consideration of an impound.ment resolution in Section 1017 of the Imp,oundment Control Act of 1974 (31 U.S.C. 1407).

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, may we have order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSTON). Let there be order in the Senate. Will Senators please carry their conversations outside. The Senator is entitled to be heard.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. This amendment would simply provide that if there is to be an increase in the cost of the material under title II, Congress would retain the right to veto that price increase, and it provides the mechanism for that congressional oversight of the size and amount of the price increase.

I have discussed this with the majority, and I understand the amendment is acceptable to the majority and perhaps we can get it adopted without prolonged discussion.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCLURE. I yield. Mr. BUMPERS. Who would have the

power to veto? Mr. McCLURE. The Congress would

have the right to review the increase, either House.

Mr. BUMPERS. Over what period of time would Congress be notified?

Mr. McCLURE. over a 60-day period. Mr. BUMPERS. Who sets the price of

uranium now? Mr. McCLURE. It is done under a

formula under the law, done by the administration.

Mr. BUMPERS. Was that the Nuclear Regulatory Agency?

Mr. McCLURE. It is for enrichment services, not uranium.

Mr. BUMPERS. What we are talking about is the price of uranium we sell to the services; is that right?

Mr. McCLURE. That is correct. It is the enrichment services. They provide the uranium ore which is then processed in a Government facility.

Mr. BUMPERS. Is that a public corporation?

Mr. McCLURE. It is not a public corpo-ration; no. It is an ERDA facility.

Mr. BUMPERS. I beg pardon? Mr. McCLURE. It is an ERDA facility. Mr. BUMPERS. What I am trying to

find out is, What spe:iflc agency of Government sets the rate for enriched uranium?

Mr. McCLURE. ERDA does, under the Atomic Energy Act.

Mr. BUMPERS. Who is ERDA? Does that mean the administrator?

Mr. McCLURE. The Energy Research and Development Administration.

Mr. BUMPERS. Is there no board? Mr. McCLURE. No. Mr. BUMPERS. Or group of people, or

is that just an administrative decision made?

Mr. McCLURE. It is an administrative decision made right now.

Mr. BUMPERS. For example, right now Robert Fri is head of the Energy Research and Development Administration. Does he have the power to set the price?

Mr. McCLURE. He does under the existing law, and would under a different set of criteria under the amendment in the committee bill.

Mr. BUMPERS. I take this opportunity, if the Senator will yield to me a moment, to say it is not my custom to vote with the Senator from Nebraska on many items. I voted with him on the last one perhaps for reasons that were different from his for offering it. But, first, I am not interested in private enterprise getting in the uranium enrichment business; second, I am not interested in people paying more on utility bills than they are already paying. For both of those reasons, I supported the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska.

But under this amendment, since the floor leader has agreed to it, I do not think I have any objection to it, because I think someone should curb the price that is going to be set in a rather arbitrary fashion.

Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator tor that statement. That is the purpose of the amendment, to at least give Congress an opportunity to take a look at the size of the price increase that might otherwise be ordered or that will be ordered. We are advised it may be raised from $63 to $90. Congress would have the opportunity under this amendment to at least look at that and have the opportunity if there is sufficient support to disaffirm that price increase.

Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I think

my distinguished colleague from Idaho has made such a persuasive argument for his amendment that there is nothing I could add to it that would either embellish or improve it. On that basis, I hope, it being acceptable to both sides of the aisle as far as the management of the bill is concerned, that the Senate will see flt to approve it.

I move the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

question is on agreeing to the amendment.






Are there further amendments to be proposed?




Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.



Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send an unprinted amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.



The Sena.tor from Ohio (Mr. GLENN) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 642:

On page 3, line 3, strike "$987,685,000" and insert ln lieu thereof "$989,185,000".

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, thiH amendment would provide for an extrn $1% million. This past April President Carter announced that the next increment of nuclear fuel enrichment capac:ity in the United States would be obtained through construction of a centrifuge facility as opposed to a gaseous diffusion plant. This decision was made on the grounds that gaseous diffusion plants are highly inefficient, as indeed they are. In fact, if one were to take all the waste heat of the 3 gaseous diffusion plants now operating at Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth, when they are operating at full capacity, and add the even greater waste of heat being generated by the nuclear facility at Savannah River, one obtains a total amount of waste heat equal to 12,000 megawatts of thermal energy.

This is equivalent to the energy found in nearly 62 million barrels of oil per year. Despite such waste, these plants are expected to operate indefinitely. ERDA has recently begun addressing the problem of utilization of this waste heat, and in the fiscal year 1978 budget, there is allocated $2 million to study this problem.

The main avenue of approach to be taken by ERDA in utilizing this waste heat is to examine the feasibility of constructing industrial parks or residential communities in the vicinity of these fuel production facilities. In conjunction with such studies, the States involved would have to carry out detailed investigations of institutional barriers that might exist toward making such utilization of the waste energy, and would also have to consider the socioeconomic impact of the suggested solutions. This, of course, costs money. ERDA originally asked for $4 million to study waste heat utilization in this context, of which $2 million would have been used for the States involved to carry out their obligations under the program. This money became unavailable when OMB cut the original ERDA request to $2 million.

2·2378 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 12, 1977

To remedy this situation, I introduced an amendment to the ERDA nonnuclear authorization bill to restore $1 million of the original ERDA request. In consonance with this, the Senate Appropriations Committee added $1 million to the ERDA 1978 appropriation under "Improve heat conversion efficiency" for the precise purpose of aiding the States to carry out the tasks I previously mentioned. Unfortunately, the SenateHouse Conference Committee reduced this amount to $500,000.

Mr. President, it is my sincere belief that this program of waste heat utilization is important not only for the States involver!, but for the Cl)Untry as well.

Accordingly, my amendment to the ERDA nuclear authorization bill restores the remaining $1.5 million of the original ERDA request so that the States involved can fully participate in finding a solution to this difficult problem of energy waste. These funds are most appropriately placed in the ERDA nuclear budget under the "uranium enrichment" line item.

:{ should add that my staff has been in touch with ERDA and we have been informed that there is no problem, from an internal program point of view, in placing this authorization for an energy conservation effort into the ERDA nuclear bill.

Mr. Pres id en t, the techniques that are expected to be developed out of these studies will be applicable not only to gas diffusion plants but also to nuclear generating plants all over the country and around the world, where roughly twothirds of the heat generated in the nuclear process goes up the stack or is dissipated into waters in nearby lakes and has become the concern of environmentalists. These same techniques, Mr. President, would be applicable to all of these nuclear facilities all over the country and not just in gaseous diffusion plants.

I have discussed this amendment with the floor managers of the bill. I believe it is acceptable to both · of them, and I hope for its passage. I do not request a rollcall vote unless someone else requests it. I shall be happy with a voice vote.

Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. SASSER) has asked to be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that his name be listed as. a cosponsor.


Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. His amendment provides the funds required to implement a provision of the President's National Energy Plan. The plan states:

The Government proposes to demonstrate a commitment to district heating by funding in fiscal 1978 a program to make use of the large quantities of waste heat generated by facilities of the Energy Research and Development Administration. ERDA would recover the waste heat for use on site and would also pipe steam and hot water to nearby households, industry and agriculture. After a study of the feasibility of the concept, actual implementation could occur at ERDA's

facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Savannah River, South Carolina.

The funds added by the Glenn amendment will go to reimburse the four State governments for their participation in the study of how to use the energy which is now wasted by the four plants.

Mr. President, we used to waste enormous amounts of energy in this country with the practice of flaring off uncaptured natural gas. Today we know this was a terrible waste of natural resources.

This amendment will help enable us to capture another important new source of energy.

Mr. President, we know that there is great energy savings potential in the reuse of utility and industrial plant process steam and hot water, but, because we have not devised the best means of capturing that energy, it is literally disappearing into thin air. It is time to put an end to this waste of energy.

The gaseous diffusion plant at Oak Ridge, for example, uses 10 percent of the power generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, and most of that energy is wasted. The hot water and steam wasted by this plant is the thermal equivalent of 1,400 megawatts an hour. The energy wasted by this one plant in one year is equal to all the energy in the foreign oil our Nation will import today.

The Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion plant for the enrichment. of uranium is located just 30 miles down the road from the future location of a world energy exposition. The International Energy Exposition will be held in nearby Knoxville, Tenn., in 1982. Waste heat recovery from the Oak Ridge plant can be demonstrated to the many American and foreign visitors who will come to see energy conservation technology demonstrated at Energy Expo.

If all goes well with the feasibility studies, we will have four working demonstrations of waste heat recovery at these plants, which are among the Nation's greatest consumers of energy. Each of the sites offers the chance to try out a different arrangement for using waste heat. The four States and the four sites are unique. The use of waste heat from each should be consistent with local preferences and local conditions. And each site must show how institutional barriers to waste heat utilization can be overcome. Some sort of a cooperative might be the appropriate organizational form for the waste heat recovery system.

Energy wasted by these plants should be put through an energy cascade and consumed by a cluster of compatible users-industrial, aquaculture, agriculture and residential. When energy cascading is properly designed, the waste heat output of one user is the energy input of another user further down the waste heat loop.

Drexel University in Philadelphia is presently completing a computer index to allow planners to know which industries are using which temperatures and qualities of hot water and steam in their

processes. This computer program will be ready by the end of the year and will permit a nationwide matching of those industries which can achieve the most efficient use of waste heat when located together in an energy cascade.

Mr. President, the amount added by this amendment is a very small portion of what we should be spending on this most promising of energy conservation techniques. I would that we will include more funds for this cost-effective and environmentally sound conservation method in future legislation.

We have a collective responsibility to stop indiscriminate waste of all this thermal energy, which presently gets discharged into the sky and into rivers as thermal pollution.

As President Carter said on April 20: Our energy problems have the same causes

as our environmental problems-wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us to solve both problems at once.

I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, if there

is any way that the enormous amount of heat generated at the gaseous diffusion plants can be captured and put to good use, it would certainly be well worth the money for the studies that would be financed by the modest additional amount that the Senator proposes in his amendment. For that reason, I am happy to accept the amendment and hope that the Senate will approve it.

Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment.

UP AMENDMENT NO, 643

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I send to the desk an unprinted amendment in the nature of a substitute to the pending amendment of the Senator from Ohio and ask for its immediate consideration.



The Senator from Colorado (Mr. HART) for himself, Mr. DURKIN, and Mr. SASSER, proposes an amendment No. 643 in the nature of a substitute to unprinted amendment 642.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be in

serted by the Senator from Ohio (Mr. GLENN), on page 3, line 3, insert "$990,-585,000".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I support very strongly the proposal being offered by the Senator from Ohio. In brief terms, the amendment which I am offering goes further in carrying out the purpose which the pending amendment seeks to attain, that is, to develop and test new techniques for recovering and using low temperature waste heat--the type of heat we now waste in the nuclear enrichment process, as the Senator from Ohio pointed out. This $1.4 million addition is a necessary parallel to the


Glenn proposal, which would study the feasibility of employing existing techniques to use this waste heat.

Studying the feasibility of building industrial parks to use the enormous quantities of heat now wasted at ERDA's four nuclear enrichment sites is an excellent idea, and I support it. But the Senate should be aware that the waste heat from these plants is of such a low temperature that the only ways industry has proposed to use it are for heating greenhouses and aquariums to breed fish. This is because technologies to more fully utilize low-temperature waste heat are pitifully underdeveloped and underfunded, and are consequently not profitable.

The fact is that ERDA has virtually no budget authority to develop ways to use low-temperature heat. ERDA does have money to develop the same kinds of technology for other uses, but it has no money for addressing the unique problems and opportunities presented by low-temperature waste heat recovery. Private industry, of course, will not develop the necessary technology until it is economically profitable. Such an effort would not be profitable now because of our artificially low energy prices. Ways t.o use low-temperature waste heat will never be achieved until somebody, somewhere, makes an effort to develop and apply them. Industry will not, because it is not yet profitable. ERDA will not because we have not given them any funds to do it.

Meanwhile, ERDA's four nuclear enrichment plants are wasting 62 million barrels of oil equivalent every year. This amount roughly equals the combined annual oil consumption of New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island! Clearly, energy conservation should start in ERDA's own back yard, at its own facilities. We cannot expect industry to conserve energy until the Federal Government starts. Developing ways to use the waste heat from federally owned nuclear enrichment plants is a perfect starting point.

With the additional $1.4 million my amendment provides, ERDA would start developing several ways to use the lowtemperature heat from the nuclear enrichment process, such as:

Heat exchangers, which would transfer the energy from the low-temperature waste heat stream to usable forms such as heating air for space heating or 'heating water for year-round agricultural irrigation;

Low-cost heat engines, which would actually be driven by the waste heat to provide mechanical power and electricity:

Cooling systems, to provide space cooling, and;

Heat pumps, to bring the low-tempera ture heat up to higher, more useful temperatures for use in manufacturing.

A letter I received yesterday from ERDA's Division of Conservation Research and Technology, which I shall submit for the record, concludes that even a 1-year delay in starting this re-

search and development program will result in losing the equivalent of 6 million barrels of oil. At $15 per barrel, rejecting my amendment for only 1 year would cost the taxpayers about $90 million. Spending less than $1 % million to achieve more than $90 million savings seems to me to be an eminently reasonable expenditure.

Any useful applications for using the low-temperature heat wasted by Federal nuclear enrichment plants can be extended to private industry and utilities to reduce the enormous quantities of heat that they too are wasting every day.

At this point, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from ERDA, justifyjng this modest increase, and an excellent study of the Government's inadequate efforts to develop ways to use our waste heat energy resources, by Drs. Donald Colosimo and Beno Sternlicht, be printed in the RECORD.


ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D.<J., July 11, 1977. Re Low Grade Waste Heat Recovery Program. GENE G : MANNELLA, Acting Assistant Administrator for Conser

vation. On Monday morning, July 11, 1977, I was

contacted by Senator Hart's office and requested to submit a write-up in support of ,a proposed legislative amendment. The request was specifically aimed at what activities we would undertake in the subject program with a budget increase of $10 million in FY 1978. Enclosed is a copy of the reply furnished to Senator Hart's office.

JOHN A. BELDING, Director, Division of Conservation Re

search and Technology.

Low GRADE WASTE HEAT RECOVERY AND UTil..IZATION

ERDA owns ,and operates several nuclear energy related fac111ties that reject large volumes of low temperature waste heat. Four fac111ties, the Nation's uranium enrichment gaseous diffusion plants, reject nearly 1200 MW of thermal energy in the form of cooling water at temperatures ranging from 140°F. to l60°F. These plants are located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio, and Aiken, South Carolina.

In FY 1978 the low grade waste heat recovery program will be initiated with series of feasib111ty studies covering definition of critical technologies and technical, economic, and institutional aspects of the recovery and utilization of this precisely wasted resource. The applications to be considered include the following:

Electric power generation (both the ERDA ocean thermal and novel heat engine technologies will qe considered);

Residential and commercial heating and cooling (district heating and cooling);

Industrial process heat based on the use of industrial heat pumps currently under revelopment; and

Agriculture and aquaculture. Since it is extremely doubtful that any one

application could use all of the reject energy at any one site, it is anticipated that the results of this eight month study will define the optimum applications mix for each of the four sites which will, of course, be highly dependent upon the energy needs of the surrounding community.

It should be noted that while the near term application is to the gaseous d·iffusion plant, the technologies and applications involved will in general be applicable to the beneficial utilization of waste heat from electrical utilities and large industrial waste heat streams across the nation.

Following completion of the study, these additional tasks would have to be undertaken:

Initiation of a program addressing the critical technologies involved such as

High effectiveness low cost heat exchangers;

Evaluation and development of novel, low cost heat engine concepts for power conversion (n,itinol and elastomer powered engines);

Development of advanced absorption cooling systelllS to provide space cooling from waste heat;

Accelerated development of industrial heat pumps to use the waste energy for industrial process heat requirements;

Initiation of integrated demonstration programs at each of the four sites; and

Extension of the applications studies to a nationwide basis based on waste heat utilization from industry and utilities.

A $10 million budget for FY 1978 will allow for initiation of effort in each of the above areas.

A one year delay in initiation of the proposed program would result in a loss to the Nation of the equivalent of 6 million barrels of oil.

WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION: THE NEGLECTED CORNERSTONE OF OUR ENERGY FUTURE

(A Statement by Beno Sternlicht, Donald Colosimo, May 26, 1977)

THE CHOICE The supply of fossil fuels is limited. Once

used, they are gone forever. The question is not if we will run out of fossil fuels but when. It is also obvious that the more fuel we use, the faster we will run out. Simply providing more supply of fuels will just bring on the ultimate day of reckoning that much faster. Renewable energy supply technologies are the long-term hope. However, they will be much more costly and may not be available in the amounts needed when conventional supplies dry up. An action which wm ameliorate the crisis by pushing back the time of ultimate fossil fuel depletion and make the use of renewable energy source less burdensome on the economy is to use less energy to satisfy our needs-Conservation.

Some conservation alternatives are technically well within the state-of-the-art and are commercially available. Only the controlled energy prices and man-made institutional barriers prevent their adoption. However, the ultimate limits of conservation require technical developments in which the private sector cannot justify the needed investment. One of the reasons for the formation of ERDA was the recognition of the fact that the Federal Government must initiate the high risk, high pay-off technical efforts to develop energy conservation technologies. ERDA has been given the charge but has not been given top management support nor the resources-money and program staffing-to accomplish the charge.

All areas of conservation RD&D are important; but, one area stands out in its potential for significant Near-Term energy savings. This area is the effective utilization of waste heat. As the cornerstone of energy policy is conservation, the cornerstone of conservation is Waste Heat Utilization. · Given the proper emphasis and funding

support, conservation RD&D can be the cornerstone of our society in the twentyfirst century. The continuation of providing only lip service to conservation RD&D could

22380 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977 be the gravestone for the current American life style.

The choice is to provide the necessary funding for ERDA conservation now or accept the inevitable wretching changes in the future.

THE PROMISE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION

The United States is a shameful waster of energy. With only 6 percent of the world's population, it accounts for 30 percent of tbe world's energy consumption. The needs for conservation in the residential/commercial and transportation sectors are obvious; but because of the vast number of small units wasting energy, significant impact will take a long time. In the industrial sector, the energy that is currently being discharged from U.S. industrial plants to the air and rivers of America can 1be a new a.nd significant energy supply as shown in Figure 1 ( not shown in RECORD) . This energy waste from industrial processes can be readily recovered to produce useful thermal, mechanical, or electrical power. The reasons for the attractiveness of industrial waste heat are the large volumes of heat involved and the temperatures at which the heat is available. The cost of using waste heat decreases as the quantities of heat and its temperature level increase.

Some of the waste heat in industrial plants can be cle:1rly identified and associated with specific types of waste streams in specific temperature ranges such a.s cooling water and furnace stack gases. Other heat waste is associated with products or processes and not readily quantified; for example, the multiple he!l.ting and cooling of iron a.s it moves from the ·blast furnace to a piece of sheet metal. The losses of both types are sizeable both on relative and absolute terms as shown in Figure 1. The thermal wastes from industrial processes are almost as large as the fossil fuel input for electrical genention. If all the 6.0 million BDOE of industrial waste heat could be covered and converted to electricity, the 8.0 mlllion BDOE of fuel consumption requirements for electric generation could be reduced by as much as 60 percent. (The difference between the available waste heat and the actual savings is due to the fact that conversion of w:aste heat to electricity is less efficient than the conversion of fuel to electricity.) The recovery of waste heat is only part of a broader energy conservation concept termed Energy cascading.

Energy Ca.sea.ding, a.s defined in Table 1, is simply a restatement of good engineering design practice based upon the Second L9.W of Thermodyna.niics. Conventional engineering design practice considers only the quantity of heat required for a task, not its quality. While we are used to seeing high system efficiencies expressed on the basis of conventional engineering practices, most processes are very inefficient when measured against Energy C:1scading. A good example of this ts a furnace. Under conventional design practice, the gas furnace is 75 percent efficient; under Energy Ca.sea.ding, the gas furnace is only 5 percent efficient.

TABLE 1.-Energy Cascading Definition: Matching the quality (temper·

ature) of available energy to the needs of the task.

Examples: ( 1) Using steam from a boiler to supply

both electricity and process heat-cogeneration; and

(2) Using an engine to drive a heat pump and using the engine exhaust as a supple· mental heat for heating a building-Gas heat pump.

Advantage: Maximizes energy utilization. For a more clear lllustration of the Energy

Ca.sea.ding concept, refer to Figure 2 ( not printed in the REcoRD) . On the left side of Figure 2 are listed five processes or cycles. Each process uses heat at a higher temperature and rejects heat at a lower temperature. The maximum quality or temperature of heat that occurs is that of a typical flame temperature of about 3600°F. While the steel rolUng mill needs the full temperature available, the process temperature exhaust is about 2000.°F. With recuperation, part of the energy can be used to preheat combustion air. However, this has not been general practice since energy costs were very low. An industrial gas turbine operates between a peak temperature of as high as 2000°F and exhausts as low a.s 500°F. Steam turbines operate over a range of about 1100°F to 14-0°F. Process steam is typically in the 300° to 400°F range. Organic Rankine Cycles can operate from around 300°F down to the available cooling water temperature of 90°F or less. Each one of these five processes uses only part of the temperature range available. By combining all of the five processes so that the waste or exhaust of one is the input to the next, the full temperature-energy potential can be utilized.

Some of the current energy buzz-works of total energy ·and cogeneration utilize only part of the total potential of energy cascading as shown in Figure 3 (not printed in the RECORD) . In total energy and cogeneration, the first step ( or top cycle) is the generation of electricity with the waste heat of the generation process being the input of the second step ( or bottom cycle) . In total energy, the bottom cycle is usually used for environmental conditioning (heating and cooling a building and heating water). In cogeneration, the bottom cycle is usually process steam for an industrial plant. While combining the steps is more energy efficient than the separate steps, considerably more energy could be saved by fully applying Energy Cascading.

Energy Cascading of thermal processes and power cycles is comparable to the butcher trying to use every part of the pig except the squeal. Fortunately, ·in energy conservation, we can do better than that proverbial butcher. We can use the squeal by employing an industrial heat pump. The industrial heat pump wlll permit the use of ambient air or water or very low temperature waste streams to provide useful process heat. Combining the industrial heat pump with the mechanical power available from topping or bottoming cycles further enhances the effect of the Energy Ca.sea.de approach.

It is obvious that certain components and portions of Energy Ca.sea.ding are technically within the state-of-the-art. Cogeneration with back pressure turbines has been practiced for decades. However, to achieve maximum energy utilization as much energy cascading as technically and economically possible must be carried out. This requires that new technologies be developed and demonstrated by ERDA in order to give industry technically viable alternatives from which they can choose. It also requires that a head-long rush to use existing technologies with only incremental improvement be avoided. The latter point is important as we have another scarce resourc~apital. Immediate substantial investments in state-ofthe-art techniques may preclude the adoption if more efficient devices and cycles that could be available in the early 1980's IF ERDA's funding for these items were what it should be. Table 2 lists some of the types of systems that need to be advanced or developed to enhance the prospects and advantages of Energy Cascading. In addition to the system concepts, component development is also needed as indicated in Table 3.

TABLE 2.-SOME OF THE TYPES OF R.D. & D. PROGRAMS NEEDED FOR ENERGY CASCADING AND THEIR APPLICABILITY

Temperature ranee

Me-dium Hieh

Low (200 (1,000 (under to to 200°F) 1,000) 2,000)

Heat pump cycles: Rankine ___ ____________ X

:£~i~;_----~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ::: ::: ~ Absorption _____________ X Adsorption _____________ X

Power cycles:

x x x x x

x x

if !iiI\iii=\t=~J::::: ~ Recuperation _____________ X X X Improved industrial proc-

esses __________________ X x x

Very hieh

(over 2,000)

x x x x x

TABLE 3.-Component technology development requirements

Heat Exchangers: Cost reduction; increased temperature range.

Turbines, Expanders, Compressors, Pumps: Improve efficiency.

Bearing/Lubrication: Improved life, decrease losses, and increased temperature capability.

Seals: Decrease leakage, improved life, and increased temperature capability.

Alternative Fuel Combustion: Use of noncritical fuels as primary or reheat fuel.

Sensors/Controls: Improved ability to control ca.sea.ding.

Another technology area that needs to be addressed is the use of very low temperature waste heat (l60°F and less). If Energy Ca.sea.ding is totally effective, there will be very little waste heat at temperatures above that of cooling tower water, but there will be vast amounts of waste heat at that temperature and lower. A great opportunity now exists within the Government's own operations to develop and test techniques to utilize large amounts of very low temperature waste heat. Table 4 summarizes the case for vigorous pursuit of the heat recovery programs at the nuclear fuel processing plants such as the enrichment plants at Oak Ridge, Paducah, and Portsmouth, and the Savannah River heavy water plant. TABLE 4.-Long-term need to develop uses _tor

low temperature waste heat and an immediate opportunity The ability to use heat decreases with its

temperature. Energy cascading will eventually produce

vast amounts of low temperature ( 160°F and less) waste heat.

Techniques to use low temperature waste heat must be developed.

The Government's nuclear fuel processing facilities (e.g., Savannah River, Paducah, Oak Ridge, Portsmouth) provide an excellent opportunity to both develop the necessary techniques and save vast amounts of energy.

The program to recover waste heat from nuclear processing plants should be accelerated.

CURRENT EMPHASIS ON CONSERVATION RD&D

The value and need for conservation and its a.ssoci.ated RD&D a.re clearly recognized. The National Energy Pla.n stresses the need for conservation a.nd energy efficiency and clearly states that benefit/cost ratio of conservation is .greater than various supply progra.ms .as illustrated by the quote in Table 6.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 22381 TABLE 5.-The value of conservation is

recognized in the national energy plan "The value of the proposed conservation

program can be illustrated by comp.a.ring the cost of savings from conservation with the cost of oil imports. Conservation reduces the need for imported oil costing about $13.50 per barrel through investment in insulation, lighter automobiles, clock thermostats, and other ca.pita.I equipment. The costs of the capital equipment c,a.n be expressed in terms of the cost of ea.ch barrel of oil equivalent which the equipment saves. The resulting costs vary, for example, the effective cost of barrel of oil equivalent saved under some of the plan's proposed oonservation measures a.re: less than $2 for cogener.ation; $3.50 for mandatory standards for new commercial construction;- and about $7.50 for tax credits for commercial and industrial investments in energy-saving retrofits or mandatory standards for new residential construction. In short, conservation pays."

The national energy plan, page 47. Perh.aps an even more striking example for

the case of conserv-a.tion is given in Table 6. Here, the cost of preventing the demand of a new kilowatt by the mundane act of putting storm windows on a new house ls compared to the cost of supplying a new kilowatt of generating capacity. The savings in capital and energy are obvious. This example does not require R&D but may require education or incentives. The impact of new energy conservation technologies a.re even more favorable than current conservation alternatives when compared to new supply technologies. An internal ERDA study is showing that conservation RD&D ls much more effective than any other category of ERDA resea.-rch. TABLE 6.-Energy conservation is more cost

effective than energy supply To save a new kilowatt of demand

Action-install 8 storm windows (0° Foutdoor temperature) .

Capttal cost----$200. Annual fuel consumption---0. To supply a new kilowatt of capacity

Action-build a power plant. Capital cost----$700-$1200. Annual fuel-4 BOE. • Considering the cle-a.rly recognized value

of conservation research, ERDA's budget should obviously be heavily weighted toward conservation programs. It should be but, as Figure 4 shows, it ls not. Even with the effect of an $80,450,000 increase in End Use Conservation recommended by President Carter for fiscal year 1978, conservation still represents only 6 percent of ERDA's RD&D

*Based on a 6,000 degree day heating season.

budget. The portion of the budget directed toward the utillz.ation of waste heat in industrial processes ls only $36,800,000 or 1.3 percent of ERDA'S RD&D programs. FIGURE 4.-Conservation, the cornerstone of

the national energy policy, is a very small portion of ERDA's revised 1978 bud.get Energy research programs, $2,838,414,000 End use conservation, $168,050,000. Industrial conservation-improved con-

servation efficiency-heat cycle technology, $36,800,000.

Electric energy systems; Fossil energy; Solar energy; Geothermal energy; Fusion power; Nuclear fuel cycle; Liquid metal fast breeder; Nuclear applications; Environmental research; Life sciences; High energy physics; Nuclear physics; Basic energy science; and End use conservation. Figure 5 shows that while industry con

sumes 37 percent of the energy in the country, only 1.3 percent of the RD&D funding is directed toward more effective and efficient utilization of energy in that sector. FIGURE 5.-The disparity between potential conservation impact and funding emphasis Industrial energy consumption as a per

cent of U.S. total-37 %. Percent of ERDA RD&D funding devoted

to industrial conservation, 1.3 % . The disparity becomes even worse when

specific program budgets for the efficient use of the vast amounts of industrial waste heat are examined. As shown in Table 7, only about $8,000,000 is being allocated for support of industrial waste heat utllization in fiscal year 1978. The data used for Table 7 ls drawn from a document prepared by ERDA in response to some questions raised by Congressman Vanik.

TABLE 7.-PLANNED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978 IN THE AREA OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION

Waste heat utilization range Program title

Revised fiscal year

1978 fund ing request

Low grade heat utili- Nuclear fuel processing•-- - No funds zation (under 200°F).

Middle grade heat In-plant. power generation 100, 000 utilization (200°F study. to l,000°F). Cogeneration demonstration- No funds

Stirling cycle heat pump 60, 000 study.

• Low grade heat utilization programs are also in building and community systems. These focus primarily on utility waste heat

Waste heat utilization range Program title

Revised fiscal rm

fundin1 request

Ener&Y optimized industrial 600, 000 park design study.

Rankine bottoming cycle 2, 800, 000 development and demon-stration.

Power cycles study__ _____ _ 200, 000 Industrial heat pump dem- 1, 400, 000

onstration.

Subtotal_ __________ _______ __ ____ - -- - -- _____ 5, 160, 000

High 1rade heat utili- Thermionics development___ 350, 000 zation (over Glass con1lomeration de- 240, 000 l,000°F). velopment.

Brayton bottoming cycle 800, 000 development and dem-onstration.

Recuperator demonstration_ 1, 400, 000

SubtotaL --- -- - --- -- - ------------- ---- ---- 2, 790, 000

Total waste heat -------------------------- 7, 950, 000 funding.

Conservaltion RD&D, the cornerstone of our energy future, is still being given lip service and ls not being given adequate support. The suppol't being given to industrial waste hea.t utilization is pathetic.

REALISTIC FUNDING NEEDS

The needs of ia.11 conservaltion RD&D are significantly greater rthan the funding allocations. In order to give an indication of how bad the match between funding needs and the budget is, we have chosen to look only at the sector which has tremendous potential burt which ls by far the most severely neglected-Industrial waste heat utilization. An appropriate funding level for industrial waste heat utilization ls estimated here without developing a. detailed program p~an and budget. This is accomplished by setting forth objectives for the number and types of programs and then estimating e.n expected cost for those programs. The first step ls to examine Table 2 to determine that there are 32 system-application regions for study. Considering multiple applications within a region and multiple approaches to a system, the number of RD&D prograIDS required would be well over 100. ERDA should vigorously pursue each approach and application to develop the necessary technical alternatives for industry. In addition to system RD&D, there are program requirements in the areas of needs assessment and technology studies and component developments. Listing these program requirements, we can set objectives as to the number of systems that should be under study or development in a given year. This ls shown in Table 8. The next step is to assign an expected average anual cost for ea.ch program type.

TABLE 8.-REQUIRED FUNDING ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Fiscal year 1978

Average annual Number of funding

Program type contracts per contract Funding by

program type

Fiscal year 1979 through 1983

Average annual Number of funding

contracts per contract Funding by

program type

10 $200, 000 $2, 000, 000 20 500, 000 10, 000, 000

Needs assessments and technology studies_________________________ ________________ 15 $200, 000 $3, 000, 000 Component development_ ______________________________ __________________________ 30 500, 000 15, 000, 000

50 1, 500, 000 75, 000, 000 10 1, 500, 000 15, 000, 000

System R. & D- ----------------------------------------- -- ---------------------- 100 l, 500, 000 150, 000, 000 System demonstrations___________________________________________________________ 15 1, 500, 000 22, 500, 000

--~~--------~-------~~--~--~~~--~~ Total funding_____________________________________________________________ ________________________________ 102, 000, 000 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ 190, 500, 000

TABLE 9.-Typical cost range of typical programs to bring a conservation technology through concept demonstration

Cost per year Research and development: $100,000 to

$10,000,000. Program duration

Research and development: 1 year to 10

years.

. Total cost Research and development: $100,000 to

$100,000,000. Average annual cost per program

IResea.rch and development : $1,500,000. Concept demonstration: $750,000 to $5,-

000,000. Concept demonstration: 2 years to 4 yea.rs. Concept demonstration: $1,500,000 to $20,-

000,000.

Concept demonstration: $1,500,000 . Table 9 lists the expected range of costs

for R&D and demonstration programs and the expected average annual cost per program. Placing these values in Table 8, we arrived at a funding level adequate to achieve timely objectives. Table 10 shows how these estimate required funding levels compare with the actual levels. The disparity between the allocations and needs is crippling the program.

22382 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977 TABLE 10.-COMPARISON OF ACTUAL FUNDING PROVIDED TO FUNDING NEEDED _FOR INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION

Transition 1976 quarter 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981

l.ndustrial conservation __________ _____________ ______________ -- __ -- __ -- -- -- -- -- -- 5, 228 1, 009 14, 430 25, 000 --------- --- ---------------------------- --11, 800 ---------------- ------------------------ --I mp roved conversion technology-heat cycle _______________ ------ -- ------------ -- 1, 682 701 1, 850

Neede:~iu:~o~~fa~fg~~~t~~~= :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: == :: :: :: :: :: :::: :: :: :: 7, 910 1, 710 16, 280 8, 000 8, 000 50, 000

36, 800 ---------------------------------------- --102, 000 190, 600 200, 000 200, 000

The problems of conservation funding started at the beginning of ERDA and continues. In the area of waste heat recovery technology development, the real funding in fl.seal year 1977 was actually less than in fl.seal year 1976 (see Table 10). To correct the funding imbalance requirements bold action now.

DELAY IS DISASTER

There may have been arguments that conservation RD&D is a lower priority effort. However, the National Energy Plan, ERDA's own in-house study, and common sense all say that conservation must be the highest priority. It may now be granted conservation RD&D is the highest priority but argued that funding adjustments can wait. Delay in the development and introduction of conservation technologies have considerable impact. This stems from the fact that an action taken today that saves a BOOE results in that saving forever . A year's delay means 365 barrels of oil were consumed and are gone forever. Also, it takes time to have new products gain acceptance and usage. The combination of these two effects produces signifl.cant cumulative effects for even minor delays. For example, in the single area of Rankine Bottoming Cycle waste heat recovery systems of less than 5 megawatts, Table 11 shows that a single year slippage wm result in the country buying $1.5 b1llion more oil than it should by the year 2000. This assumes that oil w1ll be available for the next 23 years. TABLE 11.-The effect of a single year of delay

in the market introduction of Rankine bottoming cycles for waste heat utilization Year product introduced to market, 1981.

Amount of energy conserved by year 2000, 565 million barrels. Value of conserved energy,"' $8.5 billion.

Year product introduced to market, 1982. Amount of energy conserved by year 2000, 465. Value of conserved energy, * $7.0 billion.

In summary, conservation is essential. Industrial conservation offers a particularly attractive potential for sizeable energy savings. Technology development and· demonstration are required on a timely basis to achieve the fulll potential energy savings. ERDA's industrial conse·rvation budget is totally inadequate for the needs. Immediate action is required by both the Executive and Legislative Branches. The Executive Branch can produce the quickest results by reprogramming funds for fl.seal year 1977. The Executive and Legislative Branches must take steps to reassign priorities and to assure that adequate funding is available. At the minimum, the area of industrial waste heat utmzation should have its budget for fl.seal year 1978 tripled. In order to assure that the importance of this .area is recognized and given the proper attention in ERDA (or DOE), specifl.c legis·lation is needed as has been provided for other energy areas. Some bUls have already been introduced' to accomplish this (e.g. S1363 by Senator Hart and HR6661 by Congressman Ottinger) .

The course is clear; all that is needed is action!

Reprogram FY 77 funds; Increase FY 78 appropriations; and

* At $15 per barrel, a conservative estimate for 1981 and beyond.

Provide a specifl.c legislative charge for waste heat utilization.

Mr. HART. I urge my colleagues to recognize a real bargain when they see one, and to save approximately $90 million in the long run by spending less than a million and a half dollars now, as this addition to the Glenn amendment would do.

I think the Senator from Tennessee, who has indicated interest in being a cosponsor of this amendment, would also like to speak to this issue.

Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Colorado for his substitute amendment to the Glenn amendment, which I strongly support.

I also commend the distinguished Senator from Ohio for his · imaginative amendment.

I think Senator HART'S amendment represents a very logical addition to the waste heat recovery studies provided for in Senator GLENN'S original amendment.

The use of lower temperature waste heat is one of the most promising tasks to be resolved by ERDA in the months ahead. More work is needed, and this amendment helps begin that work. When you consider the energy savings which are involved, the simple truth is that this amendment offers one of the most cost-effective energy investments we can make in the 1978 fiscal year.

We stand at a point in our history where our Government can act as the catalyst for the adaptation of our society to energy conservation. We are crossing a frontier which is harder to discern, at first, than any of the frontiers our ancestors crossed before us. But already, some people are calling this the second industrial revolution.

Our technology has developed so rapidly that we still are not using our limited resources in the most rational manner. For example, we are still polluting our environment with wasted thermal energy which could be easily recovered to perform useful work. And this can be done with minimal Federal investment in just a few emerging technologies.

The larger issues in cogeneration and waste heat recovery will be addressed in a few weeks when the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources holds hearings on Senator Hart's cogeneration bill, S. 1363. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that pioneering legislation introduced by the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

This amendment commits the Federal Government to harnessing the considerable energy which is being squandered at these four nuclear facilities, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his remarks.

They are, to me, well taken and I appreciate his support.

I would reiterate what he said. The initiative taken by the Senator from Ohio is vital to saving the heat energy we now waste in the uranium enrichment process. The entire thrust of my amendment is to support that initiative by increasing the money available to ERDA to develop the actual technologies for the purpose /of utilizing low-tempera.ture waste heat-the purpose which the Senator from Ohio has rightly targeted.

That would be true as far as the sponsor of this substitute amendment is concerned.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HART. Yes. Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, that is one thing I

wanted to clarify, because there was some confusion when this was introduced as to whether it was a substitute or a perfecting amendment, or its exact status.

It makes no difference to me which it is so long as it is understood that the original intent is not altered.

I concur fully with the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Colorado in the necessity for this expenditure. As long as this proposal does not change the acceptability of the amendment. I am happy to accept the change, because I think the extra funds can be used.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, to clarify again, there is no intent to change in any way the direction or thrust of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, but merely to supplement it in terms of the amount, and to encourage ERDA to use that amount to develop and test ways to utilize our low-temperature waste heat resources.

That is the sole purpose of this amendment. It is not to change in any way the original intent of the Senator from Ohio.

I certainly hope that because of the relatively small amount involved and the nature and purpose of the way it would be spent, the committee will see its way clear to support this as an important savings for taxpayers in the future.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I think the case for this amendment can suffer only from overargumentation.

I would not want to take an oath on the fact that by adding $1.4 million we will save the taxpayers $90 million. There is a certain sophistry in that argument.

Mr. HART. As I stated earlier, the $90 million figure derives from multiplying ERDA's conclusions by $15 per barrel.

Mr. CHURCH. However, the matter does have to do with coproduction, coprocessing, and here ·we have been clearly deficient.

I agree with the proposition that the Government ought to start with its own processing plant and demonstrate there

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22383 how wasted heat can be recaptured and put to constructive use.

I am told that in Germany 40 percent of the electricity is today being generated through coproduction in connection with other types of manufacturing processes. The efficient Germans have not overlooked the possibility of generating electricity from the heat that we simply waste into the air space above our own manufacturing plants.

I am happy to accept the amendment suggested by the Senator from Colorado as a substitute for the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. I hope that the Senate will approve it.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, we have no obection on this side of the aisle.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Vote! Vote! The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.

The amendment was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques

tion recurs on agreeing to the Glenn amendment, as amended.

The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.




Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an unprinted amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.


The legislative clerk read as fallows: The Senator from Ohio (Mr. GLENN) for

himself a.nd Mr. GRAVEL, proposes a.n unprinted amendment numbered 644.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows: At the end of Title III a.dd a. new section

to read a.s follows: "SEC. 310. No nuclear fuel shall be ex

ported to supply a. nucleair power reactor under a.n Agreement for Cooperation which has not been reviewed by the Congress of the United States under the procedures in section 123 d of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153(d)), a.s amended by Public La.w 93-485, directly or indirectly to a. nonnuclear weapons state (within the mea.nlng of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Wea.pons) which ha.snot ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Wea.pons unless the first proposed license under such agreement authorizing the export of either such reactor or such fuel after the date of this Act is first submitted to the Congress for review under the congressional review procedures provided for Agreements for Cooperation in the above-referenced section 123 d of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a.s a.mended.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, last fall in the waning days of the session, with Senator PASTORE, I offered an amendment to the 1977 ERDA authorization

bill that placed the same conditions, with respect to Congressional review, on old agreements for cooperation as on new ones.

That proposal did not pass last fall due to the failure of the 94th Congress to pass the conference report on the ERDA bill. It did pass the Senate, however. The proposal by Senator PASTORE and I covered the following points:

First, we would have the opportunity to review the first export license for fuel or a reactor proposed under an old agreement for cooperation that had not previously been reviewed by Congress. It would apply only to shipments made to non-NPT nations and would apply only to nonnuclear weapon states.

I realize, Mr. President, that we do have legislation coming down the road this year addressed to some of these same matters, but this proposal was passed last year, and we do not know exactly what direction the new legislation will take.

In order to be certain that these important considerations are taken into account as new licensing applications come in and are considered, we feel that these old agreements should be put under the same ground rules and on the same footing as agreements made since 1974, as far as congressional review is concerned.

I have discussed this proposal with the floor managers on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GLENN. Certainly. Mr. CHURCH. Under the language of

the Senator's amendment, which I have previously reviewed but do not now have before me, it is my understanding that the amendment would relate only to new agreements with foreign governments involving nonnuclear proliferation treaty states and nonnuclear weapons states.

So all three of those conditions would have to be met in making a new agreement.

Mr. GLENN. Or it could be an old agreement which has never been reviewed.

Mr. CHURCH. Yes; an old agreement, or a new agreement, I would think, after an old agreement had expired.

Mr. GLENN. Right. Mr. CHURCH. And it would have to be

with a nonweapon state and a state not a party to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

Mr. GLENN. That would be correct. Mr. CHURCH. My second question to

the Senator is this: What would be the effect of the congressional review? Is it nothing more than simply to inform Congress of the contents of such new agreements?

Mr. GLENN. Yes. This informs Congress, just as with any new licensing agreements that come before Congress now for our consideration. We have the right of refusal or veto on those new agreements. This places licenses proposed under the old ones on the same basis.

Mr. CHURCH. So the end result of the Senator's amendment is that all these

agreements, together with new agreements, would be subject to congressional review and to congressional veto in the event that the agreement did not prove to be acceptable.

Mr. GLENN. That is correct. Mr. CHURCH. I think it is a commend

able amendment, Mr. President, and% have no reason to oppose it. I hope my colleague will join me in accepting it.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment on this side of the aisle.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to

reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.




Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.


The legislative clerk read as follows: The Sena.tor from Ida.ho (Mr. McCLURE)

proposes a.n unprinted amendment numbered 645.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.


The amendment is as follows: Page 9, line 9, strike the period and insert

in lieu thereof, ", Provided, That no.ne of the funds a.ppropria.ted pursuant to this Act or a.ny other funds made a.v.a.lla.ble to the Administrator, or upon establishment of a. Department of Energy by an Act of Congress, to the Secretary of Energy, under a.ny other authorization or appropriation Act shall be used, directly or indirectly, for the repurchase, transportation, or storage of any foreign spent nuclear fuel (including a.hy nuclear fuel irradiated in a.ny nuclear research or power reactor located outside of the United States and operated by any foreign legal entity, government or nongovernment, regardless of the legal ownership or control of the fuel or the reactor, a.nd regardless of the origin or licensing of the fuel or the reactor), unless expressly authorized by a.nnua.l a.uthoriza.tion legislation hereafter enacted for the Energy Research a.nd Development Administration, or, upon establishment by Act of Congress, the Department of Energy.

"Provided further, That nothing contained in this section shall be construed in a.ny executive branch action, adip.Lnistrative proceeding, <regulatory proceeding, or legal proceeding a.s being intended to delay, modify, reverse, or cancel the memorandum a.nd order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of June 28, 1977, for the issuance of License No. XSNM-845 to the a.gent-a.pplica.nt for the Government of India. a.nd the subsequent export thereby licensed of the special nuclear material to be used as fuel for the Ta.ra.pur Atomic Power Station, or any order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a. license for the export of special nuclear ma.teria.l a.nd subsequent exports thereby licensed, or a.ny consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a. license a.pplica.tion for the export of special nuclear ma.terin.l."


Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, this is an amendment I have discussed with the manager of the bill, my distinguished colleague from Idaho, and I think he finds it acceptable. It deals with the other side of the question we just dealt with, with the Senator from Ohio, dealing with the agreements by which we furnish fuels to foreign governments or to operators in foreign countries.

This would deal with the question of the radioactive waste return, the spent fuel rod return, giving congressional review of that, at the same time avoiding the problem of getting into the one which is currently underway.

Mr. CHURCH. The amendment would not affect the agreement that apparently has been reached with India, but I must say that that agreement, in itself, underscores the problem that may take place if we go to a throwaway cycle, as the administration has proposed. It may very well mean that the Indian treaty is only the first of a whole series of treaties whereby the United States will be obliged to purchase back the spent fuel rods and make this country the principal depository for most of the nuclear wastes of the world.

I certainly approve of this amendment, because at least it gives Congress an opportunity to review those agreements in the future and to refuse, if necessary, to appropriate the funds for the purpose of repurchasing the radioactive wastes. I find the amendment wholly commendable, and I urge the Senate to adopt it.

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I move the adoption of the amendment.




Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.



UP AMENDMENT 646

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I send to the desk certain technical amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH)

proposes certain technical amendments, unprinted amendment No. 646.

The amendment is as follows: On page 16, lines 6 and 7, strike the words:

"(1) and (2), and in Title II, subsections 202(1) and (2) ," and insert in lieu thereof: " (a) through (h)".

On page 17, line 4, strike the words: "201 (3) and 202·(3) ," and insert in lieu thereof: "101(9) and 101 (1) ".

On page 18, line 12., after the words "Sec. 401." insert "(a.)".


The amendment was agreed to.

UP AMENDMENT NO. 64 7

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I send to the desk an unprinted amendment. This amendment is the exact text of S. 1340, which was passed by the Senate on June 13, 1977.

For the information of the Senate, a companion measure which is now being considered 'by the House, to provide authorizations for the ERDA fiscal year 1978 R. & D. programs, contains authorizations for both nuclear and non-nuclear programs. By attaching this amendment to S. 1811, the Senate will be able to go to conference with a single measure containing provisions similar to those which will be considered by the House.



The Sena.tor from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 647.

The amendment is as follows: Beginning on line 3, page 1, strike out all

through line 4 on page 2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

That this Act may be cited as the "ERDA Authorization Aot of 1978-Civilian Aipplica.tions".

SEC. 2. In accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as a.mended (42 U.S.C. 2017), section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. 5875), and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, a.s amended (42 U.S.C. 5915), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Energy Research a.nd Development Administration subject to titles I, VI, and VII of thl.6 Act, the following:

On line 23, page 14, strike the words "title I" and insert in lieu .thereof ".titles I, VI, and VII".

On page 18, after line 8 insert the following ne·w sections:

SEc. 310. (a.) Section 7(a.) of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5906) is amended-

(1) 1by striking out "and" Sifter the semicolon at the end of par.a.graph (5),

(2) 1by striking out the period at the end of para.graph (6) and inserting in lieu thereof"; and", and

(3) by adding at the end thereof the following new para.graph:

"(7) Federal loan guarantees e.nd commitments thereof as provided in section 19.".

(b) The Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 19'74 ( 42 U.S.C. 5901, et seq.) 1s further amended by ·adding a.t the end thereof the following new section:

"LOAN GUARANTEES FOR ALTERNATIVE FVEL DEMONSTRATION FACILITIES

"SEc. 19. (a) It is the purpose of this section-

" ( 1) to assure a.deqW1.te Federal support to fost.er a demonstration program. to produce alternative fuels from coal, oll shale, and other domestic resources;

"(2) to authorize assistance, through loan guarantees under subsection (b) for construction and startup and related costs, to demonstration facilities for the conversion of domestic coal, oil shale, biomass, and other domestic resources into alternative fuels; and

"(3) to gather information about the technological, economic, environmental, and social costs, benefits, and impacts of such demonstration facilities.

"(b) ( 1) Except as provided in paragraph

(5) of this subsection, the Administrator is authorized, in accordance with such rules and regulations as he shall prescribe after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to guarantee and to make commitments to guarantee, in such manner and subject to such conditions (not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act) as he deems appropriate, the payment of interest on, and the principal balance of, bonds, debentures, notes, and other obligations issued by, or on behalf of, and borrower for the purpose of financing the construction and startup costs of demonstration facilities for the conversion of domestic coal, oil shale, biomass, and other domestic resources into alternative fuels: Provided, That no loan guarantee for a full sized oil shale facility shall be provided under this section until after successful demonstration of a modular facility producing between six and ten thousand barrels per day, taking into account such considerations as water usage, environmental effects, waste disposal, labor conditions, health and safety, and the socioeconomic impacts on local communities: Provided further, That no loan guarantee shall be available under this subsection for the manufacture of component parts for demonstration facilities eligible for assistance under this subsection.

"(2) An applicant for any financial assistance under this section shall provide information to the Administrator in such form and with such content as the Administrator deems necessary.

"(3) Prior to issuing any guarantee under this section the Administrator shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury with resoect to the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee. The Secretary of the Treasury shall insure to the maximum extent feasible that the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee will have the minimum possible impact on the capital markets of the United States, taking into account other Federal direct and indirect securities activities.

" ( 4) The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the payment of all guarantees issued under this section with respect to principal and interest.

"(5) (A) The Administmtor is authorized, in the case of a. facility for the conversion of oil shale to alternative fuels which is determined by the Administrator pursuant to the prov-iso in para.graph (1) (A) of this subsection, to be constructed at a modulair size, to enter int.o a cooperative agreement with the applicant in accordance with section 8 of this Act and the other provisions of this Act to share the estimated total design and construction costs, plus operation and maintenance costs, of such modular facility. The Federal share shall not exceed 7·5 per centum of such costs. All receipts for the sale of any products produced during the operation of the :f1acllity shall be used to offset the costs incurred in the operation and maintenance of the facility. The provisions of subsections (d). (e), (k), (m), (p), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w), a.:nd (x) shall apply to any such modular facility. The provisions of this section shall apply to any loon guarantee for such modular facillty.

"(B) Af.ter successful demonstration of the modulia.r facility, as determined ;by the Administrator, the facility is eligible for financial assistance under this section for purposes of ex,pansion t.o a full sized facility and the applicant may pureha.se the Federal interest in the modular fa.cllity as repre_sented ·by the Federal share thereof by mea.ns of (1) a cash payment to the United States, or (11) a sha.re of the ·product or sales resulting from such ex·panded operatlon, as determined by the Admin1$tra.tor. If expansion of such facility is determined not to be war-

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22385 ranted ,by the Administrator, he may, ia.t the option of the a.pplicant, dispose of the modula.r facllity to the applicatn at not less than fair market value, as determined. by the Administrator as of the date of the disposal, or otherwise dispose of it, in accordlance with applicable provisions of law, and distribute the net proceeds thereof, after expenses of such disposal, to the applicant in proportion to the applicant's share of the cost.s of such facility.

"(6) To the extent possible, loa.n guarantees shall be issued on the basis of competitive bidding among guarantee a.pplicant.s in a particular technology a.rea.

"(c) The Adm.Lnistrator, with due .regard for the need for competition, shall guarantee or make a commitment to guarantee any obligation under subsection (b) only if-

"(1) the Administrator is satLsfied that the financial assistance applied for ls necessary to encourage financial participation;

"(2) the amount .gua.ra.nteed to any borrower at any time does not exceed-

" (A) an a.mount equal to 75 per centum of the project cost of the demonstration facility as estimated at the time the guarantee is issued, which cost shall not include amounts expended for facilities and equipment used in the extraction of a mineral other than coal or shale, and in the case of coa.l only to the extent that the Administrator determines that the coal is to be con· verted to alternative fuel; and

"(B) an amount equal to 60 per centum of that portion of the actual total project cost of any demonstration facility which exceeds the project cost of such facility as estimated at the time the loan guarantee is issued·

"(3) the Administrator has determi~ed that there will be a continued reasonable assurance of full repayment;

"(4) the obligation is subject to the condition that it not be subordinated to any other financing; ·

" ( 5) the Administrator has determined taking into consideration all reasonably available forms of assistance under this section and other Federal and State statutes, that the impacts resulting from the proposed demonstration facility have been fully evaluated by the borrower, the Administrator, and the Governor of the affected State, and that effective steps have been ta.ken or will be ta.ken in a timely manner to finance community planning and development costs resulting from such facility under this section, under other provisions of law, or by other means;

"(6) the maximum maturity of the obligation does not exceed twenty yea.rs, or 90 per centum of the projected useful economic life of the physical assets of the demonstration facility covered l?Y the guarantee, whichever is less, as determined by the Administrat0r;

"(7) the Administrator has determined that, in the case of any demonstration or modular facility planned to be located on !ndian lands, the appropriate Indian tribe, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, has given written consent to such location;

"(8) the obligation provides for the orderly and ratable retirement of the obligation and includes sinking fund provisions, installment payment provisions or other methods of payments and reserves as may be reasonably required by the Administrator. Prior to approving any repayment schedule the Aqministra.tor may consider the date on which operating revenues are anticipated to be generated by the project. To the maximum extent possible repayment or provision therefor shall be required to be ma.de in equal payments 1)'8.yable at equal intervals; and

"(9) the obligation provides that the Ad-CXXIII--1409-Part 18

ministrator shall, after a period of not less than ten years from issuance of the obligation, taking into consideration whether the Government's needs for information to be derived from the project have been substantially met and whether the project is capable of commercial operation, determine the fea.sib111ty and advisab111ty of terminating the Federal participation in the project. In the event that such determination is positive, the Administrator shall notify the borrower and provide the borrower with not less than two nor more than three yea.rs in which to find alternative financing. At the expiration of the designated period of time, if the borrower has been unable to secure alternative financing, the Administrator is authorized to collect from the borrower an e.dditiona.l fee of 1 per centum per annum on the remaining obligation to which the Federal guarantee applies.

"(d) Prior to submitting a. report to Congress pursuant to subsection (m) of this section on ea.ch guarantee and coopera.tive agreement, the Administrator sha.11 request from the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trtade Commission wr,itten views, comments, and recommendations concerning the impact of such guarantee or commitment or agreement on competition and concentration in the production of energy · and give due consideration to views, comments, and recommendations received: Provided, That if either official, wathin sixty days after receipt of such request or at '8.IlY time prior to the Administ:rta.tor submitting such report to Congress, reco:nune-nds aga.inst ma.king such guarantee or commitment or agreement, the proposed guarantee or commitment or agreement shall be referred to the President, and the Administrator shall not do so unless the President determines in writing that such guarantee or commitment or ,agreement is in the national interest.

" ( e) ( 1) As soon as the Administra.tor knows the geographic location of a proposed fa.ciUty for which a guarantee or a commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement is sought under this section, he shall inform the Governor of the State, and officials of ea.ch political subdivision and Indian tribe, as appropriate, in which the facility would be located or which would be impacted by such fac111ty. The Administra.tor shall not guar.a.ntee or make a commitment to guarantee or enter into a cooperative agreement under subsection (b) of this section, if the Governor of the State in which the proposed faciUty would be located recommends that such action not be ta.ken, unless the Administrator finds that there is an overriding national interest in taking such action in order to achieve the purpose of this section. If the Administrator decides to guarantee or make a commitment to guarantee or enter into a cooperative agreement despite a Governor's recommendation not to take such action, the Administrator shall communicate, in writing, to the Governor reasons for not concurring with such recommendation. This Administl'lator's decision, pursuant to this subsection, shall be final unless determined upon judicial review initiated by the Governor to be unlawful by the reviewing court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706(2) (A) through (D). Such review shall take place in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the State involved is located, upon application made within ninety days from the date of such decision. The Administrator sh•aJI, by regulation, establish procedures for review of, and comment on, the proposed facility by States, local political subdivisions, and Indian tribes which may 'be impacted by such facility, and the general public.

"(2) The Administr.ator shall review and approve the plans of the applicant for the construction and ope:rtation of any demonstration and related facilities constructed

or to be constructed with assistance under this section. Such plans and the actual construction shall include such morutoring and other data-gathering costs associated with such faciLity -as are required by the comprehensive plan and program under this section. The Administrator sha.11 determine the

, estimated total cost of such demonstration faciUty, including, but not limited to, construction costs, sta.rtup costs, costs to political subdivisions and Indian trtbtes by such facility, a.nd costs of any water storage facilities needed in connection with such demonstration facility, and determine who shall pay such costs. Such determination shall not be binding upon the States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribea.

" ( 3) There is hereby esta.blished a panel to advise the Administrator on matters relating to the program authorized by this section, including, but not limited to, the impact of the demonstration facillties on communities and States and Indian tribes, the environmental and health and safety effects of such facilities, and the means, measures, and planning for preventing or mitigating such impacts, and other ma.tten. relating to the development of alternative fuels and other energy sources under this section. The panel shall include such Governors or their designees as shall be designated by the Chairman of the National Governors Conference, Representatives of Indian tribes, industry, environmental organizations, and the general public shall be appointed by the Administrator. 'Ilhe Chairman of the panel shall be selected by the Administrator. No person shall be appointed to the panel who has a financial interest in any applicant applying for assistance under this section. Members of the panel ~hall serve without compensation. The provisions of section 106 ( e) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5816 ( e) ) shall apply to the panel.

"(f) Except in accordance with reasonable terms and conditions contained in the written contract of guarantee, no guarantee issued or commitment to guarantee made under this section shall be terminated, canceled, or otherwise revoked. Such a guarantee or commitment shall be conclusive evidence that the underlying obligation is in compliance with the provisions of this section and that such obligation hes been approved and is legal as, to principal, interest, and other terms. Subject to the conditions of the guarantee or commitment to guarantee, such a guarantee shall be incontestable in the hands of the holder of the guaranteed obligation, except as to fraud or material misrepresentation on the part of the holder.

"(g) (1) If there is a default by :the borrower, as defined in regulations promulgated by the Administrator and in the guarantee contra.ct, the holder of the obligation shall have the right to demand payment of the unpaid a.mount from the Administrator. Within such period as may be specified in the guarantee or related agreements, the Administrator shall pay to the holder of the obligation the unpaid interest on, and unpaid principal of, the guaranteed obligation as to which the borrower has defaulted, unless the Administrator finds that there was no default by the borrower in the payment of interest or principal or that such default has been remedied. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any forebearance by the holder of the obligation for the benefit of the borrower which may be agreed upon by the parties to the guaranteed obllgation and approved by the Administrator.

"(2) If the Administrator makes a payment under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Administrator shall be subrogated to the rights of the recipient of such payment (and such subrogation shall be expressly set forth in the guarantee or related agreements), including the authority to complete, maintain,

'22386 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977

operate, lease, or otherwise dispose of any property acquired pursuant to such guarantee or related agreements, or any other property of the borrower (of a value equal to the amount of such payment) to the extent that the guarantee applies to amounts in excess of the estimated project cost under subsection (c) (2) (B), without regard to the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, except section 207 of that Act ( 40 U.S.C. 488), or any other law, or to permit the borrower, pursuant to an agreement with the Administrator, to continue to pursue the purposes of the demonstration facility if the Administrator determines that this is in the public interest. The rights of the Administrator with respect to any property acquired pursuant to such guarantee or related agreements, shall be superior to the rights of any other person with respect to such property.

"(3) In the event of a default on any guarantee under this section, the Administrator shall notify the Attorney General, who shall take such action as may be appropriate to recover the amounts of any payments made under paragraph {l) including any payment of principal and interest under subsection (h) from such assets of the defaulting borrower as are associated with the demonstration facility, or from any other security included in the terms of the guarantee.

"(4) For purposes of this section, patents, including any inventions for which a waiver was .made by the Administrator under section 9 of this Act, and technology resulting from the demonstration facility, shall be treated as projects assets of such facility. The guarantee agreement shall include such detailed terms and conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate to protect the interests of the United States in the case of default and to have available all the patents and technology necessary for any person selected, including, but not limited to the Administrator, to complete and operate the defaulting project. Furthermore, the guarantee agreement shall contain a provision specifying that patents, technology, and other proprietary rights which are necessary for the completion or operation of the demonstration facility shall be available to the United States and its designees on equitable terms, including due consideration to the amount of the United States default payments. Inventions made or conceived in the course of or under such guarantee, title to which is vested in the United States under this Act, shall not be treated as project assets of such faciity for disposal purposes under this subsection, unless the Administrator determines in writing that it is in the best interests of the United States to do so.

"(h) With respect to any obligation guaranteed under this section, the Administrator is authorized to enter into a contract to pay, and to pay, holders of the obligations, for and on behalf of the borrowers, from the fund established by this section, the principal and interest payments which become due and payable on the unpaid balance of such obligation if the Administrator finds that-

" ( 1) the borrower is unable to meet such payments and is not in default ; it is in the public interest to permit the borrower to continue to pursue the purposes of such demonstration facility; and the probable net benefit to the Federal Government ln paying such principal and interest will be greater than that which would result in the event of a default;

"(2) the amount of such payment which the Administrator is authorized to pay shall be no greater than the amount of principal and interest which the borrower is obligated to pay under the loan agreement; and

"(3) the borrower agrees to reimburse the Administrator for such payment on terms

and conditions, including interest, which are satisfactory to the Administrator.

"(i) Regulations required by this section shall be issued within one hundred and eighty days after enactment of this section, except as provided in subsection (t) of this section. All regulations under this section and any amendments thereto shall be issued in accordance wtih section 553 of title 5, of the United States Code.

"(j) The Administrator shall charge and collect fees for guarantees of obligations authorized by subsection (b) (1), in amounts which ( 1) are sufficient in the judgment of the Administrator to cover the applicable administrative costs, and (2) reflect the percentage of projects costs guaranteed. In no event shall the fee be less than 1 per centum per annum of the outstanding indebtedness covered by the guarantee. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to apply to community planning and development assistance pursuant to subsection (k) of this section.

"(k) (1) In accordance with such rules and regulations as the Administrator in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, and subject to such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate, the Administrator is authorized, for the purpose of financing essential community development and planning which directly result from, or are necessitated by, one or more demonstration facilities assisted under this section to-

"(A) guarantee and make commitments to guarantee the payment o,f interest on, and the principal balance of, obligations for such financing issued by eligible States, political subdlvisions, or Indian tribes,

"(B) guarantee and make commitments to guarantee the payment of taxes 1mposed on such demonstration :facilities by eligible nonFederal taxing authorities which taxes are earmarked by such authorities to support the payment o! interest and principal on obligations !or such financing, and

"(C) require that the applicant for assistance for a demonstration facility under this section advance sums to eligible States, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes to pay for the financing of such development and planning: Provided, That the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe agrees to provide tax abatement credits over the life of the facilities for such payments by such applicant.

" ( 2) Prior to issuing any guarantee under this subsection, the Administrator shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee. The Secretary of the Treasury shall insure to the maximum extent feasible that the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee will have the minimum possible impact on the capital markets of the United States, taking into account other Federal direct and indirect securities activities.

"(3) In the event of any default by the borrower in the payment of taxes guaranteed by the Administrator under this subsection, the Administrator shall pay out of the fund established by this section such taxes at the time or times they may fall due, and shall have by reason of such payment a claim against the borrower for all sums paid plus interest.

"(4) If after consultation with the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe, the Administrator finds that the financial assistance programs of paragraph ( 1) of this subsection will not result in sufficient funds to carry out the purposes of this subsection, then the Administrator may-

" (A) make direct loans to the eligible States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes

for such purposes: Provided, That such loans shall be made on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Administrator shall prescribe: Provided further, That the Administrator may waive repayment of all or part of a loan made under this paragraph, including interest, if the State or political subdivisions or Indian tribe involved demonstrates to the satisfaotion of the Administrator tha.t due to a change in circumstances there will be met adverse impacts resulting from such demonstration facility that would probably ca~se such State, subdivision, or tribe to default on the loan; or

"(B) require that any community development and planning costs which are associated with, or result from, such demonstration facility and which are determined by the Administrator to be appropriate for such inclusion shall be included in the total costs of the demonstration facility.

"(5) The Administrator is further authorized to make grants to States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes for studying and planning for the potential economic, environmental, and social consequences of demonstration facilities, and for establishing related management expertise.

"(6) At any time the Administrator may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, redeem, in whole or in part, out of the fund established by this section, the debt obligations guaranteed or the debt obligations for which tax payments are guaranteed under this subsection.

"(7) When one or more States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes would be eligible for assistance under this subsection, but for the fact that construction and operation of the demonstration facilities occurs outside its jurisdiction, the Administrator is authorized to provide, to the greatest extent possible, arrangements for equitable sharing of such assistance.

"(8) Such amounts as may be necessary for direct loans and grants pursuant to this subsection shall be available as provided in annual authorization Acts.

"(9) The Administrator, if appropriate, shall provide assistance in the financing of up to 100 per centum of the costs of the required community development and planning pursuant to this subsection.

"(10) In carrying out the provisions of this subsection, the Administrator shall provide that title to any f.acility receiving financial assistance under this subsection shall vest in the applicable State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe, as appropriate, and in the case of default by the borrower on a loan guarantee such facility shall not be considered a project asset for the purposes of subsection (g) of this section.

"(l) (1) The Administrator is directed to submit a reuort to the Congress within one hundred and eighty days after the enact-_ ment of this section setting forth his recommendations on the best opuortunities to implement a program of Federal financial assistance with the objective of demonstrating production and conservation of energy. Such report shall be updated and submitted to Congress at least annually and shall include specific comments and recommendations by the Secretary of the Treasury on the methods and procedures set forth in subparagraph (B) (viii) of this subsection, including their adequacy, and changes necessary to satisfy the objectives stated in this subsection. This report shall include-

"(A) a study of the purchase or commitment to purchase by the Federal Government, for the use by the United States, of all or a portion of the products of any alternative fuel facilities constructed pursuant to this program as a direct or an alternate form of Federal assistance, which assistance, if recommended, shall be carried

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22387 out pursuant to section 7(a) (4) of this Act; and

"(B) a comprehensive plan and program to acquire information and evaluate the environmental, economic, social, and technological impacts of the demonstration program under this section. In preparing such a comprehensive plan and program, the Administrator shall consult with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Treasury, and shall include therein, but not be limited to, the following:

"(i) information a-bout potential demonstration facilities proposed in the program under this section;

"(ii) any significant adverse impacts which may result from any activity included in the program;

"(iii) the extent to which it is feasible to commercialize the technologies as they affect different regions of the Nation;

"(iv) proposed regulations required to carry out the purposes of this section;

"(v) a list of Federal agencies, governmental entities, and other persons that will be consulted or utilized to implement the program;

"(vi) the methods and procedures by which the information gathered under the program will be analyzed and disseminated;

"(vii) a plan for the study and monitoring of the health effects of such facilities on workers and other persons, including, but not limited to, any carcinogenic effect of alternative fuels; and

"(viil) the methods and procedures to insure that (I) the use of the Federal assistance for demonstration facilities is kept to the minimum level necessary for the information objectives of this section, (II) the impact of loan guarantees on the capital markets of the United States is minimized, taking into account other Federal direct and indirect securities activities, and any ~ nomic sectors which may be negatively impacted as a result of the reduction of capital by the placement of guaranteed loans, and (III) the granting of Federal loan guarantees under this Act does not impede movement toward improvement in the climate for attracting private capital to develop alter.native fuels without continued direct Federal incentives.

"(2) The Administrator shall annually submit a detailed report to the Congress concerning-

" (A) the actions taken or not taken by the Administrator under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including, but not be limited to (i) a discussion of the status of each demonstration facility and related facilities financed under this section, including progress made in the development of such facilities, and the expected or actual production from each such facility, including byproduct production therefrom, and the distribution of such nroducts and byproducts, (ii) a detailed statement of the financial conditions of each such demonstration facility, (iii) data concerning the environmental, community, and heal.th and safety impacts of each such facility and the actions taken or planned to prevent or mitigate such impacts, (iv) the administrative and other costs incurred by the Administrator and other Federal agencies in carrying out this program, and (v) such other data as may be helpful in keeping Congress and the public fully and currently informed about the program authorized by this section; and

"(B) The activities of the funds referred to in subsection (n) of this section during the presiding fiscal year, including a statement of the amount and source of fees or other moneys, property, or assets deposited into

the funds, all payments made, the notes or other obligations issued by the Administrator, and such other data as may be appropriate.

"(3) The annual reports required by this subsection shall be a part of the annual report required by section 15 of this Act, except that the matters required to be reported by this subsection shall be clearly set out and identified in such annual reports. Such reports and the one-hundred-and-eighty-day report required in paragraph ( 1) of this subsection shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the House Committee on Science and Technology and to the President of the Sen.ate and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

"(m) Prior to issuing any guarantee or commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a full and complete report on the proposed demonstration facility and such guarantee, agreement, or contract. Such guarantee, commitment to guarantee, cooperative agreement, or contract shall not be finalized under the authority granted by this section prior to the expiration of ninety calendar days (not ·including any day on which either House of Congress is n.ot in session because of an adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day certain) from the date on which such report is received by such committees: Provided, That, where the cost of a demonstration facility to be assisted with a guarantee or cooperative agreement pursuant to subsection (b) of this section exceeds $50,000,000 such guarantee or commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement shall not be finalized unless ( 1) the making of such guarantee or commitment or agreement is specifically authorized by legislation hereafter enacted by the Congress or (2) both Houses pass a resolution stating in substance that the Congress favors the making of such guarantee or commitment or agreement.

"(n) ( 1) There is hereby created Within the Treasury a separate fund (hereafter in this section called the 'fund') which shall be available to the Administrator Without fiscal year limitation as a revolving fund for the pur,pose of carrying out the program authorized by subsection (b) (1) and subsections (g), (h), and (k) of this section.

"(2) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the fund for administrative expenses from time to time such amounts as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the applicable provisions of this section, including, but not limited to, the payments of interest and principal and the payment of interest differentials and redemption of debt. All amounts received by the Administrator as interest payments or repayments of principal on loans which are guaranteed under this section, fees, and any other moneys, property, or assets derived by him from operations under this section shall be deposited in the fund.

"(3) All payments on obligations, appropriate e,q,enses (including reimbursements to other Governmental accounts), and repayments pursuant to operations of the Administrator under this section shall be pa,id from the fund subject to appropriations. I! at any time the Administrator determines that moneys in the fund exceed the present -and reasonably foreseeable future requirements of the fund, such excess shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.

"(4) If at any time the moneys available in the fund are insufficient to enable the Administrator to discharge his responsib111-

ties as authorized by subsections (b) (1), (g), and (h) of this section, the Administrator shall issue to the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations in such forms and denominations, bearing such maturities, and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Redemption of such notes or obligations shall be made by the Administrator from appropriations or other moneys available under paragraph (2) of this subsection for loan guarantees authorized by subsection (b) (1) and subsections (g), (h), and (k) of this section. Such notes or other obligations shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, which shall be not less than a rate determined by taking into consideration the average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities during the month preceding the issuance of the notes or other obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any of the notes or other obligations acquired by him under this subsection.

" ( 5) The provisions of this subsection do not apply to direct loans or planning grants made under subsection (k) of this section.

" ( o) For the purposes of this section, the term-

"(1) 'State' means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or any territory or possession of the United States.

"(2) 'United States' means the several States, the Common weal th of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, and

"(3) 'borrower' or 'applicant' shall include any individual, firm, corporation, company, partnership, association, society, trust, joint venture, joint stock company, or other nonFederal entiity.

"(p) (1) An applicant seeking a guarantee or cooperative agreement under subsection (b) of this section must be a citizen or national of the United States. A corporation, partnership, firm, or association shall not be deemed to be a citizen or national of the United States unless the Administrator determines that it satisfactorily meets all the requirements of section 802 of title 46 United States Code, for determining such citizenship, except that the provisions in subsection (a) of such section 802 concerning (A) the citizenshiJ.p of officers or directors of a corporation, and (B) the interest required to be owned in the case of a corporation, association, or partnership operating a vessel in the coastwise trade, shall not be applicable.

"(2) The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may waive such requirements in the case of a corporation, partnership, firm, or association, controlling interest in which is owned by citizens of countrtes which are participants in the International Energy Agreement.

"(q) No part of the program authorized by this section shall be transferred to any other agency or authority, except pursuant to Act of Congress enacted after the date of enactment of this section.

"(r) Inventions made or conceived in the course of or under a guarantee authorized by this section shall be subject to the title and waiver requirement and conditions of section 9 of this Act.

"(s) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the obligations of any person receiving financial assistance pursuant to this section to comply with Federal and State environmental, land use, water, and health and safety laws and regulations or to obtain applicable Federal and State perm.dts, licenses, and certificates.

"(t) The information maintained by the

2·2388 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE July 12, 1977

Administrator under this section shall be made available to the public subject to the provision of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, and to other Government agencdes in a manner that will facmtate its dissemination: Provided, That upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by any person that any information, or portion thereof obtained under this section by the Administrator directly or inddrectly from such person would, if made public. divulge (1) trade secrets or (2) other propri~tary information of such person, the Administrator shall not disclose such information and disclosure thereof shall be punishable under section 1905 of title 18, United States Code: Provided further, That the Administrator shall, upon request, provide such information to (A) any delegate of the Administrator for the purpose of carrying out this Act, and (B) the Attorney General, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secr~tary of the Interior, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Energy Administration, the Envll.ronmental Protection Agency, the Federal Power Commission, the General Accounting Office, other Federal agencies, or heads of other Federal agencies, when necessary to carry out their duties and responsib111ties under this and other statutes, but such agencies and agency heads shall not release such information to the public. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress, or from any committee of Congress upon request of the Oh.airman. For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'person' shall include the borrower.

"(u) Notwithstanding any other provfsion of this section, the authority provided in this section to make guarantees or commitments to guarantee or enter into cooperative agreements under subsection (b) ( 1), to make guarantees or commitments to guarantee, or to make loans or grants, under subsection (k), to make oontracts under subsection (h), and to use fees wnd receipts collected under subsections (b) and (J) of this section, and the authorities provided under subsection (n) of this section, shall be effective only to the extent provided, without fiscal year limitation, in appropriation Acts enacted after the date of enactment of this section.

"(v) No person ilil the United States shall on tlie grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with assistance made available under this section: Provided, That Indian tribes a.re exempt from the operation of this subsection: Provided further, That such exemption sha.H bellmited to the planting and provision of public faciLities which a.re located on reservations and w"hich a.re provided for members of the affected Indian tribes as the primary beneficiaries.

"(w) In carrying out his functions under this section, the Administrator shall provide a realistic and adequate opportunity for small business concerns to participate in the program to the optimum extent feasible consistent with the size and nature of each project.

"(x) (1) (A) Recipients of financial assistance Ulllder this section shall keep such records and other pertihent documents, as the Administrator shall prescribe by regu;Jation, including, but not limited to, records which fully disclose the d·isposition of the proceeds of such assistance, the cost of any fa.cility, the total cost of the provision of public facilities for which assistance was used and such other records as the Administrator may require to facllita.te an effective audit. The Administrator a.nd the Comptroller General <>f the Untied States or their duly authorized representatives shall have access, for the purpose of audit, to such records and other pertinent documents.

"(B) Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this section and at 6-month intervals thereafter, the Comptroller Genera.I of the United States shall make an audit of recipients of financial assistance under this section. The Comptroller General may prescribe such regulations as he deems necessary to carry out this subparagraph.

"(2) All 1,a,borers and mechanics employed by contractors or sulbcontractors in the performance of construction work financed in whole or in part with assistance under this sections shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Ba.con Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a-276a.-i5) . The Secretary of Labor shall have, ,with respect to such labor standards, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 317'6; 64 Stat. 1267) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended. (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276(c)).

"(y) For purposes of this section 'biomass' shall include, but is not limited to, animal and timber waste, urban and industrial waste, sewerage sludge, and oceanic and terrestrial crops.".

SEC. 311. In order to provide economic farm units to qualifying farmers whose land is economically infeasi·ble to reclaim from damages resulting from the Teton flood of June 5, 1976, and who are un91ble to find suitable replacement land for their flood damaged farm, and in order to restore the economic and agricultural !base of the flood damaged region, there is hereby transferred 5,955 acres of land, hereinafter descri:bed, in the State of Idaho presently under the Jurisdiction of the Energy Rese·a.rch and Development Administration, to the Secretary of the Interior who, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, sh<all make such lands available for sale to qualifying farmers according to the terms hereafter ,provided.

Part 'I. As used in this Act, the term: (a) "Teton flood" means the flood result

ing from the collapse of Teton Dam of the Lower Teton Division of the Teton Basin Federal Reclamation Project on June 5, 1976.

(b) "Energy Research and :Development Administration land" means those public and acquired lands in the State of Ida.ho identified as sections numbered fourteen (14), twenty-three (23), twenty-four (24), twenty-five (25), and thirty-six (36), in township six (6) north, of range thirty· three (33) east of the Boise meridian; sectlons numbered nineteen (19), thirty (30), and thirty-one (311) in township six (6) north, of range thirty-four (34) east of the Boise meridian; and the southeast quarter, the south half of the northeast quarter, the ea.st half of the southwest quarter and the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, of section numbered eight (8) and the south half and the south half of the north half of section numbered nine (9) in township five (5) north, of range thirty-four (34) ea.st of the Boise nieri'dia.n, all situated in the county of Jefferson and State of Ida.ho. and containing 5.9·5'5 acres, more or less, which would be transferred for the purposes of this Act.

(c) "Qualifying farmer" means tbe resident, owner-ooera.tor of a farm who resides in the immediate locality, whose livelihood is derived from his farming operation and whose land wa,c; damaged due to the colla.ose of the Teton Dam on June 5, 1976, to the extent that in the opinion of the Secretarv of -the Interior. it is not economically feasible to reclaim such land so that it .produces an income commensurate with that earned prior to the Teton flood.

(d) "Irrigable land" means fa.rm land that is suitable for irrigated agriculture and has been certified as irrigable by the Secretary of ·the Interior.

Pa.rt II. For a period of not more than five yea.rs after transfer to the Bureau of Recla-

mation, the land heretofore described shall be available for purchase by those who, on or before October 1, 1978, are determined to be qualifying farmers pursuant to regulations issued in accordance with part V of ,this Act by the Secretary of the Interior.

Part III. Energy Research and Development Administration land as described in part I (b) of this Act shall be certified as irrigable by the Secretary of the Interior, and lands so certified shall be made available in a manner to be prescribed by the Secretary for purchase by qualifying farmers at its current fair market value as determined by a boa.rd of .appraisers composed of a Federal appraiser, a State appraiser, and one appraiser from the disaster region: Provided, That irrigable land transferred to a single ownership shall not exceed 160 acres of class I land as defined ·by the Secretary or the equivalent thereof in other land classes as determined by the Secretary. The United States, through the Secretary, shall convey fee simple title of the Energy Research and Development Administration land to the qualifying farmer. The cost of developing the replacement land for farming shall be borne by the qualifying farmer who purchases the land.

Pa.rt IV. Any part of the Energy Research and Development Administration land remaining in the possession of the Bureau of Reclamation at the end of the five year period, except land needed for public rightsof-wa.y, as determined by the Secretary, shall be returned to the Energy Research and Development Administration.

Part V. Within ninety days after the enactment of this Act the Secretary shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Part VI. Full recovery for the loss of all or pa.rt of flood-damaged farms shall be obtained by owners pursuant to the Teton Dam Disaster Assistance Act of 1976, Public Law 94-400, 94 Stat. 1211, and the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1976, Public Law 94-438, 90 Stat. 1415.

Part VII. Actions taken pursuant to this Act a.re in response to emergency conditions and depend for their effectiveness upon their prompt completion and, therefore, a.re deemed not only to be major Federal a.ctions significantly · affecting the quality of the human environment for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, as a.mended, 42 U.S.C. 4321).

Part VIII. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purposes of administration of this Act.

On page 22, after line 11, insert the following new titles: TITLE VI-FOR NONNUCLEAR ENERGY

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

OPERATING EXPENSES

SEC. 601. For opera.ting expenses, for the following programs, a sum equal to the total of the following a.mounts:

( 1) Conservation research and development;

Electric energy systems and energy stor-age:

(a) Electric energy systems, $36,700,000. (b) Energy storage systems, $49,900,000. End use conserva,tion and tec'hnolog.l.es to

improve efficiency: (a) Industrial energy conservation, $40,-

000,000. (b) Buildings and community systems,

$56,000,000: Provided, That $2,000,000 of such sum are hereby authorized for a. research and development program in residential gas furnaces.

( c) Transportation energy conservation, $88,000,0001 of which $2,000,000 shall be available .to the Alternative Funds Utiliza.-

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE 22389 tion Program for study of automotive utilization of alcohol fuels and blends: Provided, That, of those funds authorized, funds as may be necessary are hereby authorized for the Energy Research and Development Administration to conduct studies to determine the feasib111ty of ut111zing existing dlstlllery faclli ties or other types of refineries including but not llmlted to sugar refineries, in the implementation of programs to extend the supply of gasoline by means of a mixture of gasollne and alcohol: Provided further, · That no more than two hundred electric vehicles may be purchased within the provisions of Public Law 94-413 utilizing funds made a.va.ilia.ble in this section.

(d) Improved conversion efficiency, $78,-200,000.

(e) Small grants for appropriate technol-ogy, $6,000,000.

Energy extension service: (a) Energy extension service, $8,000,000. (2) Fossil energy development: Coal: (a) Liquefaction, $107,000,000. (b) High Btu ~lfica.tion, $51,200,000. (c) Low Btu gaslflcation, $73,,900,000: Pro

vided, That the sum of $40,000,000 which represents the portion of the appropriations heretofore made in the total amount of $56,-000,000 for project 76-1--e. (clean boiler fuel demonstmition plant (A-E) and long-lead procurement) which remains unobliga.ted a.net is no longer needed ls hereby authorized to be made available instead, in addition to any amounts e.ppropri·ated for the purposes involved pursuant to th.is Act for the low Btu g,aslfloa.tion prog:ram.

(d) Advanced power systems, $25,500,000. ( e) Direot combustion, $65,200,000. (f) Advanced research and supporting

technology, $45,000,000: Provided, Tha.t of those funds authorized, funds as may be nece£sary are hereby authorized for the following purtpOSe:

( 1) The Administrator shall conduct a. feasibility study of the technology and the commer.cial applications of the process of fine-grinding of coal and dey vegetable residues to four micron-size particles for the purpose of preparing these substances as clean burning fuels.

(2) In carrying out the feaslb1lity study, the Administrator may provide for adequate participation by individuals, corpomtions and private and ,public research facllities, colleges and universities.

(3) A report of the findings together with recommendations for &dvanctng the technology, if deemed e.pproprlate by the Administrator, shall be submitted to the Congress as soon as possible but not later than JSIIluary l, 1978.

(g) Demonstration plants, $50,900,000. (h) Magnetohydrodynamics, $80,000,000. Petroleum and natural gas: (a) Enhanced oil recovery, $46,100,000. (b) Enhanced J!as recovery, $30,000,000. (c) Drilling, exploration 'Slnd offshore tech-

nology, $1,600,000. (d) Processlngaind utilization, $1,400,000. Oil shale and in situ: technology: (a) on shale, $28,ooo,ooo. (b) In situ coal gasifioation, $11,000,000:

Provided, That of those funds author·ized for fossil energy development, and funds as may be necessary a.re herebv authorized fc,r the Energy Research rand Develooment Administvation to conduct a study to determine the extent of the Nation's coal reserves, the general geographic looatlon of such reserves and the cost of extracting said reserves.

(3) SOiar energy development: (a) Thermal applications, $107,700,000. (b) Technology support and utilization,

$12,000,000. (c) Solar electric apnllcation. $178,900,-

000: Provided, That $7,500,000 of such sum are hereby authorized for design work for small community a.ppllcations.

(d) Solar Energy Research Institute and

Regional Centers. There ls hereby authorized from funds made available under subsections (a) , ( b) , and ( c) of this section an amount no less than $10,000,000 for the operation of the SOiar Energy Research Institute and its associated regional centers.

(e) Fuels from biomass, $19,500,000; and under such rules and regulations as he may. establish, the Administrator ls authorized to guarantee a. loan or loans for the demonstration of a. 50 MW wood-fueled power generating facility.

(4) Geothermal energy development: (a) Engineering research and develop

ment, $17,100,000. (b) Resource exploration and assessment,

$17,600,000. ( c) Hydrothermal technology a.ppllca

tions, $32,000,000. ( d) Advanced technology applications,

$23,500,000. .(e) Utilization experiments, $16,000,000. (f) Environmental control and institu

tional studies, $8,100,000. (g) Low head hydroelectric demonstra

tion, $15,000,000. PLANT AND CAPITA!.. EQUIPMENT

SEc. 602. For plant and capital equipment including construction, acquisition, or modification of fac111ties, including land acquisition; and acquisition and fabrication of captal equipment not related to construction, a sum of dollars equal to ,the total of the following a.mounts:

(1) Conservation Research and Development:

Project 78-1-a., high bay addition, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, New Mexico, $800,000.

(2) Fossil Energy Development: Project 78-2-a, analytical research, chem

istry and coal carbonization laboratory, Pittsburgh Energy Research Center, Pennsylvania., $6,600,000.

Project 78-2-b, modifications and additions to Energy Research Centers, various locations, $3,000,000.

Project 78-2-c, low Btu fuel gas small industrial demonstration plants, sites undetermined (A-E and long-lead procurement only), $6,000,000.

Project 78-2-d, solvent refined coal demonstration plant, site undetermined (A-E and long-lead procurement only) , $2,000,-000.

(3) Capital Equipment Not Related to Construction:

(A) Conservation research and develop-ment, $6,170,000.

(B) Fossil energy development, $5,500,000. (C) Solar energy development, $7,900,000. (D) Geothermal energy development, $2,-

500,000. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR YEAR ACTS

SEc. 603. (a) Public Law 94-187 is amended by:

(1) Striking from subsection 101 {b) (1), project 76-1-b, high Btu synthetic pipeline gas demonstration plant;, the words "(A-E and long-lead procurement)" and the figure, "$20,000,000", and striking from subsection 20l(b) (1) "project 76-1-b, high Btu synthetic ploeline gas demonstration plant (A-E and long-lead procurement) $5,000,000", which authorized appropriations for this project totallng $25,000,000, and substituting therefor in subsection 101 (b) (1), proJect 76-1-b, high Btu synthetic pipeline ga.s demonstration plant, the figure "$220,000,000".

(2) Striking from su·bsection 101(,b) (1), project 76-1-c, low Btu fuel gas demonstration plant, the words "(A-E and long-lead procurement)" and the figure "$15,000,000", and striking from subsection 20l{b) (1) the words and figures, "project 76-1-c, low Btu fuel gas demonstration plant (A-E and longlead procurement), $3,750,000," which authorized appropriations for this project totaling $18,750,000, and substituting there-

for in subsection lOl(b) (1), ,project 76-1-c, low Btu fuel gas demonstration planrt, the figure "$150,000,000".

(3) Striking from subsection 101 (b) (2), project 76-2-a, five megawatt solar thermal test fac111ty, the figure "$5,000,000", and striking from subsection 201(b) (2) the words and figures "project 76-2-a, five megawatt solar rthermal test facility, $1,250,000", which authorized appropriations for this project totaling $6,250,000, and substituting therefor in subsection lOl(b) (2) the figure "$21,250,000", which ls an increase of $3,-000,000 over the amount authorized by Public Law 94-3E5, as amended.

(4) Striking from subsection lOl(b) (2), project 76-2-b, ten megawatt central receiver solar thermal powerplant (A-E and long-lead procurement), the words "(A-E and long-lead procurement)" and the figure "$5,000,000", and striking from subsection 201(b) (2) the words and figures "project 76-2-b, ten megawatt central receiver solar thermal powerplant (A-E and long-lead procurement), $1,250,000" which authorized appropriations for this project totaling $6,250,000, and substituting therefor in subsection lOl(b) (2), the words "Barstow, California," and the figure "$61,250,000": Provided, That if the solar electrical generating facility hereby supported contributes electricity to a distribution network serving the publlc on a commercial basis and if any Federal monetary contribution is included in the rate base for the purpose of computing return on capital investment to such utilities, that portion of the capital costs derived from Federal funds and included in the rate base shall be recovered with interest from the revenues of the solar facllity.

(b) Project 77-1-d, MHD component development and integration facllity, authorized by Public Law 94-373, ls increased by $8,200,000 for a total authorization of $13,-200,000. TITLE VII-FOR NONNUCLEAR ENVIRON

MENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT, AND RELATED PROGRAMS

OPERATING EXPENSES

SEC. 701. For operating expenses for the following programs, a sum equal to the total of the following amounts:

( 1) Environmental research and develop-ment: ·

(a) Overview and assessment, $43,010,000. (b) Biomedical and environmental re

search, $143,970,000, of which $1,000,000 shall be made available to the Water Resources Council to carry out the provisions of section 13 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. 5912), as amended.

(2) Life sciences research and biomedical applications, $38,113,000.

(3) Program management and support: (a) Program direction, $257,100,000. (b) Institutional relations, $30,179,000,

including funds to reimburse the National Bureau of Standards for costs incurred in carrying out the provisions of section 14 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5913), as amended; and $1,800,000 ls authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this paragraph (3) for financial awards by ERDA to independent inventors for the purpose of carrying out section 14 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U .S.C. 5913), as amended.

·(c) Supporting activities, $54,460,000. (d) International cooperation, $5,000,000. (4) Funds to carry out the provisions of

section 11 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5910) in the amount of $500,000 for the Council on Environmental Quallty.


PLANT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT SEC. 702. For plant and capital equipment,

including construction, acquisition, or modification of fac111ties, including land acquisition; and acquisition and fabrication of capital equipment not related to construction, a sum of dollars equal to the total of the following amounts:

( 1) Environmental Research and Development:

Project 78-9-a, modifications and additions to biomedical and environmental research fac111ties, various locations, $6,000,000.

(2) Program Management and Support: Project 78-1-b, chiller modifications !or

energy conservation, Bendix Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, $830,000.

Project 78-1--c, process waste heat utmzation, gaseous diffusion plant, Paducah, Kentucky, $5,700,000.

Project 78-19-a, program support fac111ty, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois (A-E and long-lead procurement only), $5,000,000.

(3) Project 78-22, Construction Planning and Design, $10,000,000.


(A) Environmental research and development, $18,825,000.

(B) Program management and support, $5,155,000.

SEC. 703 . The Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration, or its successor agency, is hereby authorized, to the extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, to enter into a cooperative arrangement with an interstate pipeline organization for participation in the constructon and operation of a. high Btu pipeline gas demonstration plant, utilizing the HYGAS steam-oxygen process and Illinois Basin type coal.


The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, the Sen

ate will take final action today on S. 1811, legislation authorizing civilian nuclear energy programs administered by the Energy Research and Development Administration. S. 1811 authorizes $2.8 billion for civilian nuclear energy research, development, and demonstration programs, about equal to the amount we approved last month for nonnuclear energy research on conservation, fossil fuels, and solar and geothermal energy development.

Mr. President, both the size of this authorization and the Senate debate on S. 1811 reflect the sizable role nuclear energy will play in our Nation's future and the concern all of us share about the risks intrinsic to energy produced by the splitting of the atom. Further, our debate over the last 2 days indicates that while we have made substantial progress in developing sophisticated nuclear technologies for producing energy, we have not made similar strides on the question of safely disposing of the waste and other byproducts associated with nuclear power.

The Clinch River breeder reactor is a stark illustration of this dilemma. Because this is true, Mr. President, it is worth taking a few moments to review yesterday's Senate action on Clinch River. Some reporters have already written that the Senate has handed the President a stinging defeat and signaled a go-ahead for ultimate commercialization of the fast breeder reactor technology, with its byproduct of weapons-

grade plutonium. I do not interpret my vote or the Senate's action that way and I would hope that others who supported the Church amendment, which was adopted yesterday, do not either.

The fast breeder reactor differs from other existing nuclear reactors in its ability to produce more fuel than it consumes in the process of producing electricity. In this characteristic lies its greatest asset but al'So its greatest liability. The so-called breeding process, which produces nuclear fuel as a byproduct of electricity generation, in essence makes the fast breeder a "renewable energy resource," because, once in operation, the breeder becomes the source of its own fuel. The catch, Mr. President, is that once this new fuel is processed for future use it can easily be turned to destructive purposes, because it is weapons-grade material which can be used to build an atomic device. It is this feature of the breeder that has legitimately caused the President such concern.

The urgency behind initial plans for developing the fast breeder stemmed from two factors-a large predicted increase in demand for electricity-presumably to be generated by nuclear reactors-and a shortage of uranium, the fuel used by conventional nuclear light water reactors currently in use across the country.

Faced with these projections, the breeder reactor seemed a possibly promising answer to America's energy needs to some, a technological marvel that would help get us through the difficult transition period from the age of natural gas and petroleum to a time at the beginning of the next century when we could depend on safe and renewable energy resources to meet our needs-such as solar or geothermal energy, or even nuclear fusion technologies.

I have not always shared the enthusiasm of some of my colleagues for new breakthroughs in nuclear technology because they have rarely been accompanied by concomitant developments on the safety side of the equation. Thus I was quite taken by President Carter's reservations about going ahead with the fast breeder reactor demonstration plant at Clinch River. Late in April, after reviewing new ERDA projections of future electricity demand, which were significantly lower than ERDA had previously predicted, as well as new ERDA estimates of uranium supplies, which were higher than ERDA had previously projected, President Carter recommended a pause in the breeder program, because of his great concern over the destructive potential of plutonium proliferation. He urged the Congress to stay judgment on Clinch River pending negotiations on international safeguards to prevent proliferation of plutonium to nonnuclear nations as well as a reassessment of the need for the breeder to meet U.S. energy needs.

Mr. President, I believe that it is exactly what the Senate did in adopting the Church amendment last night. That vote was by no means an endorsement of construction of a fast breeder demonstration plant. much ]£ss a signal that the United States is ready to go ahead with full commercialization of the breeder technology. Rather, it was an authoriza-

tion for the minimal amount of money necessary to maintain the Clinch River project in a holding pattern until the administration and the Congress has a chance to take a closer look at the issue.

The administration's position was developed hastily, though with the best of intentions, without access to all the inf orm•ation on which a decision should be made---such as future uranium supplies, possible arrangements wfth our allies on plutonium safeguards, evaluation of other fuel cycles that are more prolif eration resistant than the fast breeder, future energy needs, and the role that coal can play in getting us through this century to the age of solar, fusion and geothermal, energy sources.

In addition, the Congress was hampered in its efforts to give this project the consideration it deserves, because of our recent committee reorganization. The Joint Atomic Energy Committee, which previously handled this issue, was disbanded at the beginning of this Con· gress, thus leaving the Committee deliberations on Clinch River to House and Senate committees which had never dealt with these questions 'before. Difficulties were exacerbated by a tight timetruble.

The Church amendment presented us with a sensible and prudent response to this situation. Immediate termination of the project, as the administration recommended late this spring, would have incurred termination and litigation costs of as much as $500 million. Further, the GAO estimated that the costs of restarting the project, even if in a modified form, would come to over a billion dollars, and result in a 5- to 6-year delay. Taking these possible costs into account, Senator CHURCH developed a compromise which was midway between going ahead as planned with Clinch River or terminating the project completely. This position, which I supported, was consistent with the President's call for a reassessment and will permit Congress to make an informed decision on the breeder reactor next year when we know more about its costs and benefits.

The Church amendment authorized $75 million for a review of Clinch River during fiscal year 1978. During this year, there is to be a suspension of the licensing procedure, no funds are to be spent for contracts for site preparation or construction, and equipment procurements on existing contracts will be continued only in those areas where there are substantial costs associated with the termination and subsequent restart of the procurement or where there are procurements essential to a component research and development program if a future decision is made to terminate the Clinch River project. Current contracts for procurement will be terminated where the cost differential is small jf the contracts are negotiated again at a later date. No new equipment procurements will be initiated during the review period and contractor work by engineers, architects, planners, and manufacturers will be maintained at current levels and not stepped up. In addition, a comprehensive evaluation of the design, management structure, and other relevant aspects of the Clinch River project will be undertaken to give us better information for


our final decision. During the same period of time, the administration will be proceeding with its own efforts at working out international proliferation safeguards and ERDA will be evaluating alternative nuclear fuel cycles that do not carry the potential risks associated with the breeder. At the end of this period of time, the Congress will be able to make an informed decision about the future of the breeder technology, giving safety considerations top priority. For these reasons, I thought the Church amendment made the most sense of the options available to us.

Senate debate today on the issue of nuclear waste disposal facilities also highlighted the dilemma we face in rushing ahead with nuclear energy development without paying sufficient attention to waste disposal matters.

Mr. President, as most of us know, all nuclear reactors generate potentially dangerous radioactive wastes, whether they are of the breeder variety or the more conventional light water type in use around the country today. Currently, these wastes are stored above ground in interim facilities near powerplants, pending a "permanent" solution to the nuclear waste problem. Based on information we have about leaks and other malfunctions at existing storage sites, most of us agree that this solution is not a satisfactory one.

Over the past few years, ERDA has been funding studies around the country aimed at locating areas which possess certain geophysical properties which ERDA feels are adequate to guarantee permanent and safe underground storage of nuclear waste materials. I have been following this process closely, Mr. President, because ERDA has conducted such studies in my State and has selected Indiana as one of 13 States considered a likely prospect for an underground waste disposal center.

Citizens in my State have understandably expressed reservaltions about this possibility, espe~ially given what they have heard about the poor safety record at above ground storage facilities over the last decade. Citizens in other States have reacted similarly, and a sizable number of States have already adopted or are considering legislation to prohibit such siting without State consultation or approval. While ERDA has promised to consult with Governors, and get their approval !before going ahead with a waste facility, at present the Federal selection procedure is not limited in any way by the Congress. ERDA has complete discretion to locate facilities whereever it wishes.

Reacting against this unlimited authority, during consideration of S. 1811 Senator McGOVERN offered an amendment prohibiting ERDA from contracting for construction of any radioactive waste storage facility within a State if the State legislature passes a resolution rejecting a proposed site or if citizens, through a State referendum disapprove such a site. In offering th~ amendment, Senator McGOVERN was articulating feelings that almost all of us share-thait; the States must have some role in decisionmaking about nuclear waste storage and that citizens must feel assured that such facilities will

be entirely safe before construction of such projects begin in their locality.

Despite my complete agreement with this position, I voted to table the McGovern amendment because, in my judgment., the type of role he proposed for the States was too broad and sweeping and absolute, and ignored the undeniable reality that nuclear wastes, from military projects and civilian energy plants, are building up and are not going to stop. Therefore, I felt that adoption of the amendment, as drafted, would put us in the potentially untenable position of having all States, or a very large number of potentially suitable States, reject permanent storage facilities within their own boundaries out of hand. Like it or not, Mr. President, this is not a realistic possibility any longer.

I was encouraged that the floor manager of the bill, Senator CHURCH, agreed with Senator McGOVERN and others, that the States must play a role in these decisions and that he intended to hold hearings on this issue in the near future. Mr. President, I would be more than willing to work with those of my colleagues who sha,re this concern on developing a responsible consultative role for the States, and will attempt to do so in the days ahead. It is absolutely essential that we get a handle on the question of safe storage of nuclear wastes as long as we are going to continue down the path of nuclear energy. And I think the vote on S. 1811 indicates that we are going to continue down this path. Shirking our responsibilities in the area of nuclear safety can only bring pain and misfortune to our children, and their children, and I am sure that none of us here in this Chamber will allow this to happen.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill (S. 1811) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

s. 1811 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "ERDA Authorization Act of 1978-Civilian Applications".

SEC. 2. In accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 2017), section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5875), and seotion 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, as amended ( 42 U.S.C. 5915), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Energy Research and Development Administration subject to title I, VI, and VII of this Act, the following: TITLE I-FOR ENERGY RESEARCH, DE

VELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

OPERATING EXPENSES

SEC. 101. For operating expenses, for the following programs, a sum equal to the total of the following amounts:

(1) Magnetic fm;ion, $199,900,000. (2) Fuel cycle research and development,

$357,885,000, including $20,000,000 for international spent fuel disposition, pursuant to section 105 and including $13,000,000 for research, development, assessment, evaluation, and other activities at the Barnwell Nuclear Fuels Plant related to alternative fuel cycle technologies, safeguard systems, spent fuel

storage and waste management, except that none of the authorized funds may be used for operations of the plant to process spent fuel from reactors.

(3) Liquid metal fast breeder reactor, $408,300,000: Provided, That an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be applied for research and development on means to reduce the ability to divert plutonium from its intended purposes and to increase the detectability of plutonium if it should be so diverted. Provided, That none of the funds made available by any appropriations Act pursuant to this Act, or any other authorization Act, including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received, changes in selected resources , transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall be used in fiscal year 1978, in any way, directly or indirectly, to terminate or cancel the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, or to plan such termination or cancellation; and any such funds shall only be used for the purposes of continuing the project in accordance with section 106 of Public Law 91-273, as amended by Public Law 94-187 and as further amended by section 103 (f) of this Act.

( 4) Nuclear research and applications, $181,929,000.

( 5) Light water reactor safety facilities, $24,000,000.

(6) High energy physics, nuclear physics, and basic energy sciences, $409,454,000.

(7) Nuclear materials security and safeguards, $40,106,000.

(8) Uranium enrichment, $990,585,000. (9) Program management and support,

$152,165,000. (10) Enrichment and other revenues,

-$946,540,000. PLANT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

SEC. 102. For "Plant and capital equipment", including construction, acquisition, or modification of facilities, including land a,cquisition; and acquisition and fabrication of capital equipment not related to construction, a sum of dollars equal to the total of the following amounts.

(a) Magnetic Fusion : Project 78-3-a, mirror fusion test facility,

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, California, $94,200,000.

(b) Fuel Cycle Research and Development:

Project 78-5-a, facilities for the national waste terminal storage program, site undermined (land acquisition, A-E and long-lead procurement), $10,000,000.

Project 78-5-b, liquid metal fast breeder reactor integrated prototype equipment test facility, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (A-E and long-lead procurement only), $3,000,000.

(c) Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor: Project 78-6-a, modifications to reactors,

$8,700,000. Project 78-6-b, safeguards and security

upgrading, Idaho Falls, Idaho and Chicago, Illinois, $4,935,000.

Project 78-6-c, sa.fety research experimental facility, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho (A-E long-lead procurement and limited construction only), $20,-100,000.

Project '78-6-d, experimental breeder reactor Il modification, Idaho Falls, Idaho (A-E and selected long-lea.ct procurement only), $3,100,000.

Project 78-6-e, modifications to facilities, Liquid Metal Engineering Center, Santa Susanna, California (A-E only), $4,000,000.

Project 7~6-f, fuels and materials examination facility, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Washington, $134,-800,000.

Project 7~7-a., modifications to utility system 300 area, Hanford Engineering De~~~~pment Laboratory, Washington, $3,600,-

Project 7~7-b, test reactor area steam

22392 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 12, 1977 distribution system upgrade, Idaho National Engineering La,boratory, Idaho, $1,100,000.

(d) Light Water Reactor Safety Facilities: Project 78-8-a, upgrade Test Area North

hot shop facility, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, $3,000,000.

( e) High Enel'lgy Physics: Project 7·8-10-a, accelerator improvements

and modifications, various locations, $4,500,-000.

Project 7·8-11-a, master substation relia-bility and capacity improvements, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, California, $1,700,-000.

(f) Nuclear Physics: Project 78-12-a, accelerator and reactor

improvements and modifications, various locations, $1,900,000.

Project 78-12-lb, high intensity uranium beams, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California, $6,000,000.

(g) Basic Energy Sciences: Project 78-13-a, national synchrotron light

source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, $2'4,000,000.

Project 78-13-b, combustion research fac111ty, Sandia La.boratories, Livermore, California, $9,400,000.

(h) Uranium Enrichment: Project 78-14-a, centrifuge fac11ities mo

difications, various locations, $30,000,000. Project 78-14-b, process control modifica

tions, gaseous diffusion plants, various locations, $·17,400,000.

Project 78-15-a .water system improvements, gaseous diffusion plant, Paducah, Kentucky, $4,500,000.

(1) Project 78-21, General Plant Projects, $44,265,000.

(j) Capital Equipment Not Related to construction:

( 1) Magnetic fusion, $27,600,000. (2) Fuel cycle research and development,

$2·5,300,000. (3) Liquid metal fast breeder reactor, $3'5,·

650,000. ( 4) Nuclear research and applications, $1'5,-

195,000. (5) Light water reactor safety fac111ties,

$800,000. (6) High energy physics, nuclear physics,

and basic energy sciences, $60,800,000. (7) Nuclear materials security and safe

guards, $2.794,000. (8) Uranium enrichment, $19,000,000.

AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR YEAR ACTS

SEC. 103. (a) Public Law 91-273, as amended, ls further amended by striking from su!bsectlon 101 (b) (1), project 71-1-f, process equipment modifications, gaseous dif· fusion plants, the figure "$820,000,000", and substituting therefor the figure "$920,000,-000", which ls an increase· of $100,000,000 over the amount authorized ,by Public Law 95-39.

(b) Section 101 of Public Law 00-60, as amended, is further amended by striking from subsection (b) ( 1), project 74-1-g, cascade uprating program, gaseous diffusion plants, the figure "$417,300,000" and substituting therefor the figure "$460,000,000", which ls an increase of $42,700,000 over the amount authorized by Public Law 9·5-39.

(c) Public Law 94-187, as amended, ls further amended by:

( 1) striking from subsection 101 (b) ( 5) , nroJect 76-5-a, Tolfamak fusion test reactor, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Plainsboro, New Jersey, the figure "$214,600,000" and substituting therefor the figure "$238,-600,000", which ls an increase of $24,000,000 over the amount authorized by Public Laiw 95-39;

(2) striking from subsection lOl(b) (5), project 76-5-b, 14 Mev intense neutran source facility, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, New Mexico, the figure "$22,100,000" and substituting therefor the figure "$25,300,000", which is an increase of $3,200,000 over the amount authorized •by Public Law 94-187;

(3) striking from subsection 101 (b) (8), project 76-8-e, conversion of existing steam-

plants to coal capabllity, gaseous diffusion plants and Feed Materials Production Center, Fernald, Ohio, the figure "$13,500,000" and substituting therefor the figure "$15,-250,000", which is an increase of $1, 750,000 over the amount authorized by Public Law 95-39;

( 4) striking from subsection 1 O 1 ( b) ( 8) , the words "project 76-8-g, enriched uranium production facillty, Portsmouth, Ohio, $255,-000,000" and substituting therefor the words "project 76-8~g, gaseous contrlfuge, enriched uranium, production facllities, Portsmouth, Ohio, $362,630,000", which ls an increase of $107,630,000 over the amount authorized by Public Law 95-39.

(d) Project 77-4-c, high performance fuel laboratory, Richland, Washington (A-E only), authorized ·by Public Law 95-39, ls increased by $5,000,000 for a total authorization of $6,500,000.

(e) Project 77~. fuel storage fa,cllity, Richland, Washington, authorized by Public Law 95-39, is increased by $23,000,000 for a total authorization of $30,000,000.

(f) CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PROJECT.-

( 1) The new section 106 contained in section 103(d) of Public Law 94-187, as amended, is amended as follows:

(A) in subsection (a) of section 106, strike "September 30, 1976" and insert in lieu thereof, "September 30, 1978",

(B) at the end of subsection (b) of section 106, insert the following new sentences: "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as authorizing the Administrator to use the procedures of this section to propose and proceed with a cancellation or termination, of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor P,roject and the cooperative arrangements associated therewith. No funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization contained in this section shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the project, or to plan such cancellation or termination. The Congress hereby endorses the opinion of the Comptroller General of the United Statf;s contained in the June 23, 1977, letter to Vice Chairman Jackson and Senator Baker of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from Comptroller General Staats, insofar as the opinion interprets the authorities under this section. The Congress hereby declares that this restatement of the atuhoritles under this section ls now and always has been the intention of the Congress for the interpretation of these authorities. Consequently, the Congress further declares that the proposal of the Adminisrator to modify the cooperative ar.rangements under this section to terminate the project, with the exception of a "final design", contained in the May 18, 1977, letter to Vice Chairman Jackson of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from ERDA Acting Administrator Fri shall be deemed to be unauthorized by this section, and no funds appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of this section shall be used to implement in any way, directly or indirectly, the proposal. The Congress also declares that, insofar as the Comptroller General's opinion contained in the June 23, 1977, letter interprets the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the intent of Congress ls that funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization to design, construct and operate a project, or conduct a specified program, shall only be used for the continued design, construction, and operation of the project, or continued conduct of the program, and shall not be used in any way, directly or indi~ectly, to cancel or terminate the project or program, or for planning thereof, unless expressly authorized in an authorlza.tion act by Congress. Funds made available for such continued design, construction and operation of a project or continued conduct of a program shall therefore be deemed to be deferred or rescinded, as a,p,proprlate, for purposes of the procedures of the Impoundment Control Act of

1974, when suoh funds are used for such cancellation or termination, or for planning thereof, rather than for the continuation of the authorized project or program. Consequently, a disapproval resolution under the Impoundment Control Act shall have the effect of requiring as a matter of law that such funds shall be used for such continuation activities, and shall not be used for such termination or cancellation a,ctivities. Furthermore, when such funds are being withheld, or are proposed to be withheld, approval of a disapproval resolution or !allure to approve a rescission resolution, asapproprJ.ate, shall not be considered to be satisfied unde,r the Impoundment Control Act by releasing such funds for such ter,mination or cancellation activities, but shall be considered to be satisfied only by the release of such funds for such continuation a.ctivities.

(2) Section 309 of Public Law 95-39, which authorizes funds for the ERDA nuclear programs il'l fiscal year 1977, is amended by inserting thP. following sentences at the end of the section. "Provided, That noi;ie of the funds madP. available by Public Law 94-355, or any other appropriations Act, · including funds from the General Treasury, revenues received. changes in selected resources, transferred funds, or funds from any other source, shall be used in fl.seal year 1977 in any way, directly or indirectly, to cancel or terminate the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, or to plan such termination or cancellation.".

RESCISSIONS

SEC. 104. (a) Public Law 93-276, as amended, is further amended by rescinding therefrom authorization for project 75-5-g, molten salt breeder reactor (preliminary planning preparatory to possible future demonstration project), $1,500,000, except for any funds heretofore obligated.

SEC. 105. The Energy Research and Development Administration is hereby authorized to undertake studies, in cooperation with other nations, on a multinational or international basis designed to determine the general feasibllity of expanding capacity of existing spent fuel storage facllities; to enter into agreements, subject to the consent of the Congress, with other nations or groups of nations, for providing appropriate support to increase international or multinational spent fuel storage capacity; to conduct studies on international transportation and storage systems. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section, there ls included in subsection 101(2) of this Act authorization of appropriations in the amount of $20,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other funds made available to the Administrator, or upon establishment of a Department of Energy by an Act of Congress, to the Secretary of Energy, under any other authorization or appropriation Act shall be used, directly or indirectly, for the repurchase, transportation, or storage of any foreign spent nuclear fuel (including any nuclear fuel irradiated in any nuclear research or power reactor located outside of the United States and operated by any foreign legal entity, government or nongovernment, regardless of the legal ownership or control of the fuel or the reactor, and regardless of the origin or licensing of the fuel or the reactor), unless expressly authorized by .annuaf authorization legislation hereafter enacted for the Energy Research and Development Administration, or, upon establishment by Act of Congress, the De,partment of Energy: Provided further, That nothing contained in this section shall be construed in any executive branch action, administrative proceeding, regulatory proceeding, or legal proceeding as being intended to delay, modify, reverse, or cancel the Memorandum and Order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of June 28, 1977, for the issuance of License No. XSNM-845 to the agent-applicant for the Government of India and the subsequent export thereby

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 22393 llcensed of the special nuclear ·material to be used as fuel for the Tarapur Atomic Power Station, or any Order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a license for the export of special nuclear material and subsequent exports thereby licensed, or any consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a llcense application for the export of special nuclear material.

SEC. 106. (a) The Energy Research and Development Administration shall conduct a study of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuels Plant located in South Carolina to determine if that facility may be utilized in support of the nonprollferation objectives of the United States.

(b) The study required under subsection (a) shall-

(1) include an evaluation of the means by which the fac111ty could be used in demonstrating improved safeguards equipment and procedures;

(2) include methods of reducing nuclear weapons proliferation resulting from the use of fuel reprocessing fac111ties;

(3) include an evaluation of the practicality of demonstrating new institutional arrangements for managing and opera.ting fuel processing fac11ities, which may minim.ize the potential for these facilities to be used for nonpeacetul purposes;

(4) include an evaluation of the multinational and international management options available; and

(5) include a.n evaluation of technological controls and other safeguard devices by which a fac11ity could be externally monitored and disabled to prevent the use of the fac111t, for nonpeaceful purposes.

,(c) In carrying out the study required under subsection (a) due consideration shall be given to the impact which the effective and efficient use of resources, and the independence of resource supply can have in assuring our national security objectives.

(d) The study required under subsection (a.) shall be completed and a. report submitted to the Congress not later than 6 months after the date that funds a.re appropriated for carrying out the purposes of this section. In addition to the items required under subsection (b), the report required by the preceding sentence, shall include recommendations and funding requirements to implement recommended programs resulting from such study.

( e) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section, there is included in subsection 101 (2) of this Act authorization of appropriations in the a.mount of $1,000,000.

SEC. 107. (a) The Administrator of the Energy ReseMch and Development Administration shall prepare and submit to the Congress within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act a study which considers the avaUable options, including, but not limited to-

( 1) Federal technical and financial a.id in support of decommissioning high level waste disposal operations at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center;

(2) Federal operation of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center for the purposes of decommissioning existing fs.cllities and disposing of existing high level wastes, including a demonstration program for the solidification of high level wastes for permanent burial;

(3) permanent Federal ownership of and responsibility for all or part of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, a.nd Federal receipt of the licence from the present co-licensees; and

(4) use of the Western New York Nucleair Service Center for other purposes.

(b) Preparation of such study shall be in coope:rieJtion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other Federal agencies, the State of New York, the industrial participants, and the public, and the Administrator shall conduct infonnational public hearings (in lieu of any formal administrativ~ hear-

ings) prtor to completion of the study. The study shall recommend allooa.tion of existing and future responsibllities among the Federal Govel"llm.ent, the State of New York, and present industrial participants in the Western New York Nuclear Service Center.

( c) Ninety days prior to submission of the study to the Congress the Administrator shall release the proposed study for comment by interested parties, and such com.m.ents as a.re received shall be submitted as a.tJta.chments to the final study submitted to the Congress. _

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as intending to commit the Federal Government to any new assistance or participation in the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, nor as rellev-ing any party of ·any duties or responsibilities under any law, regulation, or contract to provide for the safe storage of nuclear waste.

( e) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this seotion, there is included in subsection 101 (2) of this Act authorization of appropriations in the a.mount of $1,000,000. TITLE II-BASIS FOR GOVERNMENT

CHARGE FOR URANIUM ENRICHMENT SERVICES SEC. 201. Subsection 161 v. of the Atomic

En~r.gy Act of 1954, a.s amended, is a.mended to read as follows:

"v. (A) enter into contracts with persons licensed under sections 53, 63, 103, or 104 for such periods of time as the Administrator of Energy Research and Development may deem necessary or desirable to provide, after December 31, 1968, for the producing or enriching of special nuclear material in facllities owned by the Energy Research and Development Administration; and

"(B) enter into contracts to provide, after December 31, 1968, for the producing or enriching of special nuclear material in facilities owned by the Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with and within the period of a.n agreement for cooperation arranged pursuant to section 123 while comparable services a.re made available pursuant to paragraph (A) of this subsection: Provided, That (1) prices for services under paragraph (A) of this subsection shall be established on a. nondiscriminatory basis; (11.) prices for services under paragraph (B) of this subsection shall be no less than prices under paragraph (A) of this subsection; and (iii) any prices established under this subsection shall be on such a basis as will recover not less than the Government's cost over a. reasonable period of time and, in the opinion of the Administrator of Energy Research and Development, will not discourage the development of domestic sources of supply independent of the Energy Research and Development Administration: And provided further, That the Administrator of Energy Research and Development, to the extent necessary, to assure the maintenance of a. viable domestic uranium industry, shall not offer such services for source or special nuclear materials of foreign origin intended for use in a utilization facility within or under the Jurisdiction of the United States. The Administa.tor of Energy Research and Development shall establish criteria. in writing setting forth the terms and conditions under which services provided under this subsection shall be made available including the extent to which such services will be made available for source or special nuclear material of foreign origin intended for use in a. utilization faclllty within or under the Jurisdiction of the United States: "Provided, That any change in enrichment services prices in the first proviso above shall not be implemented for a period of sixty days, during which the Congress ls in continuous session, after the transmission of the proposed price to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Com-

mittee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Science and Technology. Such prices shall be considered authorized by the Congress unless either House of Congress approves a resolution of disapproval of such prices prior to the expiration of the aforementioned sixty-day period. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Science and Technology shall have single Jurisdiction over any such resolution of di&a.pproval introduced pursuant to this section. L! such a. resolution of disapproval has been introduced, but has not been reported by the committee on or before the fortieth day after transmission of the message, a privileged moticn shall be in order in the respective body to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution and to provide for its immediate consideration, using the procedures specified for consideration of a.n impoundment resolution in section 1017 of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (31 u.s.c. 1407).

TITLE ill-GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 301. Funds appropriated pursuant to

titles I, VI, of this Act may be used for the construction or acquisition of any facilities or major items of equipment, which may be required at locations other than installations of the Administration, for the performance of research, development and demonstration activities. Title to all such faclllties and items of equipment shall remain in the United States, unless the Administrator or his designee determines in writing that the research, development and demonstration authorized by this Act shall best be implemented by permitting title or other such property interests to be in a.n entity other than the United States.

SEC. 302. Except a.s otherwise provided in thisAct-

(a.) no a.mount appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used for any program in excess of the a.mount actually authorized for that particular program by this Act,

(b) no amount appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used for any program which has not been presented to, or requested· of, the Congress, . unless ( 1) a period of thirty calendar days (not including any day in which either House of Congress is not in session because of adjournment of more than three calendar days to a. day certain) has passed after the receipt by the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate of notice given by the Administrator containing a. full and complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action, or (2) each such committee before the expiration of such period has transmitted to the Administrator written notice to the effect that such committee has no objection to the proposed action.

SEc. 303. The Administration is authorized to start any project set forth in title I, subsections 102 (a.) through (h), only if the currently estimated cost of that project does not exceed by more than 25 per centum the estimated cost set forth for the project. Further, the total cost of any project undertaken under these subsections shall not exceed the estimated cost set forth for that project by more than 25 per centum unless and until additional appropriations a.re authorized: Provided, That this subsection will not apply to any project with an estimated cost less than $5,000,000.

SEc. 304. Subject to the appllcable requirements and limitations of this Act, when so specified in appropriations Acts amounts appropriated for the Ad.mlnlstratlon pursuant to this Act for "Operating expenses" or for "Plant and capital equipment" may be merged with any other amounts appropriated for like purposes to any other Act authorizing appropriations for the Administration.


SEc. 305. When so specified in appropriations Acts, amounts appropriated pursuant to this Act for "Operating expenses" or for "Plant and capital equipment" may remain available until expended.

SEC. 306. Amounts appropriated pursuant to this Act for activities under subsections 101(9) and 102(1) are available for use, when necessary, in connection with all Administration programs.

SEC. 307. The Administrator is authorized to perform construction design services for Any Administration construction project whenever (a) such construction project has been included in a proposed authorization bill transmitted to the Congress by the Administration, and (b) the Administration determines that the project ls of such urgency in order to meet the needs of national defense or protection of life and property or health and safety that construction of the project should be initiated promptly upon enactment of legislation appropriating funds for its construction.

SEC. 308. When so specified in appropriations Acts, any moneys received by the Administration may be retained and used for operating expenses (except sums received from disposal of property under the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 and the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act, as amended, and fees received for tests or investigations under the Act of May 16, 1910, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2301; 50 U.S.C. 98h; 30 U.S.C. 7)), notwithstanding the provisions of section 3617 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 484), and may remain available until expended.

SEc. 309. When so specified in appropriations Acts, transfers of sums from the "Operating expenses" appropriation may be made to other agencies of the Government for the performance of the work for which the appropriation is made, and in such cases the sums so transferred, may be merged with the appropriations to which transferred .

SEC. 310. TRANSFER PROVISIONS.-In the event that any of the programs authorized by this Act are transferred to a Department of Energy established by Act of Congress, the following procedures shall apply to such transfer.

(a) The Secretary shall designate one or more officers in a position of seniority in the Department, of not less seniority than Assistant Secretary, to serve as the administrator and manager of the research, development, and demonstration programs authorized by this Act. The responsibilities of the designated officials shall include all funct~ons associated with the program administration and management of all programs and projects authorized in title I and all additional responsibilities included under titles II, IV, and v of this Act. Such responsibilities shall specifically include, but not be limited to, the dissemination of technical information and au authority for agency determinations for all nonregulatory functions . For such programs in titles I, II, IV, and V, under the Atomic Energy Act, the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act, the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act, the Geothermal Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, the Electric and Hybrid. Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Act, the Solar Energ-y Research, Development and Demonstration Act, and responsibilities of the Administration under the Energy Reorganization Act and any additional functions, such as contract appeals, associated with the research, development, demonstration and other nuclear and nonnuclear programs authorized by this Act. Such authority for agency determinations for nonregulatory functions shall not be vested in any regulatory board or commission which is or may be established in the department.

(b) All laws governing the conduct of the research, development, demonstration, and other programs authorized by this Act in-

eluding, but not limited to, the statutes specified in subsection (a), and all procedures for congressional notification and review, specifica.J.ly including the requirements to keep •the Congress ''fully and currently informed", shall be continued in the department.

( c) There shall be no change in the structure of any program authorized by this Act including. but not limited to governmentowned and contractor-operated fac111ties, headquarters components, the so-called national laboratories, energy research centers and the operations offices managing such laboratories, weapons programs and other research, development, demonstration, a.nd related program activities, unless any such changes are expressly authorized in a subsequent authorization Act for the department, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

SEC. 311. No nuclear fuel shall be exported to supply a nuclear power reactor under an Agreement for Cooperation which has not been reviewed by the Congress of the United States under the procedures in section 123 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153(d)), as amended by Public Law 93-485, directly or indirectly to a nonnuclear weapons state (within the meaning of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) which has not ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons unless the first proposed license under such agreement authorizing the export of either such reactor or such fuel after the date of this Act is first submitted to the Congress for review under the congressional review procedures provided for Agreements for Cooperation in the above-referenced section 123 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

SEc. 312. (a) Section 7(a) of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5906) is a.mended-

(1) by striking out "and" after the semicolon at the end of paragraph (5),

(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph ( 6) and inserting in lieu there-of "; and", and '

(3) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(7) Federal loan guarantees and commitments thereof as provided in section 19.".

(b) The Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. 5901, et seq.) is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"LOAN GUARANTEES FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL DEMONSTRATION FACILITIES

"SEC. 19. (a) It is the purpose of this section-

" (1) to assure adequate Federal support to foster a demonstration program to produce alternative fuels from coal, oil shale, and other domestic resources;

"(2) to authorize assistance, through loan guarantees under subsection (b) for construction and startup and related costs, to demonstration fac111ties for the conversion of domestic coal, oil shale, biomass, and other domestic resources into alternative fuels; and

"(3) to gather information about the technological, economic, environmental, and social costs, benefits, and impacts of such demonstration facilities.

"(b) ( 1) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, the Administrator is authorized, in accordance with such rules and regulations as he shall prescribe after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to guarantee and to make commitments to guarantee. in such manner and subject to such conditions (not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act) as he deems appropriate, the -payment of interest on, and the principal balance of, bonds, debentures, notes, and other obligations issued by, or on behalf of, any borrower for the purpose of

financing the construction and startup costs of demonstration fac111ties for the conversion of domestic coal, oil shale, biomass, and other domestic resources into alternative fuels: Provided, That no loan guarantee for a full sized oil shale faclli ty shall be provided under this section until after successful demonstration of a modular facility producing between six and ten thousand barrels per day, taking into account such considerations as water usage, environmental effects, waste disposal, labor conditions, health and safety, and the socioeconomic impacts on local communities: Provided further, That no loan guarantee shall be available under tl1is subsection for the manufacture of component parts for demonstr~tion facilities eligible for assistance under this subsection.

"(2) An applicant for any financial assistance under this section shall provide lnforma tion to the Administrator in such form and with such content as the Administrator deems necessary.

"(3) Prior to issuing any guarantee under this section the Administrator shall obtain the concurrence · of the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee. The Secretary of the Treasury shall insure to the maximum extent feasible that the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee will have the minimum possible impact on the capital markets of the United States, taking into account other Federal direct and indirect securities activities.

" ( 4) The full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the payment of all guarantees issued under this section with respect to principal and interest.

"(5) (A) The Administrator ls authorized. in the case of a facmty for the conversion of oil shale to alternative fuels which is determined by the Administrator pursuant to the proviso in paragraph (1) (A) of this subsection, to be constructed at a modular size, to enter into a cooperative agreement with the applicant in accordance with section 8 of this Act and rthe other provisions of this Act to share the estimated total design and construction costs, plus operation and maintenance costs, of such modular facility. The Federal share shall not exceed 75 per centum of such costs. All receipts for the sale of any products produced during the operation of the facmty shall be used to offset the costs incurred in the operation and maintenance of the facmty. The provisions of subsections (d), (e). (k), {m), (p), (s), (t), (u). (v). (w). and (x) shall apply to any such modular facUity. The provisions of this section shall apply to any loan guarantee for such modular facility.

"(B) After successful demonstration of the modular fac111ty, as determined by the Administrator, the fac111ty is ellgible for financial assistance under this section for purposes of expansion to a full sized fac111ty and the appllcant may purchase the Federal interest in the modular facmty as represented by the Federal share thereof by means of (1) a cash pavment to the United States, or (ii) a share of the product or sales resultin~ from such expanded operation, as determined by the Administrator. If expansion of such facility is determined not to be warranted by the Administrator, he may, at the option of the appllcs.nt, dispose of the modular fac111ty to the applicant at not less than fair market value, as determined by the Administrator as of the date of the dlsuosal', or otherwise disposed of it, in accordance with applicable provisions of law. and distribute the net proceeds thereof, after expenses of such disposal, to the applicant in proportion to the applicanVs share of the costs of such faclllty.

"(6) To the extent possible, loan guarantees shall be issued on the basis of compe:titive bidding among guaranteed applicants in a particular technology area.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 22395

"(c) The Administrator, with due regard for the need for competition, shall guarantee or make a commitment to guarantee any obligation under subsection (b) only if-

"(l) the Administrator is satisfied that the financial assistance applied for is necessary to encourage financal participation;

"(2) the amount guaranteed to any borrower at any time does not exceed-

" (A) an amount equal to 75 per centum of the project cost of the demonstration facility as estimated at the time the guarantee is issued, which cost shall not include amounts expended for facilities and equipment used in the extraction of a mineral other than coal or shale, and in the case of coal only to the extent that the Administrator determines that the coal is to be converted to alternative fuel; and

"(B) an amount equal to 60 per centum of that portion of the actual total project cost of any demonstration facility which exceeds the project cost of such facility as estimated at the time the loan guarantee is issued;

"(3) the Administrator has determined that there will be a continued reasonable assurance of full repayment;

"(4) the obligation is subject to the condition that it not be subordinated to any other financing;

" ( 5) the Administrator has determined, taking into consideration all reasonably available forms of assistance under this section and other Federal and State statutes, that the impacts resulting from the proposed demonstration facility have been fully evaluated by the borrower, the Admlnistrator, and the Governor of the affected State, and that effective steps have been taken or will be taken in a timely manner to finance community planning and development costs resulting from such facility under this section, under other provisions of law, or by other means;

"(6) the maximum maturity of the obligation does not exceed twenty years, or 90 per centum of the projected useful economic life of the physical assets of the demonstration facility covered by the guarantee, whichever is less, as determined by the Administrator;

"(7) the Administrator has determined that, in the case of any demonstration or modular facility planned to be located on Indian lands, the appropriate Indian tribe, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, has given written consent to such location:

"(8) the obligation provides for the orderly and ratable retirement of the obligation and includes sinking fund provisions, installment payment provisions or other methods of payments and reserves as may be reasonably required by the Administrator. Prior to approving any repayment schedule the Administrator may consider the date on which operating revenues are 1anticipated to be generated by the project. To the maximum extent possible repayment or provision therefor shall be required to be made in equal payments payable at equal intervals; and

"(9) the obligation provides that the Administrator shall, after ,a period of not less than ten years from issuance of the obligation, taking into consideration whether the Government's needs for information to be derived from the project have been substantially met and whether the project is caipable of commercial operation, determine the feasibility and advisability of terminating the Federal participation in the project. In the event that such determination is positive, the Administrator shall notify the borrower and provide the borrower with not less than two nor more t'han three years in which to find alternative financing. At the expiration of the designated period of time, if the borrower has been unable t,o secure alternative financinp;, the Administrator is authorized to collect from the borrower an additional fee of 1 per centum

per annum on the remaining obligation to which the Federal guarantee applies.

"(d) Prior to submitting a report to Congress pursuant to subsection (m) o,f this section on each guarantee and cooperative agreement, the Administrator shall request from the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission written views, comments, and recommendations concerning the impact of such guarantee or commitment or agreement on competition and concentration in the production of energy and give due consideration to views, comments, and recommendations received: Provided, That if either official, within sixty days after receipt of such request or at any time ,prior to the Administrator submitting such report to Congress, recommends against making such guarantee or commitment or agreement, the proposed guarantee or commitment or agreement shall be referred to the President, and the Administrator shall not do so unless the President determines in writing that such guarantee or commitment or agreement is in the national interest.

" ( e) ( 1) As soon as the Administrator knows the geographic location of a proposed facility for which a guarantee or a commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement is sought under this section, he shall inform the Governor of the State, and officials of each political subdivision and Indian tribe, as appropriate, in which the facility would be located or which would be impacted ,by such facllity. The Administrator shall not guarantee or make a commitment to guarantee or enter into a cooperative agreement under subsection (b) of this section, if the Governor of the State in which the proposed facility would be located recommends that such action not be taken, unless the Administrator finds that there is an overriding n3.tional interest in taking such action in order to achieve the purpose of this section. If the Administrator decides to guarantee or make a commitment to guarantee or enter into a cooperative agreement despite a Governor's recommendation not to take such action, the Administrator shall communicate, in writing, to the Governor reasons for not concurring with such recommendation. This Administrator's decision, pursuant to this subsection, shall be final unless determined upon judicial review initiated by the Governor to be unlawful by the reviewing court pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706(2) (A) through (D). Such review shall take place in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the State involved is located upon application made within ninety day~ from the date of such decision. The Administrator shall, by regulation, establish procedures for review of, and comment on, the proposed facility by States, local political subdivisions, and Indian tribes which may be impacted ·by such facility, and the general public.

" ( 2) The Administrator shall review and approve the plans of the applicant for the construction and operation of any demonstration and related facilities constructed or to be constructed with assistance under thiis section. Such plans and the actual construction shall include such monitoring and other dat:i-gathering costs associated with such facllity as are required by the comprehensive plan and program under this section. The Administrator shall determine the estimated total cost of such demonstration facility, including, but not limited to, construction costs, startup costs, costs to political subdivisions and Indian tribes by such facll1ty, and costs of any water storage facilities needed in connection with such demonstration facility, and determine who shall pay such costs. Such determination shall not be binding upon the States, political subdivisions, or Ilndian tribes.

"(3) There is hereby established a panel to advise the Administrator on matters relating to the program authorized by this section, including, but not limited to, the impact of the

demonstration facll1ties on communities and States and Indi.in tribes, the environmental and health and safety effects of suc·h facilities, and the mea.ns, measures, and planning for preventing or mitigating such impacts, and other m:itters relating to the development of alternative fuels and other energy sources under this section. The panel shall include such Governors or the.tr designees as shall be designated by the Chairman of the National Governors Conference, Representatives of Indian tribes, industry, environment.:1,l organizations, and the general public shall be appointed by the Administrator. The Chairman of the panel shall be selected by the Administrator. No person shall be appo,inted to the panel who has a financial interest in any applicant applying tor assistance under this section. Members of the panel shall serve without compensation. The provisions of section 106 ( e) of the Energy Reorganizati<m Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5816(e)) shall apply to the panel.

"(f) Except in accordance with reasonable terms and conditions contained in the written contract of guarantee, no guarantee issued or commitment to guarantee made under this section shall be terminated, canceled, or otherwise revoked. Such a guarantee or commitment shall be conclusive evidence that the underlying obligation is in compliance with the provisions of this section and that such oblig:ition has been approved and is legal as to principal, interest, alnd other terms. Subject to the conditions of the guarantee or commitment to guarantee, such a guarantee shall be incontest:ible in the hands of the holder of the guaranteed obligation, except as to fraud or material misrepresentation on the part of the holder.

"(g) (1) If there is a default by the borrower, as defined in regulations promulgated by the Administrator and in the guarantee contract, the holder of the obligation shall have the right to demand payment of the unpaid amount from the Administrator. Within such period as may be specified in the guarantee or related agreements, the Administrator shall pay to the holder of the obligation the unpaid interest on, and unpaid principal of, the guaranteed obligation as to which the borrower has defaulted, unless the Administrator finds that there was no default by the borrower in the payment of interest or principal or that such default has been remedied. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any forebearance by the holder of the obligation for the benefit of the borrower which may be agreed upon by the parties to the guaranteed obligation and approved by the Administrator.

"(2) If the Administrator makes a payment under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Administrator shall be subrogated to the rights o! the recipient of such payment (and such subrogation shall be expressly set forth in the guarantee or related agreements), including the authority to complete, maintain, operate, lease, or otherwise dispose of any property acquired pursuant to such guarantee or related agreements, or any other property of the borrower ( of a value equal to the amount of such payment) to the extent that the guarantee applies to amounts in excess of the estimated project cost under subsection (c) (2) (B), without regard to the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, except section 207 of that Act (40 U.S.C. 488), or any other law, or to permit the borrower, pursuant to an agreement with the Administrator, to continue to pursue the purposes of the demonstration facility if the Administrator determines that this is in the public interest. The rights of the Administrator with respect to any property acquired pursuant to such guarantee or related agreements, shall be superior to the rights of any other person with respect to such property.

"(3) In the event of a default on any guarantee under this section, the Administrator

22396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977 shall notify the Attorney General, who shall

. take such action as may be appropriate to recover the amounts of any payments made under paragraph (1) including any payment of principal and interest under subsection (h) from such assets of the defaulting borrower as are associated with the demonstration facility, or from any other security included in the terms of the guarantee.

" ( 4) For purposes of this section, patents, including any inventions for which a waiver was made by the Administrator under section 9 of this Act, and technology resulting from the demonstration fac111ty, shall be treated as project assets of such facility. The guarantee agreement shall include such detailed terms and conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate to protect the interests of the United States in the case of default and to have available all the patents and technology necessary for any person selected, including, but not limited to the Administrator, to complete and operate the defaulting project. Furthermore, the guarantee agreement shall contain a provision specifying that patents, technology, and other proprietary rights which are necessary for the completion or operation of the demonstration facility shall be available to the United States and its designees on equitable terms, including due consideration to the a.mount of the United States default payments. Inventions made or conceived in the course of or under such guarantee, title to which is vested in the United States under this Act, shall not be treated as project assets of such facility for disposal purposes under this subsection, unless the Administrator determines in writing that it is in the best interests of the United States to do so.

"(h) With respect to any obligation guaranteed under this section, the Administrator is authorized to enter into a contract to pay, and to pay, holders of the obligations, for and on behalf of the borrowers, from the fund established by this section, the principal and interest payments which become due and payable on the unpaid balance of such obligation if the Administrator finds that--

.. ( 1) the borrower is unable to meet such payments and is not in default; it is in the public interest to permit the borrower to continue to pursue the purposes of such demonstration facility; and the probable net benefit to the Federal Government in paying such principal anp interest will be greater than that which would result in the event of a default;

"(2) the a.mount of such payment which the Administrator is authorized to pay shall be no greater than the amount of principal and interest which the borrower is obligated to pay under the loan agreement; and

"(3) the borrower agrees to reimburse the Administrator for such payment on terms and conditions, including interest, which a.re satisfactory to the Administrator.

"(1) Regulations required by this section shall be issued within one hundred and eighty days after enactment of this section, except as provided in subsection (t) of this section. All regulations under this section and any amendments thereto shall be issued in ll,Ccordance with section 563 of title 5, of the United States Code.

" ( j) The Administrator shall charge and collect fees for guarantees of obligations authorized by subsection (b) (1), in amounts which (1) are sufficient in the judgment of the Administrator to cover the a.o,.,lica.ble administrative costs, and (2) reflect- the percentage of projects costs guaranteed. In no event shall ,the fee be less than 1 per centum per annum of the outstanding indebtedness covered by the guarantee. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to apply to community ,planning and development assistance pursuant to subsection (k) of this section.

"(-k) ( 1) In accordance with such rules and

regulations as the Administrator in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, and subject to such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate, the Administrator is authorized, for the purpose of financing essential community development and planning which directly result from, or are necessitated .by, one or more demonstration facilities assisted under this section to--

.. (A) .guarantee and make commitments to guarantee the payment of interest on, and the principal balance of, obligations for such financing issued by eligible States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes,

"(B) guarantee and make commitments to guarantee the payment of taxes imposed on such demonstration facilities by eUgible nonFederal taxing authorities which taxes a.re earmarked by such authorities to support the payment of interest and principal on obligations for such financing, and

"(C) require ,that the applicant for assistance for a demonstration facility under this section advance sums to eligible States, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes to pay for the financing of such development and planning: · Provided, That the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe agrees to provide tax abatement credits over the life of the facilities for such payments by such applicant. ·

"(2) Prior to issuing any guarantee under this subsection, the Administrator shall obtain the concurrence of ,the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee. The Secretary of the Treasury shall insure to the maximum ex,tent feasible that the timing, interest rate, and substantial terms and conditions of such guarantee will have the minimum possible impact on the capital markets of ,the United States, taking into account other Federal direct and indirect securities activities.

"(3) In the event of any default by the borrower in the payment of taxes guaranteed by the Administrator under this subsection, the Administrator shall pay out of the fund established by this section such taxes at the time or times they may fall due, and shall have by reason of such payment a claim against the borrower for all sums paid plus interest.

"(4) If after consultation with the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe, the Administrator finds that the financial assistance programs of paragraph ( 1) of this subsection will not result in sufficient funds to carry out the purposes of this subsection, then the Administrator may-

" (A) make direct loans to the eligible States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes for such purposes: Provided, That such loans shall be ma.de on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Administrator shall prescribe: Provided further, That the Administrator may waive repayment of all or part of a loan made under this paragraph, including interest, 1f the State or political subdivision or Indian tribe involved demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that due to a change in circumstances there wm be net adverse impacts resulting from such demonstration fa.cmty that would probably ca.use such State, subdivision, or tribe to default on the loan; or

"(B) require that any community development and planning costs which a.re associated with, or result from, such demonstration fac111ty and which a.re determined by the Administrator to be appropriate for such inclusion shall be included in the total costs of the demonstration fac111ty.

"(5) The Administrator ls further au• thorlzed to make grants to States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes for studying and. planning for the ,potential economic, environmental, and social consequences of demonstration fa.c1llties, and for establishing related management expertise.

"(6) At any time the Administrator may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of with Treasury, re.deem, in whole or in part, out of the fund established by this section, the debt obligations guaranteed or the debt obligations for which tax payments are guaranteed under this subsection.

"(7) When one or more States, political subdivisions, or Indian tribes would be eligible for assistance under this subsection, but for the fact that construction and operation of the demonstration facilities occurs outside its jurisdiction, the Administrator is authorized to provide., to the greatest extent possible, arrangements for equitable shar·ing of such assistance.

"(8) Such amounts as may be necessary for direct loans and grants pursuant to this subsection shall ·be available as provided in annual authorization Acts.

"(9) The Administrator, if appropriate, shall provide assistance in the financing o1 up to 100 per oentum of the costs of the required community development ~nd planning pursuant to this subsection.

"(10) In carrying out the provisions of this subsection, the Administrator shall provide that title to any fac111ty receiving financial assistance under this subsection shall vest in the applicable State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe, a.s appropriate, and in the case of default by the borrower on a loan guarantee such fac111ty shall not be considered a project asset for the purposes of subsection (g) of this section.

"(l) (1) The Administrator is directed to submit a. report to the Congress within one hundred and eighty days after the enactment of this section setting forth his recommendations on the best opportunities to implement a program of Federal financial assistance with the objective of demonstrating production and conservation of energy. Such report shall be updated and submitted to Congress at least annually and shall include specific comments and recommendations by the Secretary of the Treasury on the methods and procedures set forth in subparagraph (b) (v111) of this subsection, including their adequacy, and changes necessary to satisfy the objectives stated in this subsection. This report shall include-

" (A) a. study of the purchase or commitment to purchase by the Federal Government, for the use by the United States, of all or a portion of the products of any alternative fuel fa.c111ties constructed pursuant to this program as a direct or an alternate form of Federal assistance, which assistance, if recommended, shall be carried out pursuant to section 7(a.) (4) of this Act; and

"(B) a. comprehensive plan and program to acquire information and evaluate the environmental, economic, social, and technological impacts of the demonstration program under this section. In preparing such a comprehensive plan and program, the Administrator shall consult with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Tnterior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of the Treasury, and shall include therein, but not be limited to, the following:

"(1) information a.bout potential demonstration fa.cil1tles proposed in the program under this section;

"(11) any significant adverse impacts which may result from any activity included in the program;

"(111) the extent ,to which it ls feasible to commercialize the technologies as they affect different regions of the Nation;

"(iv) proposed regulations required to carry out the purposes of this section;

"(v) a list of Federal agencies, governmental entitles, and other persons that wm be consulted or utmzed to implement the program;

"(vl) the methods and procedures by

July 12, -1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 22397 which the informa,tion gathered under :the program will be analyzed and disseminated;

"(vii) a plan for the study and monitoring of the health effects of such facill.ties cm workers and other persons, including, but not limited to, any carcinogenic effect of alternative fuels; and

· .. (v111) the methods and procedures to insure that (I) the use of the Federal assistance for demonstration facilities ils kept to the minimum level necessary for the information objectives of this sectiOID., (II) the impact of loan guarantees on the capital markets of the United States is minimized, taking iruto account other Federa.l direct a.nd indirect securities activities, and any economic sectors which may be negatively impacted as a result of the reduction of capital by the placement of guaranteed loans, and (III) ,the granting of Federal loan guarantees under this Act does not impede movement toward improvement in the climate for attracting private capital to <,ievelop alternative fuels without contlm.ued direct Federal incentives.

"(2) Toe Administrator shall annually submit a detailed report to the Congress concerning-

" ( A) the actions ta.ken or not taken by the Administrator under this section during the preceding fiscal year, wnd including, but not be limited to (1) a discussion of the status of each demonstration facllity and related facilities financed under this section, including progress made in the development of such fa.ci1ities, and the expected or actual production from each such facility, including byproduct production therefrom, and the distribution of such products a.nd byproducts, (ii) a detailed statement of the financial conditions of each such demonstraition facility, (111) data concerning the environmental, community, and health and safety impacts of each such facility and the actions taken or planned to prevent or mitigate such impacts, (iv) the administrative and other costs incurred by the Administrator and other Federal agencies in carryang out this program, and (v) such other data as may be helpful in keeping Congress and the public fully and currently informed about the program authorized by this section; am.d

"(B) the activities of the funds referred to in subsection (n) of this section during the presiding fiscal year, including a statement of the amount and source of fees or other moneys, property, or assets deposited into the funds, a.ll payments made, the notes or other obligations issued by the Administrator, and such other data as m.ay be appropriate.

"(3) Toe ,annual reports required by this subsection shall be a part of the annual report required by section 15 of this Act, except that the matters required to be reported by this subsection shall be clearly set out and identified in such annual reports. Such reports and the one-hundred-and-eighty-day report required in para.graph ( 1) of this subsection shall be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the House Committee ,on Science and Technology and to the President of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.

"(m) Prior to issuing any guarantee or commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement pursuant to subsection ('b) of this section the Administrator shall submit to the Co~i ttee on Science and Technology of the HouEe of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a full and complete report on the proposed demonstration facility and such guarantee, ,agreement, or contract. Such guarantee, commitment to guarantee, cooperative agreement, or contract shall not be :finalized under the authority granted by this section prior to the expiration of ninety calendar days (not including any day on which either House of Congress ls not in session because of ,an adjournment of more than three calendar days to a day certain) from the date

on which such report ,is received by such committees: Provided, Tila.t, where the cost of a. demonstration facility to be assisted with a guarantee or cooperative agreement pursuant to subsection ( b) of this section exceeds $50,000,000 such guarantee or commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement shall not be finalized unless ( 1) the ma.king of such guarantee or commitment or agreement ls specifically author,ized by legislation hereafter enacted by the Congress or (2) both Houses pass a resolution stating in substance that the Congress favors the ma.king of such guarantee or commitment or agreement.

" ( n) ( 1) There ls hereby created within the Treasury a separate fund (hereafter in this section called the 'fund') which shall be a.va.llable to the Administrator w,ithout fiscal year limitation as a. revolving fund for the purpose of carrying out the program authorized by subsection (b) (1) and subsections (g), (h), and (k) of this section.

"(2) There are hereby authorized to be a.pproprla.ted to the fund for administrative expenses from time to time such a.mounts as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the applicable provisions of this section, including, but not limited to, the payments of interest a.nd principal and the payment of interest differentials and redemption of debt. All a.mounts received by the Administrator as interest payments or repayments of principal on loans which are guaranteed under this section, fees, and any other moneys, property, or assets derived by him from operations under this section shall be deposited in the fund.

"(3) All payments on obligations, appropriate expenses (including reimbursements to other Government accounts), and r-epayments pursuant to operations of the Administrator under this section shall be paid from the fund subjeDt to appropri-a.tions. If at a.ny time the Administrator determines that moneys in the fund exceed the present and reasonably foreseeable future requirements of the fund, such excess shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury. ·

"(4) U at any time the moneys available in the fund are insufficient to enable the Administrator to discharge his responsiblliti ?s as authorized by subsections (b) ( 1), (g), and (h) of this section, the Administrator shall issue to the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations in such forms and denominations, bearing such maturities, and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Redemption of such notes or obligations shaU be ma.de by the Administrator from appropriations or other moneys available under paragraph (2) of this subsection for loan guarantees authorized by subsection (b) (1) and subsections (g), (h), and (k) of this section. Such notes or other obligations shall bear interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, which shall be not less than a rate determined ·by taking into consideration the average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities during the month preceding the Issuance of the notes or other obligations. The Secretary of the Treasury may at any time sell any of the notes or other obligations acquired ,by him under this subsection.

" ( 5) The provisions of this subsection do not apply to direct loans or planning grants made under subsection (k) of this section.

" ( o) For the purposes of this section, the term-

"(1) 'State' means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or any territory or possession of the United States,

"(2) 'United States' means the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.and

"(3} 'borrower' or 'applicant' shall include any individual, firm, corporation, company,

partnership, association, society, trust, Joint venture, Joint stock company, or other nonFederal ehtlty.

"(p) (1) An applicant seeking a. guarantee or cooperative agreement under subsection (b) of this section must be a. citizen or national of the United States. A corporation, partnership, firm, or association shall not be deemed to be a citizen or national of the United States unless the Administrator determines that it satisfactorily meets all the requirements of section 802 of title 46, United States Code, for determining such citizenship, except that the provisions in subsection (a.) of such section 802 concerning (A) the citizenship of officers or directors of a corporation, and (B) the interest required to be owned in the case of a corporation, association, or partnership operating a vessel in the coastwise trade, shall not be applicable.

"(2) Toe Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may waive such requirements in the case of a corporation, partnership, firm, or association, controlling interest in which is owned by citizens of countries which are participants in the International Energy Agreement.

"(q) No part of the program authorized by this section shall be transferred to any other agency or authority, except pursuant to Act of Congress enacted after the date of enactment of this section.

"(r) Inventions made or conceived in the course of or under a guarantee authorized by this section shall be subject to the title and waiver requirement and conditions of section 9 of this Act.

"(s) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the obligations of any person receiving financial assistance pursuant to this section to comply with Federal and State environmental, land use, water, and health and safety laws and regulations or to obtain applicable Federal and State permits, licenses, and certificates.

"(t) Toe information maintained by the Administrator under this section shall be made available to the public subject to the provision of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, and section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, and to other Government agencies in a manner that will facilitate its dissemination: Provided, That upon a showing satis!iactory to the Administrator by any person that any information, or portion thereof obtained under this section by the Administrator directly or indirectly from such person would, if made public, divulge (1) trade secrets or (2) other proprietary information of such person, the Administrator shall not disclose such information and disclosure thereof shall be punish-a.ble under section 1905 of title 18, United States Code: Provided further, That the Administrator shall, upon request, provide such information to (A) any delegate of the Administrator for the purpose of carrying out this Act, and (B) the Attorney General, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Energy Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Power Commission, the General Accounting Office, other Federal agencies, or heads of other Federal agencies, when necessary to carry out their duties and responsib11ities under this and other statutes, but such agencies and agency heads shall not release such information to the public. This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress, or from any committee of Congress upon request of the Chairman. For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'person' shall include the borrower.

"(u) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the authority provided in this section to make guarantees or commitments to guarantee or enter into cooperative agreements under subsection (b) (1), to make gua.rantees or commitments to guarantee, or to make loans or grants, under subsection (k}, to make contracts under subsection (h),

22398 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 12, 1977 and to use fees and receipts collected under subsections (b) and (j) of this section, and the authorities provided under subsection (n) of this section, shall be effective only to the extent provided, without fiscal year limitation, in appropriation Acts enacted after the date of enactment of this section.

"(v) No person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with assistance made available under this section: Provided, That Indian tribes are exempt from the operation of this subsection: Provided further, That such exemption shall be limited to the planting and provision of public facilities which are located on reservations and which are provided for members of the affected Indian tribes as the primary beneficiaries.

"(W) In carrying out his functions under this section, the Administrator shall provide a realistic and . adequate opportunity for small business concerns to participate in the program to the optimum extent feasible consistent with the size and nature of each project.

" ( x) ( 1) (A) Recipients of financial assistance under this section shall keep such records and other pertinent documents, as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation, including, but not limited to, records which fully disclose the disposition of the proceeds of such assistance, the cost of any facility, the total cost of the provision of public facilities for which assistance was used and such other records as the Administrator may require to facilitate an effective audit. The Administrator and the Comptroller General of the United States or their duly authorized representatives shall have access, for the purpose of audit, to such records and other pertinent documents.

"(B) Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this section and at 6-month intervals thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall make an audit of recipients of financial assistance under this section. The Comptroller General may prescribe such regulations as he deems necessary to carry out this subparagraph.

" ( 2) All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors in the performance of construction work financed in whole or in part with assistance under this section shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the DavisBacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.G. 276a-276a- 5). The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to such labor standards, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276(c)) .

"(y) For purposes of this section 'biomass' shall include, but is not limited to, animal and timber waste, urban and industrial waste, sewerage sludge, and oceanic and terrestrial crops.".

SEc. 313. In order to provide economic farm units to qualifying farmers whose land is economically infeasible to reclaim from damages resulting from the Teton flood of June 5, 1976, and who are unable to find suitable replacement land for their flood damaged farm, and in order to restore the economic and agricultural base of the flood damaged region, there is hereby transferred 5,955 acres of land, hereinafter described , in the State of Idaho presently under the .furisdiction of the Energy Research and Development Administration, to the Secretary of the Interior who, actin~ through the Bureau of Reclamation, shall mal{e such lands available for sale to qualifying farmers according to the terms hereafter provided.

Part I. As used in this Act, the term:

(a) "Teton flood" means the flood resulting from the collapse of Teton Dam of the Lower Teton Division of the Teton Basin Federal Reclamation Project on June 5, 1976.

( b) "Energy Research and Development Administration land" means those public and acquired lands in the State of Idaho identified as sections numbered fourteen (14), twenty-three (23), twenty-four (24), twenty-five (25), and thirty-six (36), in township six (6) north, of range thirty-three (33) east of the Boise meridian; sections numbered nineteen (19), thirty (30), and thirty-one (31) in township six (6) north, of range thirty-four (34) east of the Boise meridian; and the southeast quarter, the south half of the northeast quarter, the east half of the southwest quarter and the south· east quarter of the northwest quarter, of section numbered eight (8) and the south half and the south half of the north half of section numbered nine (9) in township five (5) north, of range thirty-four (34) east of the Boise meridian, all situated in the county of Jefferson and State of Idaho, and containing 5,955 acres, more or less, which would be transferred for the purposes of this Act.

(c) "Qualifying farmer" means the resident, owner-operator of a farm who resides in the immediate locallty, whose livelihood is derived from his farming operation and whose land was damaged due to the collapse of the Teton Dam on June 5, 1976, to the extent that in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, it is not economically feasible to reclaim such land so that it produces an income commensurate with that earned prior to the Teton flood.

( d) "Irrigable land" means farm land that is suitable for irrigated agriculture and has been certified as irrigable by the Secretary of the Interior.

Part II. For a period of not more than 5 years after transfer to the Bureau of Reclamation, the land heretofore described shall be available for purchase by those who, on or before October 1, 1978, are determined to be qualifying farmers pursuant to regulations issued in accordance with part V of this Act by the Secretary of the Interior.

Part III. Enen:rv Research and Development Administration land as described in part I ( b) of this Act shall be certified as irrigable by the Secretary of the Interior, and lands so certified shall be made available in a manner to be prescribed by the Secretary for purchase by qualifying farmers at its current fair market v·alue as determined by a board of appraisers composed of a Federal appraiser, a State appraiser, and one appraiser from the disaster region: Provided, That irrigable land transferred to a single ownership shall not exceed 160 acres of class I land as defined by the Secretary or the equivalent thereof in other land classes as determined by the Secretary. The United States, through the Secretary, shall convey fee simple title of the Energy Research and Development Administration land to the qualifying farmer. The cost of developing the replacement land for farming shall be borne by the qualifying farmer who purchases the land.

Part IV. Any part of the Energy Research and Development Administration land remaining in the possession of the Bureau of Reclamation at the end of the 5-year period, exceot land needed for public rightsof-way, as determined by the Secretary, shall be returned to the Energy Research and Development Administration.

Part V. Within ninety days after the enaotment of this Act the Secretary shall prescribe and publish in the Federal Register such rules and regulations· as may be necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Part VI. Full recovery for the loss of all or part of flood-damaged farms shall be obtained by owners pursuant to the Teton Dam Disaster Assistance Act of 1976, Public Law

94--400, 94 Stat. 1211, and the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1976, Public Law 94-438, 90 Stat. 1415.

Part VII. Actions taken pursuant to this Act are in response to emergency conditions and depend for their effectiveness upon their prompt completion and, therefore, are deemed not only to be major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321).

Part VIII. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purposes of administration of this Act. TITLE IV-ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS TO

THE LOS ALAMOS SCHOOL BOARD AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ALAMOS SEC. 401. (a) Section 91 a. of the Atomic

Energy Community Act of 1955 (42 U.S.C. 2391) is amended to read as follows:

"a. From the· date of transfer of any municipal instaUations to a governmental or other entity at or for the community, the Administra..tor shall, for a period of 10 years, make annual assistance payments of ljust and reasonable sums to the State, county, or local entity having jurisdiction to collect property taxes or to the entity receiving the installation transferred hereunder: Provided, however, That with respect to the Cities of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Richland, Washington, the Richland School District, the Los Alamos School Board, and the County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, the Administrator is authorized to continue to make assistance payments of just and reasonable sums after expiration of such 10-year period: Provided further, That the Administrator is also authorized to make payments of just .and reasonable sums to Anderson County and Roane County, Tennessee. In determining the a~ount and recipient of such pavments the Administrator shall consider-

" ( 1) the approximate real property taxes and assess:ments for looal improvements which would be paid to the governmental entity upon property within the community if such property were not exempt from taxation by reason of Federal ownership;

"(2) the maintaining of municipal services at a level which will not impede the recruitment or retention of personnel essential to the Energy Research and Development Adminic:;tration program;

"(3) the fiscal problems peculiar to the p-overnmental entity by reason of the construction at the community ac; a single-purpose national defense installation under emergency conditions;

"(4) the municipal services and other burdens imposed on the governmental or other entities at the community by the United States in its operations in the project area; and

" ( 5) the tax revenues and sources available to the governmental entity, its efforts and diligen~e in collection of taxes, assessment of property, and the efficiency of its operations.".

(b) Section 91 d. of such Act is amended to read as follows:

"d. With respect to any entity not less than six months prior to the expiration of the ten-year period referred to in subsection a. (or not less than six months prior to June 30, 1979, in the case of the Cities of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Richland, Washington, and the Richland School District; or not less than six months prior to June 30, 1986, in the case of Anderson County and Roane County, Tennessee and the Los Alamos School Board; and not less than six months prior to June 30, 1987, in the case of the County of Los Alamos, New Mexico), the Adminic;trator i::hall present to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy recommendations as to the need for any further assistance payments to such entity.".

SEc. 402 . Section 94 of the Atomic Energy

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 22399 community Act of 1955 is a.mended to read as follows:

·~SEC. 94. CONTRACTS.-The Administrator is authorized, without regard to section 3679 of the Revised Statutes, to enter into a. contra.ct with a.ny governmental or other entity to which payments a.re required or authorized to be ma.de pursuant to section 91, obligating the Administrator to ma.ke to such entity the payments directed or authorized to be ma.de by section 91: Provided, however, That the term of such con tracts, in the case of the Cities of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Richland, Washington, and the Richland School District, shall not extend beyond June 30, 1979; and in the case of the Los Ala.mos School Boa.rd shall not extend beyond June 30, 1986; a.nd in the case of the County of Los Ala.mos, New Mexico, shall not extend beyond June 30, 1987.". TITLE V-LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABO

RATORY EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE SEc. 501. The Administrator shall not use

any funds appropriated pursuant to this Act under any contract in effect on or after October 1, 1977, for research services or ma.teria.l contract or supplies by the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory unless that contra.ct specifically provides that the employees of the Laboratory will be protected by an impartial grievance procedure which includes binding arbitration a.s the final step covering a.ll "rights disputes" in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The contra.ct shall further guarantee the employees the right to form, Join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. If a. question a.rises concerning representation of employees, the services of the Federal Mediation and Conc111ation Service may be invoked to provide appropriate procedures for the determination of employee representatives. The employer shall bargain in good fa.1th with the representatives of its employees on all matters dealing with wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. If the parties fa.11 to reach a.n agreement, the services of the Atomic Energy La.bor-Ma.na.gement Relations Panel shall be invoked for mediation purposes. All unresolved issues shall then be referred to such panel for final and binding arbitration. Nothing contained herein should be construed to permit any employee representative or person to engage in a. work stoppage or to permit the employer to lock out its employees: Provided, however, That no employee rights or activities shall be guaranteed in such contra.ct which would be in violation of the law of the State of California. TITLE VI-FOR NOi.~NUCLEAR ENERGY

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, ANP RELATED ACTIVITIES

OPERATING EXPENSES SEC. 601. For operating expenses, for the

following programs, a. sum equal to the total of the following a.mounts:

( 1) Conservation research a.nd develop-ment;

Electric energy systems and energy storage: (a) Electric energy systems, $36,700,000. (b) Energy storage systems, $49,900,000. End use conservation and technologies to

improve efficiency: (a) Industrial energy conservation, $40,-

000,000. (b) Buildings and community systems,

$56,000,000: Provided, That $2,000,000 of such sum a.re hereby authorized for a. research and development program in residential gas furnaces.

(c) Transportation energy conservation, $88,000,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be available to the Alternative Fuels Ut111za.tion Program for study of automotive utmza.tion of alcohol fuels and blends: Provided, That, of those funds authorized, funds a.s may be necessary a.re hereby authorized for the Energy Research and Development Adminis-

tra.tion to conduct studies to determine the fea.sib111ty of utilizing existing dist1llery fa.c111ties or other types of refineries including but not limited to sugar refineries, in the implementation of programs to extend the supply of gasoline by means of a. mixture of gasoline and alcohol: Provided further, That no more than two hundred electric vehicles may be purchased within the provisions of Public La.w 94-413 utilizing funds ma.de a.va.ila.ble in this section.

(d) Improved conversion efficiency, $78,-200,000.

(e) Small grants for appropriate tech-nology, $6,000,000.

Energy extension service: (a) Energy extension service, $8,000,000, (2) Fossil energy development: Coal: (a.) Liquefaction, $107,000,000. (b) High Btu ga.slflca.tlon, $51,200,000. (c) Low Btu gasification, $73,900,000: Pro

vided, That the sum of $40,000,000 which represents the portion of the appropriations heretofore made in the total a.mount of $56,-000,000 for project 76-1-a. (clean boiler fuel demonstration plant (A-E) and long-lead procurement) whi-ch remains unobliga.ted and is no longer needed ls hereby authorized to be made avaJla.ble instead, in addition to any a.mounts appropriated for the purposes involved pursuant to this Act for the low Btu gasification program.

(d) Advanced power systems, $25,500,000. ( e) Direct combustion, $65,200,000. (f) Advanced research a.nd supporting

technology, $45,000,000: Provided, That of those funds authorized, funds as may be necessary a.re hereby authorized for the following purpose:

(1) The Administrator shall conduct a fe_a.sib111ty study of the technology and the commercial a.ppllcations of the process of fine-grinding of coal and dry vegetable residues to four micron-size particles for the purpose of preparing these substances a.s clean burning fuels.

(2) In oarry,lng out the feaslb111ty study, the Administrator may provide for adequate partlcipat!on by individuals, corporations and private and public research fa.cllities, colleges and universities.

(3) A report of the findings together with recommendations for advancing the technology, if deemed appropriate by the Administrator, shall be submitted to the congress as soon a.s possible but not later than January 1, 1978.

(g) Demonstration plants, $50,900,000. (h) Magnetohydrodynamics, $80,000,000. Petroleum a.nd natural gas: (a) Enhanced oil recovery, $46,100,000. (b) Enhanced gas recovery, $30,000,000. (c) Drilling, exploration a.nd offshore tech-

nology, $1,600,000. (d) Processing a.nd utilization, $1,400,000. 011 shale and in situ technology: (a.) 011 shale, $28,000,000. (b) In situ coal ga.slflC81tion, $11,000,000:

Provided, That, of those funds authorized for fossil energy development, and funds as may -be necessary are hereby authorized for the Energy Research and Develooment Administration to conduct a study to determine the extent of the Nation's ooa.l reserves, the general geogra~hic location of such reserves and the cost of extracting saJd reserves.

(3) Solar energy development: (a) Thermal applications, $107,700,000. (b) Technology support and utilization,

$12.000,000. (c) Solar electric application, $178,900,000:

Provided, That $7,500,000 of such sum are hereby authorized for design work for small community applications.

(d) Solar Energy Research Institute and Regional Centers. There is hereby authorized from funds made available under subsections (a.), (b), a.nd ( c) of this section a.n a.mount no less than $10,000,000 for the operation of the Solar Energy Research Institute and its associated regional centers.

(e) Fuels from biomass, $19,500,000; and

under such rules and regulations as he may establish, the Administrator is authorized to guarantee a. loan or loans for the demonstration of a 50 MW wood-fueled power genera.ting fa.c111ty.

(4) Geothermal energy development: (a) Engineering research a.nd develop

ment, $17,100,000. (b) Resource exploration and assessntent,

$17,600,000. ( c) Hydrothermal technology applications,

$32,000,000. (d) Advanced technology applications,

$23,500,000. (e) Utilization experiments, $16,000,000. (f) Environmental control and institu

tional studies, $8,100,000. (g) Low lead hydroelectric demonstration,

$15,000,000. PLANT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

SEC. 602. For plant and ca.pita.I equipment, including construction, acquisition, or modification of fa.c111tles, including land acquisition; and acquisition and fabrication of capita.I equipment not related to construction, a sum of dollars equal to the total of the following a.mounts:

(1) Conservation Research and Development:

Project 78-1-a., high bay addition, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, New Mexico, $800,000.

(2) Fossil Energy Development: Project 78-2-a, analytical research, chem

istry and coal carbonization laboratory, Pittsburgh Energy Research Center, Pennsylvania, $6,600,000.

Project 78-2-b, modlflca.tlons and additions to Energy Research Centers, various locations. $3,000,000.

Project 78-2-c, low Btu fuel gas sma.11 industrial demonstration plants, sites undetermined (A-E and long-lead procurement only), $6,000,000.

Project 78-2-d, solvent refined coal demonstration plant, site undetermined (A-E and long-lead procurement only), $2 .000,000.

(3) Capita.I Equipment Not Related to Construction:

(A) Conservation research and develop-ment, $6,170,000.

(B) Fossil energy development, $5,500,000. (C) Solar energy development, $7,900,000. (D) Geothermal energy development, $2,-

500,000. AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR YEAR ACTS

SEc. 603. (a.) Public La.w 94-187 ls a.mended by:

( 1) Striking from subsection 101 (b) ( 1) , project 76-1-b, high Btu synthetic pipeline gas demonstration plant, the words "(A-E and long-lead pro-curement)" and the figure, "$20,000,000", and striking from subsection 201(b) (1) "project 76-1-b, high Btu synthetic pipeline gas demonstration plant (A-E and long-lead procurement) $5,000,-000", which authorized appropriations for this project totaling $25,000,000, and substituting therefor in subsection lOl(b) (1), project 76-1-b, high Btu synthetic pipeline gas demonstration plant, the figure "$220,-000,000".

(2) Striking from subsection 101 (b) (1), project 76-1-c, low Btu fuel gas demonstration plant, the words "(A-E a.nd long-lead procurement)" and the figure "$15,000,-000", and striking from subsection 201 (b) (1) the words and figures, "project 76-1-c, low Btu fuel gas demonstration plant (A-E and long-lead procurement), $3,750,000,'' which authorized appropriations for this project totaling $18,750,000, and substituting therefor in subsection 101 (b) ( 1), project 76-1-c, low Btu fuel gas demonstration plant, the figure "$150,000,000".

(3) Striking from subsection 101 (b) (2), project 76-2-a, five mega.watt solar thermal test fa.c111ty, the flgur& "$5,000,000", and striking from subsection 201(b) (2) the words and figures "project 76-2~. five mega.watt solar thermal test fa.c111ty, $1,250,-000", which authorized a,pproprlatlons for


this project totaling $6,250,000, and substituting therefor in subsection 101 (b) (2) the figure "$21,250,000", which is an increase of $3,000,000 over the amount authorized by Public Law 94-355, a.s a.mended.

( 4) Striking from subsection 101 (b) (2), project 76-2-b, ten megawatt central receiver solar thermal powerplant (A-E and long-lead procurement), the words "(A-E and longlead procurement)" and the figure "$5,000,-000", and striking from subsection 20l(b) (2) the words and figures "project 76-2-b, ten megawatt central receiver solar thermal powerplant (A-E and long-lead procurement), $1,250,000" which authorized appropriations for this project totaling $6,250,000, and substituting therefor in subsection lOl(b) (2), the words "Barstow, California," and the figure "$61,250,000": Provided, That if the solar electrical generating facility hereby supported contributes electricity to a distribution network serving the public on a commercial basis and if any Federal monetary contribution is included in the rate base for the purpose of computing return on capital investment to such utilities, that portion of the capital costs derived from Federal funds and included in the rate base shall be recovered with interest from the revenues of the solar facility.

(b) Project 77-1-d, MHD component development and integration facility, authorized by Public Law 94-373, is increased by $8,200,000 for a total authorization of $13,200,000. TITLE VII-FOR NONNUOLEA:R ENVIRON

MENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT, AND RELATED PROGRAMS

OPERATING EXPENSES

SEC. 701. For operating expenses for the following programs, a sum equal to the total of the following amounts:

( 1) Environmental research and development:

(a) overview and assessment, $43,010,000. (b) Biomedical and environmental re

search, $143,970,000, of which ·$1,000,000 shall be made available to the Water Resources Council to carry out the provisions of section 13 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. 5912), as amended.

(2) Life sciences research and biomedical applications, $38,113,000.

(3) Program management and support: (a) Program direction, $257,100,000. (b) Institutional relations, $30,179,000,

including funds to reimburse the National Bureau of Standards for costs incurred in carrying out the provisions of section 14 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5913), as a.mended; and $1,800,000 is authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this paragraph (3) for financial awards by ERDA to independent inventors for the purpose of carrying out section 14 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5913), as amended.

(c) Supporting activities, $54,460,000. (d) International cooperation, $5,000,000. (4) Funds to carry out the provisions ·of

section 11 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 ( 42 U.S.C. 5910) in the a.mount of $500,000 for the Council on EnvironI??-ental Quality.

PLANT AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT

SEC. 702. For plant and capital equipment, including construction, acquisition, or modification of facilities, including land acquisition; and acquisition of fabrication of capital equipment not related to construction, a sum of dollars equal to the total of the following a.mounts:

(1) Environmental Research and Development:

Project 78-9-a., modification and additions to biomedical and environmental research facilities, various locations, $6,000,000.

(2) Program Management and Support:

.Project 78-1-b, chiller modifications for energy conservation, Bendix Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, $830,000.

Project 78-1-c, process waste heat utilization, gaseous diffusion plant, Paducah, Kentucky, $5,700,000.

Project 78-19-a., program support facility, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois (A-E and long-lead ptocurement only), $5,000.,000.

(3) Project 78-22, Construction Planning and Design, $10,000,000. .


(A) Environmental research and development, $18,825,000.

(B) Program management and support, $5,155,000.

SEC. 703. The Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration, or its successor agency, is hereby authorized, to the extent and in such a.mounts a.s a.re provided in appropriation Acts, to enter into a cooperative arrangement with an interstate pipeline organization for participation in the construction and operation of a high Btu pipeline gas demonstration plant, utilizing the HYGAS steam-oxygen process and Illinois Basin type coal.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.



Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1811 be ordered printed as passed.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make technical and clerical corrections in the engrossment of S. 1811.


Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senators from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH and Mr. McCLURE) for the splendid work they have done in connection with the bill that has just passed the Senate.

I also compliment them on the handling of the floor amendments and on their conduct of the debate. I think the Senate is in their debt, and I personally congratulate them and thank them for their efforts.

Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1978

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 7553, which will be stated by title.


A bill (H.R. 7553) ma.king appropriations for public works for water and power development and energy research for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other purposes.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill.

Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the majority leader?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. Mr. GOLDWATER. Now that we are

resuming consideration of the public

works bill, will we be discussing the nuclear weapon today?

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Not today. The distinguished minority leader is on

his way to the Chamber. We have had some discussions among the manager, the ranking member, the minority leader, and others in connection with that matter. We have a proposed agreement which I shall propound as soon as the minority leader reaches the Chamber. If that agreement is entered into, the Senate would not discuss or dispose of that particular item until tomorrow.

Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Senator.




Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES ON THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT CALENDAR

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, there are certain measures on the Unanimous Consent Calendar which have been cleared by action taken yesterday, and while we are awaiting the arrival of certain Senators, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar Orders Nos. 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, and 300 on the Unanimous Consent calendar.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CANNON). Without objection, it is so ordered.

AUTHORIZATION FOR SALE OF OBSOLETE VESSELS

The bill (S. 854) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to sell two obsolete vessels to Mid-Pacific Sea Harvesters, Inc., and for other purposes, was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Secretary of Commerce is authorized, within two years after enactment of this Act, to sell, subject to such conditions he deems a.re appropriate in the national interest, the two obsolete vessels AOG-1 Patapsco and AOG-9 Kishwaukee for the purpo~e of conversion and operation in the fisheries of the United States to Mid-Pacific Sea Harvesters, Incorporated, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Hawaii, for their appraised value for operation or their scrap value in the domestic market, whichever is greater, as of the date of the sale: Provided, That ( 1) any conversion work shall be performed in the United States; (2) the vessels shall be documented and operated under the laws of the United States; (3) the vessels shall be operated in conformity with all international fishery conventions to which the United States is a signatory; and (4) 1f the vessels are scrapoed within five years after the date of sale, they shall be scrapped in the domestic market.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 22401

I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.



Mr. ROBERT c. BYRD. Mr. President( I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report (No. 95-314), explaining the purposes of the measure.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PURPOSE

The purpose of the blll is to permit the Secretary of Commerce to sell to Mid-Pacific Sea Harvesters, Incorporated, two obsolete Navy vessels, the Pa.ta.psco (AOG-1) and Kishwa.ukee (AOG-2), for conversion and operation in the fisheries of the United States.

DESCRIPTION

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to . sell, within two yea.rs after enactment of this legislation and subject to such conditions as he deems appropriate in thiJ national interest, two obsolete Navy tankers to Mid-Pacific Sea Harvesters, Incorporated, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Hawaii. The blll provides that the sale price shall be the vessels' appraised value, for operation or as scrap in the domestic market, which ever is greater at the date of the sale. The legislation also requires that the vessels be converted in the United States; documented and operated under United States' law; operated in conformity with all international fishery conventions to which the United States is a signatory; and that 1f the vessels are scrapped within five years after the date of sale, such work shall be done in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

The Patapsco and Kishwaukee are obsolete, surplus Navy tankers. They are currently located at the Naval Inactive Ship Maritime Fa.c1lity at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Under the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), the Maritime Administration of the Department of Commerce is responsible for the disposition of surplus vessels of 1500 gross tons or more, which are capable of conversion to merchant use.

Mid-Pacific Sea Harvesters, Incorporated desires to convert and operate these vessels in the U.S. fisheries in the mid-Pacific as collection and processing ships, known as "mother ships." Section 203 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (40 U.S.C. 484) provides that surplus vessels may be disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended. Section 510 of the Merchant Marine Act (46 U.S. 1160) prohibits the commercial operation of obsolete or other vessels acquired by the Secretary of Commerce. Thus it is necessary to enact this legislation which authorizes the use of the Patapsco and Kishwaukee in the fisheries of the United States. No other commercial use is authorized. This will provide employment in the United States in the conversion work and aboard the ships through the utilization of surplus Government property, for which the United States will receive payment.

S. 854 was introduced by Senator Inouye on March 2, 1977. On March 7, 1977, the Committee issued a press release announcing that it was considering the bill and requested interested persons to submit written comments on the legislation. No comments were received. The Committee approved S. 854 without amendment on June 21, 1977.

ESTIMATED COSTS

Pursuant to the requirements of section 252 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of

CXXIII--1410-Pa.rt 18

1970, the Committee estimates that there will be no additional cost to the Government as a result of t~e enactment of this legislation.

CENTER FOR BOOKS IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 1331) to provide for the establishment of a Center for the Book in the Library of Congres.s, which had been reported from the Committee on Rules and Administration with amendments as follows:

On page 2, line 17, strike "book" and insert "books";

On page 2, line 18, strike "Book" and insert "Books";

On page 2, line 22, strike "Book" and insert "Books";

On page 3, line 3, strike ":jook" and insert "Books";

On page 3, line 8, strike "the book" and insert "books";

So as to make the bill read: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

FINDINGS, DECLARATION, AND PURPOSE

SECTION 1. (a) The Congress hereby finds that-

(1) the Congress of the United States, on April 24, 1800, established for itself a library of the Congress;

(2) in 1815, the Congress purchased the personal library of the third President of the United States which contained materials on every science known to man and described such a collection as a "substratum of a great national library";

(3) in recognition of the importance of printing and its impact on America, the Congress purchased the Gutenberg Bible in 1930 for the Nation for placement in the Library of Congress;

(4) the Congress has through statute and appropriations made this library accessible to any member of the public;

( 5) this collection of books and other 11:brary materials has now become one of the greatest libraries in civilization; and

(6) the book and the printed word have had the most profound influence on American civilization and lea.ming and have been the very foundation on which our democratic principles have survived through our twohundred-year history.

(b) The Congress declares its reaffirmation of the importance of the printed word and books and recognizes the importance of a Center for Books to the continued study and development of written record as central to our understanding of ourselves and our world.

( c) It is the purpose of this Act to establish a Center for Books in the Library of Congress to provide a program for the investigation of the transmission of human knowledge and to heighten public interest in the role of books and printing in the diffusion of this knowledge.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CENTER

SEC. 2. There is hereby established. in the Library of Congress a Center for Books (hereafter in this Act referred to as the "Center"). The Center shall be under the direction of the Librarian of Congress.

FUNCTION OF THE CENTER

SEc. 3. The Librarian of Congress through the Center shall stimulate public interest and research in the role of books in the diffusion of knowledge through such activities as a visiting scholar program accompanied by lectures, exhibits, publications, and e.ny other related activities.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 4. The Librarian of Congress, in c.a.rrying out the Center's functions, is authorized to---

(1) prescribe such regulations as he deems necessary;

(2) receive money and other property donated, bequeathed, or devised for the purposes of the Center, and to use, sell, or otherwise dispose of such property for the purposes of carrying out the Center's functions, without regard to any other law; and

(3) accept .a.nd utilize the services of voluntary and uncompensated personnel and reimburse them for travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are considered an agreed to en bloc.

The bill was ordered to be engros.sed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.



The title was amended so as to read: A blll to provide for the establishment of

a Center for Books in the Library of Congress.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report (No. 95-315), explaining the purposes of the measure.


The bill (S. 1331) as reported would establish a Center for Books in the Library of Congress to provide a program for the investigaition of the transinission of human knowledge and to heighten public interest in the role of books and printing in the diffusion of this knowledge.

The Center would be under the direction of the Librarian of Congress. The Librarian, through the Center, would stimulate public interest and research in the role of books in the diffusion of knowledge through such activities as a visiting scholar program accO'lllpanied by lectures, exhibits, publications, and other related a.otivities.

The Libr,arian of Congress, in carrying out the Center's functions, would be authorized to-

( 1) Prescribe such regulations as he deems necessa.ry;

(2) Receive money and other property donated, bequeathed, or c!evlsed for the purposes of the Center, and to use, sell, or otherwise dLspose of such property for the purposes of carrying out the Center's functions, without regard to any other law; and

(3) Accept and utilize the services of voluntary and uncompensated personnel and reimburse them for travel expenses, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.

The Center would be supported entirely by private gifts to the Library of Congress for the purpose; therefore the bill does not require the apportionment of public funds.

The Committee on Rules and Administration has amended S. 1331(1) by substituting the word "Books" in lieu of the words "the Book" where they appear, and (2) by a.mending the title.


ABOLISHING THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONGRESSIONAL OPERATIONS The Senate proceeded to consider the

bill (S. 1608) to abolish the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, and for other purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on Rules and Administration with an amendment on page 1, line 3, S'trike "July 1, 1977" and insert "September 30, 1977", ~o · as to make the bill read:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Americ,a in Congress assembled, That, e·ffectlve September 30, 1977-

( 1) part 1 of title IV of the ~egisla ti ve Reorg,aniza tion Act of 1970 is repealed; a.nd

(2) the table of contents of .such Act is amended by striking out the matter relating to suoh part.

SEc. 2. (a) This section is enacted-( 1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power

of the Senate, and as such it shall be considered as part of the rules of the Senate a.nd such rule shall supersede other rules only to the extent inconsistent therewith; ,and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to change such rule 1at any time, in the same manner, a.nd to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.

(b) The Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate shall-

(1) Upon request, assist Members, comm! ttees, and officers of the Senate seeking competent personnel with specified qualifications and furnish advice and information with respect to office management procedures; and

(2) Identify any court proceeding or action which in the opinion of the Committee on Rules and Administration, is of vital interest to the Congress, or to the Senate, a.s a constitutionally established institution of the Fedei,al Government and call such proceeding or action to the attention of the Senate. In providing suoh services, the Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to cooperate with, or act Jointly with, any committee of the House of Representatives which provides similar .services.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed

for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.




Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report-No. 95-316-explaining the purposes of the measure.

There being no objection, the excerpt w'as ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S. 1608 as referred would abolish the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, effective July 1, 1977, and transfer its duties and responsibilities to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Section 20l(d) (1) of Senate Resolution 4, 95th Congress, agreed to February 4, 1977, provided that not later than July 1, 1977, legislation terminating the statutory authority of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, and transferring its functions to the appropriate committee, be reported to the Senate.

The Committee on Rules and Administra- The State Department believes that the tion is reporting S. 1608 with an amendment provisions · of the United States-Canadian which would extend the effective date from Agreement represent an equitable accom-July 1, 1977, to September 30, 1977. modation of reciprocal interests.

UNITED STATES-CANADIAN RECIPROCAL FISHERIES AGREEMENT The bill (H.R. 5638) to amend the

Fishery Conservation Zone Transition Act in order to give effect during 1977 to the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the United States and Canada, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.


Mr. McCLURE. I move to lay tha.t motion on the taple.




PURPOSE

The primary objectives of this bill are: (a) to provide specific ,congress,ional approval of the United States-Canadian Reciprocal Fisheries .Agreement; and (b) to waive various requirements of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 to permit fishermen of the United States and Canada to continue fishing off the coasts of each Nation during the period from March 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977.

BACKGROUND

The United States and Canada are now in the process of negotiations designed to conclude ·long-term agreements on maritime boundaries, Pacific salmon interceptions and comprehensive bilateral fisheries. Three separate negotiations were conducted with Canada on these matters during 1976 with the aim of concluding them before January l, 1977, when the Canadian 200-mile fisheries zone went into effect. However, the complexity of the issues frustrated this goal. It was necessary to conclude an interim arrangement, the United States-Canadian Re·ciprocal Fisheries Agreement, to insure tha.t each Nation's fisheries would be allowed to continue when both countries extended their fishery Juri:sdictions to 200 miles.

In negotiating this interim agreement, the United States attempted to satisfy the following specific interests:

Continuation of important U.S. fisheries in the Canadian zone during 1977, without regard to a determination of surplus by the Canadian domestic management system;

Relief for U.S. fishermen from the permit and related administrative requirements that would otherwise apply under Canadian regulations in the Canadian zone;

Continuation of recreational fishing by U.S. nationals in Canadian waters without additional new permit and other administrative requirements that would otherwise apply under Canadian regulations in the Canadian zone; ·

Continuation of scientific cooperation and consultation between the United States and Canada on fishery matters of mutual concern; and

Special arrangements 1n the disputed boundary areas, which would not prejudice the U.S. position on maritime boundaries.

SABINE RIVER COMPACT AMENDMENT

The bill (H.R. 1551) granting the consent of Congress to an amendment to the Sabine River compact entered into by the States of Texas and Louisiana, was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed.




Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report (No. 95-319), explaining the purposes of the measure. ,

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to .be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PURPOSE

R .R. 1551 would grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the Sabine River Oompact, entered into ·by the States of Texas and Louisiana, which strikes the last ,paragraph of the preamble to the existing compact. The effect of the amendment would be to permit the Sa.bine Riv~ Authorities of tJhe respective States to address themselves to the problems of pollution abatement and saline intrusion in the water souces within their Jurisdiction, subject to the powers 'already vested in them under the existing agreement. The ,bill also ex,pressly reserves the right of the Congress to alter or amend its provisions. Copies of the enabling Acts of the States _are contained in the files of the Committee.

STATEMENT

R.R. 1551, as passed •by the House of Representatives, is identical to S. 1151 pending before the Judic'iary Committee. In 1954, the 83rd Congress consented to a voluntary agreement creating a compact ,between the States of Texas and Louisiana. The intent of that Compact was to equitably apportion the water of the Sabine River and its tributaries between the two states.

Senator Bentsen has stated concerning this legislation: "Mr. President, the purpose of my .b111 is to -address a problem arising from a restrictive clause in the oompact's preamble. Although the preamble .recognizes ,pollution and salt water intrusion as potential problems, it states that the compact is limited to the equitable apportionment of the waters of the Sabine River. And, indeed, when the compact was entered into, ut111zation and conservation of this precious resource were of overriding concern. HQwever, in the intervening years, pollution and salt water intrusion have become increasing problems. Yet, the authority feels that it is precluded from dealing with these problems ,because of the restrictive nature of the preamble clause.

"The original compact was a.mended by the Texas Legislature in 1973 and by the Louisiana Legislature in 1974 to allow the Sabine River Authority to initiate programs to alleviate pollution and salt water intrusion problems".

Allen W. Eckert, Deputy Associate General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency testified in favor of the legislation before a subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 22403 ROMAN L. HRUSKA MEAT ANIMAL

RESEARCH CENTER The Senate proceeded to consider the

bill (S. 409) to designate the Meat Animal Research Center located near Clay Center, Nebr., as the "Homan L. Hruska Meat Animal Research Center."

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CANNON) . Is there objection to the consider: ation of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I am happy to support S. 409, a bill which would designate the Meat Animal Research Center located near Clay Center, Nebr., as the Roman L. Hruska Meat Animal Research Center.

PUBLIC SERVICE OF ROMAN L. HRUSKA

The history of the U.S. Meat Anima1 Research Center and the involvement of the former Senator from Nebraska, Roman Hruska, is a long and satisfying one. No one person had more to do with the creation of the Meat Animal Research Center than Senator Hruska.

Having served Just short of one term in the House of Representatives-1953-1954, Roman Hruska began his service in the U.S. Senate on November 8, 1954, after being elected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Hugh Butler. Born and raised in rural Nebraska, Roman Hruska kept his respect for and belief in American agriculture when he came to the Congress. He filled out the remainder of the unexpired term to which he was first elected in the Senate, and on his reelection in 1958, he began his first full term as a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations where he became ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations. It was from this vantage point that he was to play the single most important role in the development and establishment of the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center.

Although he was to have several other committee assignments during his tenure in the Senate of the United States which would bring him publicity and accolades, there was none which Roman Hruska regarded more important than his service on the Agriculture Appropriation Subcommittee. He began his service as ranking member of that subcommittee in 1959, and served on it continuously through his retirement from the Congress in 1976. In that position Roman Hruska represented the interests and concerns of agriculture and rural America with which he had grown up in Nebraska. THE SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA AND THE MEAT

ANIMAL RESEARCH CENTER

While serving on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture, Roman Hruska was quick to realize the problems and shortcomings of the Department of Agriculture in the field of livestock research and production improvements. He became interested at an early date in seeing to the establishment of a single facility for research and development of America's livestock industry.

After the Department of Defense announced its decision in 1959 to close the Naval Ammunition Depot at Hastings, Nebr., _Senaror Hruska began counseling

with Nebraska and Agriculture Department officials about the possibility of a new Federal facility at the depot site-possibly for something connected with agriculture.

During his tenure on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hruska sponsored and supported efforts by the Department of Agriculture to centralize its research activities in livestock. He was instrumental in the passage of the 1964 legislation to establish the Meat Animal Research Center, and after the phaseout of the munitions depot on July 1, 1966, Senator Hruska worked with the Department of Agriculture to develop plans for establishment of the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center on part of the lands formerly occupied by the munitions depot.

Senator Hruska encouraged and worked with the Agricultural Research Service to establish a claim on the Federal lands near Clay Center with the General Services Administration. He promoted the plans for establishment of the Meat Animal Research Center, and helped secure approval by the Secretary of Agriculture for location of the facility in Nebraska.

Senator Hruska shepherded the establishment of the Meat Animal Research Center through its several phases of development. The first 10,000 acres of land were transferred to the Department of Agriculture and plans were completed between the Agricultural Research Service and officials from the State of Nebraska for the first two phases of construction of a Meat Animal Research Center.

During this time, Senator Hruska played a further important role in the development and completion of the Meat Animal Research Center. He helped secure a request from the Office of Management and Budget-then the Bureau of the Budget-for $3.5 million in the fiscal 1966 appropriations for development of the Clay Center facility. Senator Hruska shepherded the Government requests through the appropriations process, and took on the personal responsibility of seeing the Meat Animal Research Center to its completion. Funding in fiscal 1966 saw establishment of laboratories, offices, a heating plant, and feed processing and storage areas. He helped with subsequent funding efforts that included establishment of beef cattle housing, swine housing, and sheep housing facilities.

In 1965, Senator Hruska announced the final decision of the Department of Agriculture to proceed with the establishment of the single meat animal research facility. At that time, he said:

With our economy so emphasizing livestock and feed grains, it is imperative that we apply this same kind of technology and research that has gone into other aspects of agriculture, to the production of livestock.

Mr. President, I urge the approval of S. 409. It will honor the name of an outstanding former U.S. Senator.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States Department of Agriculture

Meat Animal Research Center located near Clay Center, Nebraska, is designated as the "Roman L. Hruska Meat Animal Research Center", in honor of former Senator Roman L. Hruska.

SEC. 2. Any reference to such facility in any law, rule, document, map, or other record of the United States is deemed to be a reference to such building by the name designated for such facility by the first section of this Act.






PURPOSE OF l'HE LEGISLATION

The purpose ·of S. 409 is to recognize the importance of meat animal production in and for the United States, and to recognize the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the former U.S . Senator from Nebraska, Roman L. Hruska, for their work and efforts in the establishment of a centralized Federal facility for the research, development, and study of meat animal production in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Establishment and Operation of the Meat Ani mal Research Center

The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center was authorized by the Congress on June 16, 1964. Prior to that time, activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for livestock production research were scattered throughout the country. Because of the position the United States held as the single largest beef producing and beef consuming Nation in the world; and because of the importance of livestock production to the Nation's food supply, the economies of the several States, and to the Nation generally; and because of the need for increased efficiency, coordination and improvements in the production of livestock; the Congress authorized establishments of a single Meat Animal Research Center for the United States.

The first appropriations for acquisition of lands and initial construction of the Meat Animal Research Center were provided in fiscal 1976. Today the Center occupies 35,000 acres of land in central Nebraska. It is now serving as the central location for Government research, development and study of increased efficiency in livestock production, quality, a...._nd feeding; in disease control in livestock; and in virtually all other areas of concern in the production of livestock.

Animal scientists and veterinarians working at and through the Meat Animal Research Center study and test ways to develop superior strains of livestock; to control diseases and parasites affecting these animals; and to improve feeding and management practices that provide efficient production while avoiding or minimizing pollution due to animal wastes.

PUBLIC SERVICE OF ROMAN L. HRUSKA

The history of the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center and the involvement of the former Senator from Nebraska, Roman Hruska, is a long and satisfying one. No one person had more to do with the creation of the Meat Animal Research Center than Senator Hrushka.

Having served just short of one term in the House of Representatives (1963-54), Roman Hruska began his service in the U.S. Senate

22404 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE July 1.~, 1977

on November 8, 1954, after being elected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Hugh Butler. Born and raised in rural Nebrask.a, Roman Hruska kept his respect for and belief in . American agriculture when he came to the Congress. He filled out the remainder of the unexpired term to which he was first elected in the Senate, and on his reelection in 1958, he began his first full term as a member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations where he became ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations. It was'from this vantage point that he was to play the single most important role in the development and establishment of the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center.

Although he was . to have several other committee assignments during his tenure in the Senate of the United States which would bring him publicity and accolades, there was none which Roman Hruska regarded more important than his service on the Agriculture Appropriation Subcommittee. He began his service as ranking member of that subcommittee in 1959, and served on it continuously through his retirement from the Congress in 1976. In that position Roman Hruska represented the interests and concerns of agriculture and rural America with which he had grown up in Nebraska.




Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, , I ask unanimous consent that the order

for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

CANNON) . Without objection, it is so ordered.

PUBLIC WORK.S APPROPRIATIONS, 1978

The Senate continued with the con-sideration of H.R. 7553. .

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the remainder of today the Senate proceed to dispose of any other amendments other than those dealing with enhanced radiation weapons which may be in order and offered to title I of the pending bill.





Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STONE). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Title I of H.R. 7553 is the pending question.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I call the attention of Senators to a unanimous-consent request concerning committee amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments to title I of the bill, except the committee amendment beginning on page 2, line 12, that is the so-called Clinch River item which is the exception, be agreed to en bloc and that title I of the bill be con-

siqered as original text for the purpose of further amendment provided that no point of order shall be considered as hav-

. ing been waived by agreeing to this request.

By way of explanation, this is the ordinary motion that the committee makes customarily at the beginning of consideration of a bill, but under the pressure of other events the other day, I asked that we not proceed in that way. But I go back now and pick up this matter which really ordinarily comes first.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.

UP 'AMENDMENT NO. 648


Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, that makes it in order, as I understand it, that amendments might be offered from the floor. The Senator from New Mexico is here.

UP AMEND_MENT NO. 649

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I send to the desk an unprinted amendment and ask for its -immediate consideration.


The assistant legislative clerk read1 as

follows: The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DoMEN-

1c1) proposes an unprinted amendment No. 649:

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, that On page 2, line 13, brings us now in an orderly consideration Strike "$4,411•516,000" and insert "$4,422,-of this matter to consideration of the 716

•000

" · change here which involves the Clinch Mr. DOMENIC!. I say to the distinRiver item that was voted on last night guished managers of the bill that I have in the authorization bill which set the taken that figure, as amended by the sum of $75 million, whereas in the paper- Senator from Mississippi in his reduction work of this appropriation bill it was by $75 million, and I have added to that $150 million. J the total of $11.2 million by my amend-

Mr. President, I offer this amendment ment. I will explain quickly what this now, which as I understand is in keeping $11.2 million is made up of and briefly with the general understanding, on page · explain my reasoning. 2, line 13, strike the figure $4,486,516,000 The first would be a $2.1 million approand insert in lieu thereof the figure priation for ERDA's geothermal hot dry $4,411,516,000, and strike the figure $150 rock program. That is fully authorized in million and insert in lieu thereof the the authorization bill. In fact, it is aufigure $75 million. thorized to the level of $3.1 million.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the There has been a rather significant Senator send that to the desk? breakthrough in the last 5 or 6 weeks.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes. The amount I ask. for there will b~ the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk exact amount that the House has put in

will · state the amendment. its bill. The legislative clerk read as follows: Second, I have asked for $5.1 million The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STEN- for laser fusion R. & D. Likewise, on that,

Nis) proposes an unprinted amendment No. the House has put in $6 million. On mag-648 to the committee amendment: netic fusion, I have asked for $3 million;

On page 2, line 13, strike the figure "$4,- the House has put in $11 million. One 486,516,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$4,- other item is known as superconducting 411,516,000" and strike the figure "$150,000,- magnetic energy storage and conserva~~~.o~~~o~~.~ert in lieu thereof the figure, tion. I have $1 million for that, and the

House has $100,000. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, this is on some of these items, when the AP-

partly repetitious, but I will repeat it. propriations Committee considered them, Mr. President, the purpose of this there was no authorization in the bill, in

amendment 1s to conform the amounts in the ERDA authorization. They are now this bill for the Clinch River breeder all covered. In one instance, the superreactor project to the amount author- conducting magnetic energy storage

1, it

ized by the action/of the Senate yester- is my strong feeling that we should proday. ceed wih it; therefore, I ' am asking for

The Senate has authorized $75 million $1 million. for this project in lieu of the $150 mil- In summary, these are four progralr\S lion reported initially in both the author- I feel we need, and they are totally au~ 1zat1on and appropriation bills. This is thorized now. They make up the total of all that the amendment is 1::1.bout. I move $11.2 million. In each instance, the House the question on this amendment in order has appropriated more, with the excepthat other amendments which may be tion of the superconducting, and we are proposed will be eligible for considera- only $900,000 apart there, the House tion. being on the low side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Mr. President, I hope the managers objection, it is so ordered. will accept this a~endment. Most of the

The question is on agreeing to the committee objections have been anamendment of the Senator from Missis- swered, principally on the hot dry rock. sippi. The others were a question of nonau-

The amendment was agreed to. thorization, which has been taken care The PRESIDING OFFICER. The of in the ERDA authorization bill.

question now is on agreeing to the com- Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, we have mittee amendment, as amended. been over these requests. The Senator

The amendment, as ' amended, was from New Mexico, with his usual effl-agreed to. · ciency and proficiency, has dug into this

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair. matter deeply. He has four matters, for Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous a total amount of $11.2 million. One is

consent again that they be considered as the geothermal program, another is conoriginal text. servation, and another is the magnetic


fusion program. That is a total of $6.1 million.

He has one other item, the laser fusion program, for $5.1 million. Coming to that one last, it too is already in the House bill, and this matter will be in conference, as I understand. At least $20 million has been added already above the fiscal year 1977 budget amount. This matter will be in conference, and we will consider it there.

On balance, we have looked over these amendments, and we can join the Senator in asking the Senate to accept the items on the geothermal program, the conservation program, and the magnetic fusion program, if he could see fit to yield on the laser fusion program.

Repeating the first part, we will have that in conference, and we will consider it there. It will give us some latitude to try to work out something, and we will give consideration to the Senator's position.

Mr. DOMENIC!. I say to the distinguished manager of the bill that, as I understand it, he is absolutely correct. The House does include $6 million for the laser fusion. I have asked the Senate to include $5.1 million.

If I correctly understand the distinguished manager of the bill, every consideration will be given in conference to coming up with something close to what the House has thought appropriate for this particular item.

Mr. President, the distinguished floor leader will recall that early last month I sent him a letter concerning fiscal year 1978 funding levels for construction work on two major laser fusion facilities, the high energy gas laser fusion facility at Los Alamos, N. Mex., and the electronbeam laser fusion facility at Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, N. Mex. As the Senator will recall I was concerned about substantial reductions, totaling $14.5 million, between construction funds contained in the January and February administration budgets. At that time I expressed serious concern about the adverse impact on both our nuclear weapons and energy programs in laser fusion by this action. I concluded by urging the Appropriations Public Works Subcommittee to carefully consider an action taken by the Senate Energy Committee in recommending restoration of these funding cuts.

Mr. President, I would like to remind the distinguished floor manager that in passing S. 36 earlier this year, the Senate increased the authorized funding level for both of these projects to their full estimated costs. I believe that this step represents a recognition of the importance of these projects to this Nation's effort in laser fusion research and development. Indeed, as was made clear in testimony before the Energy Committee earlier this year, future sustained progress in this rapidly developing technol0P-' is dependent of the timely availability of such large-scale experimental facilities. In this important field we are limited not so much by lack of ideas, but by lack of facilities suitable for testing them.

Since my letter the House authorizations committees have agreed to restore $6.6 million in fiscal year 1978 construe-

tion funds for these two projects. The recently passed House public works appropriations bill contained this sum.

I am not going to propose an amendment here to restore these funds, but I would ask that the distinguished floor leader give serious consideration in conference to acceding to the House position in this matter. I believe the House figures represent a reasonable compromise concerning these funds, and am confident that $6.6 million will prove to be a very wise investment in maintaining this important program.

Mr. STENNIS. Let me assure the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that I am aware of his concern, and that I will do everything that I can to make sure that proper attention is given to it when we take this bill to conference.

Mr. DOMENIC!. Mr. President, I amend my amendment at this point by reducing the amount requested by $5.1 million, making my request $6.1 million. For the purpose of the record, it includes the three programs: Hot dry rock geothermal, superconducting storage conservation, and magnetic fusion-$2.1 million, $1 million, and $3 million, respectively.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from New Mexico. That will give us ·the leverage in conference, and we will go into the matter of the laser fusion program.

Mr. DOMENIC!. I thank the manager. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the

vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. STENNIS. I move to lay that motion on the table.


Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the bill is open to other amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk

will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceed

ed to call the roll. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


TREATMENT OF ANATOLY SCHARANSKY AND YURI ORLOV

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, at the request of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE), I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Resolution 198 on the Unanimous-Consent Calendar. This matter has been cleared with the distinguished minority leader.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution will be stated by title.


A resolution (S. Res. 198) relating to human rights and the Belgrade Conference.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, which had been reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations with an amendment:

On page 2, line 6, following "Scharansky" insert a comma and "Yuri Orlov, and others who sought to monitor compliance with the Helsinki Accords";

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, in the civilized world, words and agreements are considered to have some meaning.

The pending resolution, Senate Resolution 198, on Human Rights and the Belgrade Conference has become necessary because the Soviet Union not only twists words and ignores agreements, but has put on trial and handed out jail sentences to its citizens who have monitored Moscow's compliance with international agreements.

It is a shame that such a resolution is necessary.

But the shame is that of the Soviet officials whose violations of human rights have cast a pall not only on their nation but the hopes for improved relations with the United States and other countries.

It was within the power of the Soviet Union officials to abide by the agreements they signed as part of the 1975 Helsinki accords and the U.N. Charter. They chose not to do so.

But we cannot choose to remain silent, and by our silence condone the actions of Soviet officials, particularly the punishments they have inflicted upon the persons who have tried to keep track of whether there is compliance with international agreements.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on Senate Resolution 198, which unanimously passed the committee on June 30, succinctly sums up the matter. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a portion of the report, 95-318:


COMMITTEE COMMENTS

Although the Foreign Relations Committee is reluctant to raise matters which may complicate Soviet-American relations, it !eels obligated to take notice-and to recommend that the Senate take notice-o! practices which are inconsistent with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, and also those of the United Nations Charter. We note especially the first paragraph of the seventh o! the principles adopted by the Helsinki signatories as guiding their mutual relations:

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, ilicluding the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

We call attention as well to Article I, section 3, of the United Nations Charter, which states one of the purposes of the U.N. to be the achievement of international cooperation; in promotion and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or reUgion • • •

The significance o! these provisions of international law is that there are matters o! basic human rights within countries which are properly of concern to the international community as a whole. The principle o! nonintervention in the internal affairs o! states,


although still basic to international law, can no longer be regarded as absolute and without exceptions. One exception, pertaining to international peace enforcement, is specified in article 2(7) of the U.N. Charter. Another applies to the area of basic human rights.

In recent months the committee has followed, with dismay the treai;ment of those courageous Soviet citizens who have organized to monitor and encourage compliance with the Helsinki accords. Prominent among these individuals have been Anatoly Scharansky, a computer specialist and spokesman for Soviet Jews, and Yuri Orlov, a physicist who was the founder of the Moscow branch of the Helsinki monitoring group. When Los Angeles Times correspondent Robert Toth was detained in Moscow in early June, he was interrogated at length by the KGB on his contracts with Scharansky. Under Professor Orlov's leadership, the Moscow monitoring group has issued 22 documents and 40 statements on a broad range of human rights problems.

Mr. Scharansky was arrested last March 15 and subsequently charged with treasonous activities, specifically working for the American CIA. Professor Orlov had been arrested on February 10, 1977, but only on June 27 were the charges against him revealed to his wife. He is charged with anti-Soviet activity under a provision of the Soviet criminal code relating to the "dissemination of fabrications defaming the Soviet state." The offense is punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 3 years.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, it is worth noting the committee report language on the Helsinki Accords, the U.S. charter and the nonintervention issue because the Soviets often attempt to justify their actions on the grounds of nonintervention.

For example, after Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev had a 2-hour meeting July 5, with U.S. Ambassador Malcolm Toon, the official Soviet news agency, Tass, said Mr. Brezhnev asserted that relations between the two countries should "be based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and noninterference into each other's internal affairs." The Washington Post noted in its report that this is "a phrase that is commonly used by the Soviets to describe the human rights issue."

Mr. President, this is part of what I was ref erring to when I earlier said the Soviet Union had twisted words and ignored agreements.

If the Soviet officials distort meanings in such a manner to justify violations of agreements affecting their own people, how can we rely upon them to live up to agreements with other nations, including our own?

These events do not take place in a vacuum without affecting the atmosphere on trade and other matters: nor is our concern about human rights an isolated matter, confined only to the Soviet Union. The actions by the executive branch and Congress on foreign aid provide ample evidence that our concern over human rights encompasses other nations as well.

I also would like to make it clear that Senate Resolution 198 is not concerned only with the two Soviet c\tizens specifically mentioned in it--Mr. Scharansky and Professor Orlov.

As the resolution states in the final paragraoh:

It is the sense of the Senate that the United States representatives to the Helsinki

Accords should indicate to the Soviet Union and other states represented at the (Belgrade) conference the official concern of the United States over the treatment of Anatoly Scharansky, Yuri Orlov and others who sought to monitor compliance with the Helsinki Accords.

At the time the resolution was introduced and amended in the Foreign Relations Committee, these were among the more prominent individuals known to be facing jail terms. Unfortunately, it is not possible in this one resolution to keep up with all the Soviet actions.

But it should be understood by all that the resolution stands for all those who are suffering for their efforts to monitor compliance with the Helsinki accords.

Thus, this resolution stands for Alexander Ginzburg, who was a leading member of the Moscow group monitoring compliance with the Helsinki accords until he was arrested in February. According to reports received last week, he was charged with circulating anti-Soviet propaganda and faces a 7-year prison term.

The resolution stands for members of the Ukrainian group monitoring the Helsinke accord, particularly Mikola Rudenko, who was sentenced to 7 years at hard labor, and Oleksa Tikhy, who was given a 10-year sentence. They both were also sentenced to 5 years exile. Their treatment is especially disturbing because they were on trial in a remote town in the Denetsk region. Although the two Ukrainians were arrested in February, it was not until June 30, the 6th day of their trial, that their friends and family learned of the charges"an ti-Soviet agitation and propaganda."

According to information received by our Helsinki Commission, the two were in an obvious state of exhaustion when, after the trial was underway for 6 days, Rudenko's wife and Tikhy's aged mother were finally allowed to see them. Rudenko had been denied a lawyer and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark had been refused a visa to travel to the Ukraine to help def end them.

The resolution also stands for two young Ukrainians, Mykola Matusevych and Mysolav Marynovych who have been held in a Kiev prison since April. According to information received from Major General Grigorenko, a founding member of the Orlov group, false rumors had been spread of their release to distract attention from their situation.

Experts who have followed the situation say there is more tnan usual reason for concern about the two men because they were arrested ·by the KGB and not the Procuracy, the government branch which normally prosecutes cases, as were all the other arrested members of the Helsinki monitoring group.

The resolution stands for the others who have been arrested but may not have received much publicity, such as members of the Georgian Helsinki watch group, Aleksandr Podrabinek, who was detained in April after seeking to rally support for Alekzandr Voloschuk, a Baptist who was bound, gagged, and dragged from the Supreme Soviet building in March.

The resolution speaks also for those of us in the Senate who have shown

many times, in the words of the resolution, that "human rights is a fundamental concern of the United States."

Finally, speaking for myself as well, I am sure, as many of my colleagues, I commend Senate BROOKE for his initiative in presenting the resolution and express my thanks to Senator HUMPHREY for assisting its passage through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The only pleasure that such a resolution brings is the opportunity to be associated with my two distinguished colleagues who for years have been leaders in the causes of human rights and civil rights.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I thank the leadership for agreeing to bring this resolution up at this time. Our representatives at the Belgrade Conference should have no doubts as to the seriousness the Senate attaches to their bringing individual cases of human rights violations before those attending the conference.

I am grateful to the Foreign Relations Committee for its speedy action on this measure. As always the committee members and their staffs have performed in admirable fashion.

The changes the committee has recommended in the resolution are welcomed by me. The concern I have expressed for the fate of Anatoly Scharansky extends to Yuri Orlov and all others in the Soviet Union who have risked much to monitor Moscow's compliance with the Helsinki accords. And I agree with the committee when it states in its report that this resolution is not meant to inhibit efforts to achieve a mutually beneficial agreement in the SALT process.

I also wish to note that Senator CASE and Senator HUMPHREY are cosponsors of this resolution. They and many others in the Congress share a deep concern over the Soviet Union's increased efforts to suppress expressions of dissent. The Kremlin's actions are in direct contradiction to the first paragraph of the seventh of the principles adopted by the Helsinki signatories which states:

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

These would be no more than "hollow words" unless the United States and others called attention to the flagrant human rights violations connected with the jailing of Scharansky, Orlov and others.

Mr. President, we are all aware that the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union is of vital interest not only to ourselves and the Soviets, but to mankind in general. We are all hopeful that the way can be found to allow a marked reduction in the lethal capabilities of the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union without a sacrifice of our security. But this important aspect of the relationship must not be allowed to override our responsibility to promote our ideas of freedom, justice and human dignity in the world. If we were to allow it to do so we would have sacrificed our uniqueness in the world as a great power that looks beyond its immediate self-interest to the pro-

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE 22407

motion of the great human ideals that have inspired men for centuries. For that reason, I strongly urge the immediate passage of this resolution, not because it will have any great effect on the situation before us, but because it is one more affirmation of the importance the United States attaches to and will continue to attach to the right of the individual to be free of repressive official violence.

Mr. President, I realize that many of my colleagues have not had the opportunity to see the committee report accompanying this resolution. For that reason I ask unanimous consent that the committee comments be included in the RECORD at this point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.

The amendment was agreed to. The resolution, as amended was agreed

to. The preamble, as amended, was agreed

to. The resolution, with its preamble, as

amended, reads as follows: Whereas the human rights of individuals

is a fundamental concern of the United States; and

Whereas the Belgrade Conference provides the United States an opportunity to express its concern on human rights; and

Whereas basic human rights of Anatoly Scharansky and Yuri Orlov have not been respected by the Soviet Union; and

Whereas they have courageously sought to promote respect for human rights by their participation in the Moscow Group monitoring the compliance of the Soviet Union with the Helsinki Accords; and

Whereas the Soviet Union, without substantive evidence, has sought to intimidate both Anatoly Scharansky and Robert C. Toth, Moscow correspondents for the Los Angeles Times, by alleging their collusion to violate Soviet laws.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the United States representatives to the Helsinki Accords Review Conference should indicate to the Soviet Union and other states represented at the Conference the official concern of the United States over the treatment of Anatoly Scharansky, Yuri Orlov, and others who sought to monitor compliance with the Helsinki Accords.



COMMI'ITEE ACTION

Senate Resolution 198 was introduced by Senator Brooke on June 16, 1977. As introduced it would have expressed the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Representative to the Helsinki Accords Review Conference should express the concern of the United States over the treatment in the Soviet Union of the prominent dissident Anatoly Scharansky. The committee amended the resolution to expand the expression of concern to the treatment of Prof. Yuri Orlov and other Soviet citizens who have sought to monitor compliance with the Helsinki accords. The Foreign Relations Committee herewith favorably reports Senate Resolution 198, as amended, which was approved by the committee without objection.

COMMITTEE COMMENTS

Although the Foreign Relations Committee is reluctant to raise matters which may complicate Soviet-American relations, it feels obligated to take notice-and to recommend that the Senate take notice-of practices which are inconsistent with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, and also those of the United Nations Charter. We note especially the first paragraph of the seventh of the principles adopted by the Helsinki signatories as guiding their mutual relations:

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

We call attention as well to Article I, section 3, of the United Nations Charter, which states one of the purposes of the U.N. to be the achievement of international cooperation: in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, langua,ge, or religion • • •

The significance of these provisions of international law is that there are matters of basic human rights within countries which are properly of concern to the international community as a whole. The principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of states, although still basic to international law, can no longer be regarded as absolute and without exceptions. One exception, pertaining to international peace enforcement, is specified in article 2(7) of the U.N. Charter. Another applies to the area of basic human rights.

In recent months the committee has followed, with dismay the treatment of 'those courageous Soviet citizens who have organized to monitor and encourage compliance with the Helsinki accords. Prominent among these individuals have been Anatoly Scharansky, a computer specialist and spokesman for Soviet Jews, and Yuri Orlov, a physicist who was the founder of the Moscow branch of the Helsinki monitoring group. When Los Angeles Times corres!)ondent Robert Toth was detained in Moscow in early June, he was interrogated at length by the KGB on his contacts with Scharansky. Under Professor Orlov's leadership, the Moseow monitoring group has issued 22 documents and 40 statements on a •,road range of human rights problems.

Mr. Scharansky was arrested Ia.st March 15 and subsequently charged with treasonous activities, specifically working for the American CIA. Professor Orlov had been arrested on February 10, 1977, but only on June 27 were the charges against him revealed to his wife. He is charged with anti-Soviet activity under e provision of the Soviet criminal code relating to the "dissemination of fabric~tions defaming the Soviet state." The offense is punishable by a. maximum prison sentence of 3 years.

The disposition of these cases--and those of other prominent Soviet dissidents--will surely be a. measure of the Soviet reaction to President Carter's initiatives in the field of human rights. The arrests thus far made seem clearly intended as a. warning both to dissidents that they cannot count on foreign support and to the United States that the Soviet Union will not tolerate what it regards as interference in its internal affairs.


The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will eall the roll.


Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS, 1978

The Senate continued with the consideration of H.R. 7553.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, as I understand the bill is open for further amendment as soon as the Senate gets in order, and I understood the Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE) had some complaint. [Laughter.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments to a title I are in order.



The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.


The Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE) proposes an unprtnted amendment No. 650.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we have quiet?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The clerk will report.


1. Page 2, line 13, strike "$4,417 ,616,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$4,432,116,000."

2. Page 4, line 4, "$1,569,749,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$1,583,249,000."

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, stated in very simple terms this amendment seeks to compromise the action that was taken between the Appropriations Committee and the ERDA Authorization Act, which we just completed, and to reprogram portions of the money which was reduced from the February to May budgets on the base supporting program for breeder research, safety and development, aside fron: c;i:nch River. It would take a portion of the $75 million that the Senate has stricken and restore it to the other programs of base support.

I have discussed this matter with the managers of the bill. I hope it is acceptable. It restores half of the amount of the money.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator BAKER as a cosponsor of the amendment.


The Senator from Idaho. Mr. CHURCH. I also ask unanimous

consent to be joined as a cosponsor of the amendment.


Mr. CHURCH. I agree that, in light of the action of the Senate yesterday on the Clinch River breeder, this is appropriate and makes the other :figures related to the research and development of various breeder fuel cycles as contemplated under the authorization bill and this appropriation measure conform to that particular vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the author of the amendment ask unanimous consent that the form of the amendment be in order?

•22408 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977

Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I do ask that unanimous consent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutobjection, it is so ordered.

Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Chair. Mr. CHURCH. I am pleased to know

that the amendment is acceptable to the distinguished manager of the bill.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon and I have gone over this matter, and we have in the bill already $304.2 million in operating expenses for the base program and we thought that that was enough, but there has been a change in the situation here with reference to the Clinch River project for the breeder reactor. We decided there might be a base for legitimate claim for adjustment of this money and we agree to join in agreeing to the amendment at the level suggested by the Senator from Idaho. We will do the best we can with that in conference.

Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.


The amendment was agreed to. Mr. STENNIS. I move to reconsider the

vote by which the amendment was agreed to.



Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the bill, of course, is open to further amendment. The only firm information the chairman has is the Senator from Colorado had a small amendment. He called it small. And it is in order now I think. That is Senator HART'S amendment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado is on his way to the floor, as the Senator from Mississippi understands, so for a few minutes until he can get here I shall suggest the absence of a quorum. But before I do there is talk of another amendment now. The Senator from Montana may offer an amendment. So far as the manager of the bill knows that will be all the amendments to be offered to this title.

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SAR

BANES) . The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk pro

ceeded to call the roll. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair maintain order in the Senate while we hear the Senator from Colorado.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


Mr. HART. Mr. President, I send to the desk an unprinted amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.



The Senator from Colorado (Mr. HART) on behalf of himself, Mr. McINTYRE, Mr. McGOVERN' Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. HASKELL, Mr. MEl'ZENBAUM, Mr. ANDERSON, and Mr. KENNEDY proposes m1printed amendments No. 651.

On page 2, line 13, strike out "$4,432,116,-000' and insert in lieu thereof "$4,437,616,-000".

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to inform the Senator from Colorado that absent unanimous-consent request and the granting of the unanimous consent the amendment is not in order as it amends the figure previously amended.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered in order.


Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is in order. The Senator from Colorado.

Mr. HART. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the purpose of the addi

tional $5 .5 million provided by this amendment is to increase ERDA's program of research, development, and demonstration of solar heating and cooling technologies, and I will underline the word "demonstration."

These additional funds would be earmarked for expansion of ERDA's combined space heating and cooling demonstration program, and continuation of selected advanced collector and solar retrofit research and demonstration efforts beyond the current fiscal 1977 cutoff date.

Hot water and space heating and cooling comprise about 25 percent of our national energy needs. Experts tell us that, with an aggressive program of research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of solar technologies, this alternative energy resource can reasonably be expected to provide a large percentage of our hot water and space conditioning requirements in the coming years, and 15 percent of our total energy needs by the turn of the century.

This was the goal of the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act (Public Law 93-409), which established specific target dates for the successful demonstration of solar hot water, space heating, and combined space heating and space cooling units. The legislative history of this act shows a clear congressional intent to fund 2,000 solar hot water and space heating demonstrations within 3 years of the date of enactment, and 2,000 more combined heating and cooling demonstrations within 5 years. The fiscal 1978 budget request submitted by ERDA estimates that more than 2,000 residential solar unit demonstrations and 100 commercial unit demonstrations will be authorized to be funded by the end of the current fiscal year.

Beginning next year, the emphasis of ERDA's solar demonstration program will shift to combined space heating and cooling systems. These systems are significantly more complex and costly than their predecessors. Whereas the average cost to the Federal Government of a solar hot water and/or space heating demonstration grant has been approximately $18,000, grants made for combined space heating and cooling units to date have ranged from $50,000 to $400,000.

Due to unforeseen technological barriers, ERDA will not be able to meet the 1979 milestone established by Public Law 93-409 for the successful demonstration of significant numbers of solar space heating and cooling units. Clearly, a more concerted effort will be needed to

demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of these units. This amendment will provide an additional $3 million for the demonstration of this technology, and also permit ERDA to place greater emphasis on the development and demonstration of solar air collector heating and cooling units. I feel strongly that the successful demonstration of a cooling technology is essential to widespread market penetration of solar energy.

The problem of retrofitting existing buildings with solar equipment remains as perhaps the greatest obstacle to widespread commercialization of low solar technologies. A recent study by the Office of Technology Assessment-OTA--concluded that-

... less than twenty-five percent of the solar projects funded to date have been designed to demonstrate the possibility of retrofitting existing l;rnildings with solar equipment. ERDA recognizes that too little attention was paid to retrofit projects during fiscal year 1976, and plans to correct this deficiency in fiscal 1977.

ERDA's fiscal year 1978 budget request included the beginning of a major program thrust in the retrofit of solar heating components. About $1 million would be cut from this effort at the funding level recommended by the Appropriations Committee. Restoration of these funds would permit ERDA to continue work on the most promising of 15 solar retrofit research and demonstration projects which would otherwise be terminated at the end of the current fiscal year.

Finally, this amendment would provide $1.5 million for expanded funding of research and development procurement of high temperature solar collectors which hold great promise for the future. At the reduced level of funding recommended by the committee, significantly fewer contracts could be awarded.

Mr. President, although the dollar amount involved is relatively small, this amendment serves to renew our commitment to the expeditious development of solar energy to meet our pressing energy needs.

Mr. President, I call to the attention of the Senate the fact that this amendment has considerable support among my colleagues. Seven cosponsors are listed with the amendment. I also recognize the difficulties which the distinguished floor manager, the Senator from Mississippi, must deal with in attempting to keep the numerous requests for additional appropriations within the budget limits we have established. I am sympathetic to those demands.

Mr. President, on the floor of the Senate last evening, we approved, I believe, almost $100 million for the additional development connected with the Clinch River breeder reactor program. The fact of the matter is over the last few years the nuclear budget has outstripped the solar energy budget by figures of some 10 to 20 to 1, and that same proportion still holds today. What this amendment would do would be to add relatively few dollars to the still meager solar budget.

The problem we face today in this country is bridging the gap between research and development of solar technologies, and demonstration of the feasi-


bility of those technologies in the marketplace. I do not believe an additional $5.5 million for research and demonstration of solar technologies which hold tremendous promise in helping meet our future energy needs can be considered to be extending the taxpayers' commitment to this kind of technology. Most of the people I have talked to in the country wish that the Federal Government were putting more rather than less money into solar energy.

So it is in that spirit, Mr. President, and recognizing the problems which the distinguished floor manager faces, that this amendment is offered.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have not had a chance at this point to see the Senator from Oregon, but I point out that the Senator's amendment applies to a section of the bill where there is already in the House bill certain amounts. This high solar collector is $7 .5 million, with the Senator adding $1.5 million to that; retrofit is in the bill at $2 million, with the Senator adding $1 million to that; general demonstration is $3 million, which the Senator would add.

These are very important fields. I do not know what the position of the House will be or how firm it will be. Three million dollars of this is in matters where there is no additional money in the House bill. I am inclined to believe the Senator's amendment has some merit, or at least a part of it does.

Mr. HART. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous-consent request?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield. Mr. HART. I ask unanimous consent

that Mr. Terry Johnson, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this amendment.


Mr. HART. I thank the Senator. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, there

are three of these items which this amendment applies to, and there are not any additional funds in the House on one of them I do not know what their attitude will be. We can take this amendment to conference for the full amount and see what we can do with it, how we can make it apply. We certainly hope we can get some allowance, if the Senator will give us a good, strong statement, as he always does, supporting these items. The Senator from Oregon would accept it, too, I believe. I have no objection, Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.





Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator. I certainly have no objection. The Senator from Oregon is here now.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his indulgence.

that works against the Senator from Montana. There is nothing that he can do about it, but he has what appears to be a meritorious matter. When we can, at an appropriate time, we shall give fullest consideration to it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is prepared to put the question on the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. STEVENS. I withdrew my objection.


The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HART. Mr. President, I move to

reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move to lay that motion on the table.


GREENFIELDS IRRIGATION PROJECT

Mr. MELCHER. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to consider favorably the inclusion of an additional $400,000 in the rehabilitation and betterment item in the total appropriations for fiscal year 1978 to allow the start of work under a rehabilitation and betterment program loan for the Greenfields District, Fairfield, Mont., which has just qualified for financing.

The Bureau of Reclamation completed a study of the project in 1976 that called for the lining of approximately 5 miles of main canals and 131 miles of laterals; the replacement of approximately 5 miles of open laterals with closed conduit; the installation of automatic control and telemetric equipment for water control; and the repair, updating, and replacement of various structures and measuring devices. The entire project will cost $8.3 million and the district has the capability to utilize $400,000 in fiscal year 1978. The funds are in the nature of a loan to the irrigation district, which will be repaid by the irrigators.

A line item for this project would have been included in the Bureau of Reclamation's fiscal year 1978 budget except that the Rehabilitation and Betterment Act (63 Stat. 724) requires a 60-day review of the approved contract by the appropriate committees of Congress before it can be let. The approved contract was submitted to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Interior Committee on May 11, 1977, and the 60-day review period just ended yesterday.

By including the item in the next supplemental appropriations bill, a year's time in construction of the improvements can be saved.

Mr. President, I, therefore, respectfully bring this matter to the attention of the Senate in the hope that we can improve the addition of that amount in the next supplemental appropriation bill so that work can be started on the projects to that extent this fall.

I ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the manager of the appropriations bill now before us, and the Appropriations Subcommittee chairman for these funds if they will take note of the need for this in the upcoming supple-

As far as making a specific promise to put it in a supplemental bill or something of that kind, we almost have to have a rule against making too certain a promise, because it can lead to disap-pointment and misunderstanding. We do not put a lot of matters in supplemental bills.

But, certainly, we will be considering this one and if it does not go in the supplemental bill the first time, it will be up front on the bill that follows.

Mr. MELCHER. I thank the chairman. I ask that consideration of this matter

be taken up as promptly as possible and our next opportunity will be a supplemental bill.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes. We appreciate the Senator's position.

This matter has merit. It was not eligible for consideration when we passed on the bill, so I am glad he has presented it here today.

Mr. President, as far as the Senator from Mississippi knows, there are no further amendments to be offered to this part of the bill. We do have left over yet the matter of the so-called neutron bomb.

Let me repeat this in the hearing of our leader, the Senator from West Virginia, and the minority leader.

We do not know of any other proposed amendments. We still have for consideration, of course, as I have just said, this matter of the so-called neutron bomb and this completes the bill. I think a unanimous-consent request is in order to not have any further amendments except those relating directly to the neutron bomb.

I submit that to the leadership, though, to make the motion.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would the Senator put in a quorum, though, momentarily?

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.


The assistant legislative clerk procceeded to call the roll.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I state to the Senator that as far as we can determine there are no further amendments from this side and we would have no objection to an agreement that would limit further proceedings on this bill to this one issue.

Mr. STENNIS. That is fine. I am advised that Senator Glenn has

spoken about an amendment. Tb.at reminds me that he mentioned it to me in the elevator, but I did not hear anything further, so I do not have him on my list of possible amendments. We have a Senator who wishes to

make some remarks on this. Mr. HATFIELD. It is acceptable to the

Senator from Oregon.

mental appropriations bill that the Senate will be acting upon shortly.

Mr. STENNIS. I assure the Senator from Montana that we will take note of this matter. I feel that it has merit. We are in a parliamentary situation here

I would not mind making an exception there, because he had at one time, I believe a week ago, talked about the fact he might have an amendment.


Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ZoRINSKY). The clerk will call the roll.





Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, do we need unanimous consent to take up additional funding matters on the bill?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment, which requires a figure already amended, to be amended further, does require unanimous consent.

Mr. GLENN. I send to the desk an unprinted amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator requesting unanimous consent that it be in order?

Mr. GLENN. I do not believe I need it now. I was under a misconception that it was required under the parliamentary procedure. The amendment is at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does require unanimous consent to call up his amendment.

Mr. GLENN. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President.


The amendment will be stated. The second assistant legislative clerk

read as follows: The Sena.tor from Ohio (Mr. GLENN) pro

poses a.n unprinted p.mendment numbered 652.

The amendment is as follows: On page 2, line 13, strike $4,437,616,000"

a.nd place in lieu thereof $4,441,516,000"

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GLENN. I yield. Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unani

mous consent that upon the disposition of the amendment by Mr. GLENN no further amendments to the bill be in order except amendments to the enhanced radiation weapon.

Mr. STEVENS. The neutron bomb section.

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this past

April, President Carter announced that the next increment of nuclear fuel enrichment capacity in the United States would be obtained through construction of a centrifuge facility as opposed to a gaseous diffusion plant. This decision was made on the grounds that gaseous diffusion plants are highly inefficient, as indeed they are. Most of the heat generated in these plants goes out the stack or into a cooling facility in a lake or a nearby ocean. In fact, if one were to take all the waste heat of the three gaseous diffusion plants at Oak Ridge, Paducah,

and Portsmouth when they are operating at full capacity, and add the even greater waste heat generated by the heavy water facility at Savannah River, one obtains a total amount of waste heat equal to 12,000 megawatts of thermal energy. This is equivalent to the energy found in nearly 62 million barrels of oil per year. I repeat, that is waste heat out of these plants, and these are just the diffusion plants. Despite such waste, these plants are expected to operate indefinitely into the future. ERDA has recently begun addressing the problem of utilization of this waste heat, and in the fiscal year 1978 budget, there was allocated $2 million to study this problem. The main avenue of approach to be taken by ERDA in utilizing this waste heat is to examine the feasibility of constructing other facilities nearby that could use this waste heat, such as industrial parks or reside.ntial communities in the ":'icinity of these fuel production facilities.

I might add that any method of using this waste heat would also be applicable to all the different nuclear plants all over the country. This study is being conducted at the diffusion plants because they are more wasteful of heat than even the usual electrical generating plant nuclear facilities.

In conjunction with such studies the States involved would have to carry out detailed investigations of institutional barriers tha,t might exist toward making such utilization of the waste energy, and would also have to consider the socioeconomic impact of the suggested solutions.

This, of course, does cost money to remedy the situation.

Mr. President, it is my sincere belief that this program of waste heat utilization is important not only for the States involved but for the whole Nation as well.

In earlier action on the floor today, in connection with the ERDA nuclear authorization, both sides of the aisle accepted the figures put forth by myself, by Senator HART, and by Senator SASSER, which made an additional $2.9 million of authorization available for investigating this waste heat utilization. My amendment to the public works appropriation bill, now under consideration, includes this $2.9 million figure for waste heat utilization.

In addition to that, Mr. President, I am asking that the original administration request of $5 million for international cooperation, which involves looking into alternative energy sources in developing countries around the world, be restored to the administration-requested $5 million as opposed to the committee's figure of $4 million. This would raise the total amount we are proposing to $3.9 million, and I cannot think of any better use to which we could be putting this money.

I would urge the floor managers on both sides of the aisle, to accept this amendment. It will then be in complete agreement with what was passed earlier today when Senator CHURCH was floor

managing and Senator McCLURE was the minority floor manager.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. GLENN. Certainly. Mr. HART. Mr. President, I would like

to commend the Senator from Ohio once again for his leadership in this issue. He stated the facts succinctly. We are a wasteful nation, and this is one step we can take to reduce waste and better conserve our precious energy resources.

The amendment he proposes contains the amount for the purposes stated in the earlier amendment on the floor today, and I strongly support the amendment. I hope the distinguished managers of the bill will accept it because it is both in the short-range and long-range interests of this country.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I had read the Senator's statement about his amendment, and I do not know how it is going to flt in with the House's thinking on these matters. There are some points in it that impress me, and with the understanding that we will do the best we can item by item in conference to get at least a part of this money, why, I would be glad to join the Senator in his amendment.

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator for his consideration. I know he will help all he can to keep on this because it is an area where we can make tremendous use of energy now being wasted, and I think it is well worth the money we spend on the study.

Mr. STENNIS. I know the Senator has worked on this subject matter faithfully, long and well, and we certainly want to do what we can. There are a lot of amendments though in this bill and, of course, the House position has to be considered.

Mr. GLENN. I appreciate the consideration of the Senator, and I yield back whatever time I have here, and I call for the vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move


Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.


CLINCH RIVER

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, only the demands of a prior commitment yesterday prevented me from casting my vote to reduce funding for the Clinch River breeder reactor to $33 million, and thus stop further work on that project. From the standpoint of supporting President Carter's appeals to other nations to eschew breeder reactor technology as a means of throttling the perilous proliferation of nuclear weapons, it is essential that the United States show no hesitation in structuring its own programs in nuclear power generation. But I hasten to add, that even !or those who do not


share my convictions regarding the connection between breeder reactors and the spread of nuclear weapons, the Clinch River reactor was obviously an improperly designed and sited facility which should not be pursued further. Cutting our losses is certainly a better policy than throwing good money after bad.

SUPPORT FOR CLINCH RIVER RESEARCH

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, when the American people were called upon during the oil shortage of 1973, they responded favorably to conservation attempts to save energy. This effort was commendable. However, we now know, 4 years later, that conservation is not enough to solve this Nation's energy problems, since every year we have grown more and more dependent upon foreign sources of oil. In order to meet our growing energy demands, alternate sources of energy must be developed to insure a strong and independent America in the future.

VAST POTENTIAL

One attempt to fully explore an alternate energy source is the Clinch River breeder reactor demonstration program. The Clinch River project is a research program designed to demonstrate the liquid metal fast breeder reactor, which has a nuclear energy potential roughly equivalent to that of all U.S. coal reserves still in the ground.

The fast breeder reactor, powered with plutonium 239, uses a fission process that produces more fuel than it uses. The plutonium 239 core of the breeder reactor is surrounded by a blanket of "fertile" uranium 238. In the energy-producing fission process, a neutron is released by the plutonium 239, which bombards the uranium 238. When the uranium 238 absorbs the neutron, it turns into plutonium 239, thus breeding additonal fuel for the reactor.

PROLIFERATION ISSUE

Opponents of the Clinch River project have argued against continued funding for the program on grounds that it will lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons. They fear that America's policy position against the international spread of nuclear explosives will be somehow undercut by proceeding with the Clinch River project.

Yet, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union already have these reactors and are well ahead of the United States in fast breeder reactor technology. Clearly our abandonment of the Clinch River project will not slow proliferation of nuclear arms. The campaign against proliferation should proceed on different grounds. The nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is best encouraged through diplomacy, not restraint of technology.

CONSUMER BENEFITS

There are many strong arguments in favor of going ahead with the Clinch River project. The first and most obvious favorable factor is that it is the only nuclear reactor that "'breeds" more fuel than it consumes. In addition, the liquid metal fast breeder reactor could ultimately solve the problem of storing vast amounts of nuclear wastes since it could use its wastes as fuel.

There have been estimates that full development of the reactor could amount to a considerable savings in consumers' electricity bills for decades to come. One report suggests that development of the breeder reactor program to its full potential could supply 1,280 years' worth of energy for the United States at the rate we now use it.

It is important to remember that the Clinch River breeder reactor demonstration program is only a research project. Support for the Clinch River project cannot be likened to a blind leap into the dangerous unknown. It is a calculated experimental step in the direction of solving America's energy problems. As such, I am giving my full support to con,tinued funding for the Clinch River breeder reactor demonstration program, as contained within the Senate pu!llic works appropriations bill for fiscal year 1978.

RECESS SUBJECT TO CALL Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I move the Senate stand in recess awaiting the call of the Chair.

The motion was agreed to, and at 6: 16 p.m. the Senate took a recess, subject to the call of the Chair.

The Senate reassembled at 6: 54 p.m. when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. NUNN).

ORDER TO RESUME CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS BILL TOMORROW Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

I ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow, after the two leaders or their designees have been recognized under the standing order, the Senate resume consideration of the public works appropriations bill.


Without objection, it is so ordered.

TRANSFER OF MEASURE TO UNANIMOUS CONSENT CALENDAR

Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, there is one bill on the calendar that has been cleared for action by unanimous consent. I ask that the clerk transfer that measure to the Unanimous Consent Calendar. It is Calendar Order No. 303.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be done.

RECESS UNTil, 10 A.M. TOMORROW Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,

if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I move, in accordance with the previous order, that the Senate stand in recess until the hour of 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The motion was agreed to; and at 6: 55 · p.m., the Senate recessed until Wednes

day, July 13, 1977, at 10 a.m.

NOMINATION Executive nomination received by the

Senate July 12, 1977:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Jean M. Wilkowski, of Florida, a Foreign Service officer of class 1, for the rank of Ambassador while serving as Coordinator of United States Preparations for the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development.

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS <Statements in connection with bills

and joint resolutions introduced today are as follows:)

By Mr. NELSON: S. 1838. A bill to insure fair and equi

table representation for smaller and medium-sized businesses on Federal advisory committees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

FAIR REPRESENTATION FOR SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference the Fair Representation for Small Business Act, a bill to provide for equitable representation for small businesses on the advisory bodies which are utilized by the Federal Government. This is a similar bill to the one I introduced during the 94th Congress, S. 3085.

The bill would amend the Federal Advisory Act of 1972 and the Federal Reports Act of 1942 to provide an explicit directive that small business-which accounts for 97 percent of the number of U.S. businesses, over half of all private employment, 48 percent of the business output, 43 percent of the gross national product, and over half of the significant industrial innovation in the U.S. economy--be fairly represented on Federal advisory committees, panels, and task forces.

The object of the bill is to make sure that small business has a voice in the Nation's existing advisory councils and new councils which the President or agency heads see fit to establish.

In testimony on S. 3085 before the Government Operations Committee last year, I noted that the particular needs of small business receive little attention when the Federal Government formulates new policies or promulgates new regulations. A basic reason for this lack of consideration is that small business is not fairly represented on advisory councils which presently meet with Federal agencies.

Compliance with existing governmental requirements is already a job of massive proportions. The magazine U.S. News & World Report recently estimated that there are 60,000 pages of fine print in the Federal regulations and it would take a bookshelf 15 feet long to hold them all.1

But, new programs are being created all the time. Among the recent programs which suffered from inadequate. small business representation were the solar energy program of the Energy Research and Development Administration, ERDA; the creation of reporting forms under the Pension Reform Act of 1974, ERISA; and the publication of Occupa-

1 "MultibilUon-Dollar Price Tag," U.S. News & World Report, June 20, 1977, p. 48.


tional Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, regulations. In each instance, it was necessary for small business owners to expend inordinate amounts of time and energy to raise the small business viewpoint to the level of the Agency's visibility.

As a result, fortunately, changes are now being made in these programs to render tr..em more acceptable to the small business community. For example, ERDA has created the position of "Small Business Adviser," and we see evidence of closer consultation with small business in solar energy development; pension forms have been substantially reduced in size; and OSHA recently announced a new policy of concentration on major hazards and reducing its inspection of small firms in nonhazardous areas.2

However, smaller firms still have significant problems with many other existing governmental programs. The future will undoubtedly bring new policies and further regulations, in such areas as fuel consumption, health, and consumer safety. Other problems of which the committee is aware include the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide registration programs, the Post Office procedures which charge small businesses more for business reply mail than big businesses because the volume of smaller firms is less, and in many Government agencies there is an unreasonable delay in payment to small businesses for services received. All of this will surely mean even more time, energy, expense, and frustration among smaller enterprises unless there can be adequate consultation with small business advisers in the first place-that is, before the regulations and forms are published and sent out for compliance.

There are many ways to approach the goal of fair small business representation; and all of them should be explored simultaneously. In several hearings, the Small Business Committee heard suggestions for a thorough overhaul of the Advocacy Office of the Small Business Administration. The committee recommended additional strength for the research, analysis, and representational functions of that office.

We are recommending in a companion measure that each department and agency designate an appropriate official to be::ome familiar with small business problems and serve as a point of contact for the small business community.

The Senate Small Business Committee has recommended to the President, through Senate Resolution 105, the establishment of a White House Conference on Small Business to conduct a comprehensive, long-term assessment of the problems of small business and to draft a blueprint for alleviation of those problems. This would be the first major executive branch conference since 1956 when a Cabinet Committee on Small Business was established.

The need for better representation for small business on the ongoing and future

2 "New 'Common Sense' Priorities Set for Job Safety and Health Agency," News Release of the U.S. Dept. of Labor 77-460, May 19, 1977.

advisory panels is a point which our needs and concerns should be fairly reprecommittee considers fundamental. In our sented on policymaking bodies in the Federal

· 't · th b t h' 1 f · Government. view: 1 .is e . es ve ic e or as~urmg. a ( b) The Congress further finds and de-contmumg voice for small busmess m clares that--governmental affairs. (1) economic governmental and other

We have worked for years to obtain pressures on all 'businesses, and' particularly better representation in tax matters by small business, are mounting as reflected by way of advisory committees to the Treas- steep increases in the number and size of ury Department and the Internal Reve- bankruptcies; nue Service composed of smaller busi- (2) executive departments and agencies,

d t . . W h particularly those having economic policy ness owne~s an heir adv15ers. e ave and regulatory functions, should take into sought to mcrease the number of small account the impact on smaller and mediumbusi:iess represe.ntatives on the Business sized businesses of such policies, regulations, Advisory Council for Federal Reports- and forms, and the ultimate effects upon there is only one now. industrial structure, competition, and the

We were able to bring into existence free enterprise system; and Small Business Advisory Committees at (3) equitable and fair representation of the Treasury Department and IRS that the private, small business sector of the

. . economy on existing Federal Advisory Com-did much valuable work durmg 1975 and mittees within Federal executive agencies 1976.3 Regrettably, neither of these com- whose policy decisions and regulations affect mittees has met or functioned thus far smaller and medium-sized businesses is thus during 1977, with the loss of considerable essential to the health and well-being of the valuable momentum. We are waiting Nation's economy. with great interest to see what this ad- SEc. 3(a) Section 4(b) of the Federal Ad-ministration will do in this area. visory ~ommittee Act is amended to read as

It is not my suggestion that the Gov- fo~~~;) · Nothing in this Act shall be conernment establish new advisory com- strued to apply to any 9.dvisory committee mittees to Federal agencies or to keep established or utilized by the Central Inany or all of the present units. However, telligence Agency.". where they do exist they should contain (b) Section 9 of the Federal Advisory an appropriate proportion of small busi- Committee Act is amended by adding at the ness spokesmen. These opportunities end thereof the following: should be open to the owners of small "(d) Each advisory committee which ls businesses, persons rendering services to established by the President or by an agency small enterprises and small business as- head as provided in this Act, and which is

. . . ' concerned with matters affecting the econ-soe1atlon ~xecutives who are aware of the omy or business community shall contain small busmess problems. fair and equitable representation of the small

Mr. President, the most recent annual business sector of the economy, including report of the Senate Small Business individuals who, by reason of experience or Committee calls for- training have expertise and familiarity with • • • a national policy-in each branch and on every level of government-that will make small businesses more visible, give them higher priority, and preserve traditional small business values.4

The practical implementation of such a policy depends upon an ongoing dialog between small business and our policymakers. In these forums the regulators and the citizens who must endure the regulation can meet face to face. Each can educate the other and the entire climate of government can benefit. I want the meetings which deal with the economy to include small business which makes up such a significant part of the economy. This bill would get us a long way toward these goals, and I hope that it will be favorably considered by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:


Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Fair Representation for Small Business Act."

SEC. 2 (a) The Congress finds that small and independent businesses are an important part of the United States economy and that their

3 See Twenty-Seventh Annual Report of the Select Committee on Small Business, U.S. Senate, 94th Congr. 2d Sess., Feb. 25, 1977, s. Rept. 95-30, pp. 48-51.

4 s. Rept. 95-30.

the unique concerns and needs of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly with respect to such establishing authority's responsibilities and Federal form and paperwork requirements.".

SEC. 4(a) Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "§ 3513. Advisory committees; small business

representation "Each advisory committee which is ~stab

lished by the President or by an agency head as provided in the Federal Advisory Committee Act and which is concerned with matters affecting the economy or business community shall contain fair and equitable representation of the small business sector of the economy, including individuals who, by reason of experience or training, have expertise and familiarity with the unique concerns and needs of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly with respect to such establishing authority's responsibilities and Federal form and paperwork requirements."

(b) The table of sections of such chapter is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: "3512. Information for independent regula

latory agencies. "3513. Advisory committees; small business

representation.".

ByMr.LAXALT: S. 1839. A bill to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1954 to provide for payment by the Government of all reasonable litigation expenses to prevailing taxpayers in legal action; to the Com-· mittee on Finance.

Mr. LAXALT. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation which would permit a taxpayer to recover all reason-


able litigation expenses involved in differences with the Internal Revenue Service.

The complexity of the Internal ~e~enue Code is a much lamented but mdlSputable fact. Ordinary citizens, as a consequence, have no choice but to employ frequently expensive legal and accoun~ing assistance in the event they experience differences with the Internal Revenue Service. The problem lies in the dis-~ parity of resources available to individual citizens when compared to the battery of attorneys and accountants employed by the IRS. This disparity is so great that citizens frequently ab~ndon even highly meritorious cases owmg to the insufficiency of resources to carry those cases to a final conclusion. This same disparity has on occasion encouraged frivolous and harassing suits against individual taxpayers by the Internal Revenue Service.

The Senate has recognized the seriousness of this problem and moved some distance already toward dealing with it. My good friend from Alabama <Mr. ALLEN) introduced an amendment to the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Act of 1976, S. 2278. The Allen amendment provided that in the event the Internal Revenue Service or another agency of the U.S. Government brings civil action against a taxpayer to enforce any provision of the Internal Revenue Code and does not prevail that the court at its discretion may award to the taxpayer reasonable attorney's fees. The Allen amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 72 to O and is now public law.

My good friend from Oklahoma, Mr. BELLMON, introduced a related measure as an amendment to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, H.R. 10612. The Bellmon amendment provided that in any proceeding pertaining to the redetermination of a deficiency or the collection or recovery of any Internal Revenue Tax, if the United States is not the prevailing party, the court may at its discretion award judgment for costs including reasonable attorneys' fees up to a maximum of $10,000. The Bellmon amendment was accepted in the Senate but dropped in conference with the House.

Mr. President, my bill continues along the same path started by the Allen and Bellmon amendments. But it goes even farther toward securing a fair deal for our taxpayers in their one-sided confrontations with the Internal Revenue Service. It provides that in any litigation proceeding or court action whether initiated by the Government or by the taxpayer, if the taxpayer prevails the Government is liable for the reimbursement of all reasonable litigation expenses and the court is directed to order full reimbursement. By litigation expenses, I mean here all actual attorneys' fees, court costs, and related and necessary expenses.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the RECORD at this time.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

s. 1839 Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be .cited as the "Legal Fees Reimbursement Act of 1977".

SEC. 2. Subchapter B of chapter 76 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is amended by redesignating section 7427 as section 7428 and by inserting after section 7426 the following new section: "SEC. 7427. REIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL FEES.

"(a) In any litigation, proceeding, or court action arising from legal action originally initiated by the Government, even though later withdrawn by the Government, or in any action instituted by a taxpayer contesting the accuracy of a deficiency assessment or claiming a refund of taxes paid, the taxpayer having prevailed, or substantially prevailed (Government withdrawal construed as the Government having not prevailed), the Government shall be liable for the reimbursement in full of all reasonable litigation expenses incurred by the taxpayer as a consequence of legal defense, and the court shall order such reimbursement in full.

"(b) Reasonable litigation expenses shall include all actual attorneys' fees, court costs, expert witnerses, clerical assistance, travel expenses, preparation of documents, and other related and necessary expenses".

By Mr. BAYH: S. 1845. A bill to protect the rights of

individuals guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and to prevent unwarranted invasion of their privacy by prohibiting the use of polygraph-type equipment for certain purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. BA YH INTRODUCES POLYGRAPH CONTROL AND

cxvn. LIBERTIES PROTECTION ACT

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Polygraph Control and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 1977. As I indicated in my record statement of May 10, 1977, on this subject, the Subcommittee on the Constitution will be holding hearings on this measure in the near future. In the course of the 94th Congress I introduced a bill to bar the use of polygraphs and other mechanical or electrical devices used by the Federal Government or by private industry to screen and monitor their employees. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights but, unfortunately, no action was taken at that time. The tradition of interest by the subcommittee in the use of polygraphs by employers goes back to the mid-1960's. Since that time the momentum of interest in and awareness of violations of privacy has grown steadily, and it is my hope and expectation that this piece of legislation will be passed in the 95th Congress.

The Privacy Commission report submitted today to President Carter and Congress recommends a statute consistent with the one I am introducing at this time. The Commission heard testimony of the same kinds of abuses which have concerned the subcommittee, and it has concluded that Federal legislative action is necessary. Most of us are familiar with instances of friends, acquaintances or relatives who have had to submit to the discomfort and indignity of a preemployment "lie detector" test which

asked them irrelevant questions about their personal habits and past lives. It is not unheard of for polygraph opera tors to delve, for example, into sexual habits or past use of marihuana, even though the employer will concede that such questions have nothing to do with how well the applicant could perform a particular job. All too often, it is possible that the test results may then be turned over to anyone at all, a future employer, police, or colleges.

In my statement of May 10, I inserted in the RECORD an article in the Wall Street Journal telling of an employee of an engineering company suspected of giving away company secrets to t~e writer of the article. The man took and "failed" a polygraph test and was subsequently fired without explanation, even though as the author of the article knew, the man was not the informant.

Stories are legion of employees who are perfunctorily discharged after "failing" the company's routine polygraph test for theft, even though other explanations for the "deceptive" answer could have been made if the employer had cared to listen. In most instances the employees affected in this manner are not union members, have little job security, and have no protections against the injustices which may have been done.

Mr. President, I do not believe Americans should have to surrender a significant right to privacy in order to secure or keep employment. "Truth testing" machines used indiscriminately intrude and pry into lives with no regard for the underlying protections of the individual provided by the Constitution. Recent events in this country have taught us that the preservation of our civil liberties requires a constant guard in order to insure that we shall not lose to technological advancement what we have gained through our constitutional heritage. I believe the random use of truth testing devices presents us with such a threat. All too often, employers use these tests indiscriminately and without thought of implications they can have on the lives of their employees. A prevalent philosophy was expressed by President Nixon who observed when urging such a practice for certain employees in the executive branch:

Polygraph them all. I don't know anything about polygraphs and I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people.

The Polygraph Control and Civil Liberties Protection Act is designed to prevent such indiscriminate practices in both the Federal and private sector. It would bar any employer from requiring or requesting any employee or applicant to take a lie detector test. A specific exception is made for the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. I am aware, however, that the Select Committee on Intelligence is currently engaged in a study of employee security practices of agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, and that discrepancies may have to be reconciled.

To continue, the act would enforce this prohibition with both civil and criminal sanctions. A willful violation of this act would be punished by up to a year in

22414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE July 12, 1977

prison as well as a $1,000 fine. The Polygraph Control Act also establishes a civil penalty of up to $10,000, to be payable to the Federal Treasury in cases of less blatant violations. Finally a private remedy is provided to allow a person who was the victim of a violation of the act to recover damages from the employer for losses resulting from the violation. I should emphasize, Mr. President, that the bill would not in any way impede law enforcement authorities from making use of the investigative tool which a polygraph provides if there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed.

This bill is designed to put a stop to the offensive and degrading practice of random, groundless "sweeps" of large numbers of employees through periodic truth testing sessions, and it does not affect polygraph use by criminal justice agencies in pursuit of specific crimes and suspects as long as such practices are consistent with an individual's fifth amendment right against self incrimination.

Although civil service regulations issued within the last few years have restricted the indiscriminate use of polygraph tests for Federal employees, I believe it is important for us to solidify these regulations into an act of Congress. It is not, however, in the Federal Government but rather in the nongovernmental employee situation where mass invasions of privacy are taking place on a daily basis by the large scale use of these devices. There are no reliable statistics on the number of lie detector tests given by private examiners for business purposes but knowledgeable estimates have ranged from a low of 300,000 to a high of 500,000 per year.

Mr. President, the Privacy Commission report contains many recommendations and suggestions, both in the area of legislation as well as the voluntary adoption of practices to help assure that privacy which every American has a right to possess. The Subcommittee on the Constitution looks forward to working with the Government Affairs Committee, and other committees in the Senate, in reviewing these issues and furthering the interests of privacy through this and other pieces of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask that a copy of my proposed bill and a study on the abuse of polygraphs completed by the Constitutional Rights Subcommittee some time ago be inserted in the RECORD at this point.



America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 13, of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "Sec. 247. Polygraph testing in connection with employment

" (a) For purposes of this section, " ( l) 'po~ygraph test' means any examina

tion administered to an individual by mechanical, electrical or chemical means to measure or otherwise examine the veracity or truthfulness of such individual; and

"(2) 'employee organizations' includes any brotherhood, council, federation, organiza-

tion, union, or professional organization made up in whole or in part of employees and which has as one of its purposes dealing with departments, agencies, commissions, independent agencies of the United States, or with business and industries engaged in or affecting interstate commerce, concerning the conditions and terms of employment of such employees.

"(b) ( 1) Any officer or employee of the United States or any person acting for or on behalf of the United States who requires or requests any officer or employee of the United States, or any individual seeking employment as an officer or employee of the United States, to take any polygraph test in connection with his or her services or duties as an officer or employee, or in connection with such individual's application or consideration for employment shall be subject to the penalties and provisions of subsection ( c) of this section, except that section 247 (b) ( 1) shall not apply to officers or employees of the Central Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.

"(2) Any person engaged in any business or other activity in or affecting interstate commerce, or any individual acting under the authority of such person who

"(A) requires or requests any individual seeking employment in connection with such business or activity to take any polygraph test in connection with his application or consideration for employment; or who accepts or uses the results of any polygraph test in connection with such application; or

"(B) requires or requests any individual employed by such person to take any polygraph test in connection with his or her services or duties as an employee; or who accepts or uses the results of any polygraph test, unless the employee freely and expressly requests to take such a test and the request is not a product of coercion or intimidation by the employer; shall be subject to the penalties and provisions of subsection ( c) of this section.

" ( c) ( 1) Whoever wilfully and knowingly violates subsection (b) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.

"(2) Whoever violates subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000, to be payable to the United States.

"(3) Upon violation of subsection (b) of this section, any employee of officer of the United States, or any person seeking employment in the executive branch of the United States Government, or any individual seeking to establish civil service status or eligibility for employment in the United States Government, or any individual seeking employment in connection with any business or activity engaged in or affecting interstate commerce, or any individual employed by a person engaged in such business or activity, who is aggrieved by this violation of subsection (b) of this section, may bring a civil action in his or her own behalf or in behalf of himself or herself and others similarly situated, against the offending officer, employee, or person in the United States District Court.

"The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to try and determine such civil action irrespective of the actuality or amount of pecuniary injury done or threatened, and without regard to whether the aggrieved party shall have exhausted any administrative remedies that may be provided by law, and to issue such restraining order, interlocutory injunction, permanent injunction, or mandatory injunction,

or enter such other judgment or decree as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent the threatened violation, or to afford the plaintiff and others similarly situated complete relief against the consequences of the violation.

"With the written consent of any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (b) of this section, any employee organization may bring such action on behalf of any such person, or may intervene in such action.

" ( 4) The analysis of chapter 13 of such title is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

"Sec. 247. Polygraph testing in connection with employment." SEc. 2. The amendments made by this Act

shall become effective thirty days after the date of enactment.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS OF POLYGRAPH CONTROL AND CIVIL LmERTIES PROTECTION ACT

Sec. 247(a) sets out the definitions to be used for purposes of the Act. The term "polygraph test" is included to mean any mechanical, electrical, or chemical testing device which is designed to measure the veracity or truthfulness of an individual. "Employee organization" includes such groups as unions or professional organizations which represent the interest of their membership in dealings with federal departments or agencies or with private businesses engaged in interstate commerce.

Sec. 247(b) describes the violations established by the Polygraph Control and Civil Liberties Protection Act. The Act prohibits any officer or employer of the federal government from requiring or requesting an employee, or an applicant for employment, to submit to a polygraph test as defined in Section 247(a). There is a specific exception for the Central Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency. The Act also prohibits nongovernmental businesses engaged in interstate commerce from requiring or requesting their employees or applicants to take such tests. The Act does not prohibit an individual who is employed by such a business from requesting a polygraph test if the request is one which the employee has made on his or her own initiative and is not the product of coercion or intimidation on the part of the employer.

Sec. 247(c) sets out the penalties which may be imposed for a violation of Sec. 247 (b) of the Act. The penalties include a misdemeanor punishment of one year imprisonment or a fine of $1,000 or both for a person who wilfully and knowingly violates the Act. A civil penalty of up to $10,000 payable to the United States may be imposed for one who commits a violation but does so without a wilfull intent to violate the statute. The act also establishes a private cause of action to allow a person who has been the victim of a violation of the Polygraph Control and Civil Liberties Protection Act to seek relief against the violator in the appropriate United States District Court.

PRIVACY, POLYGRAPHS, AND EMPLOYMENT

THE POLYGRAPH TEST; RELIABILITY

The theory behind the polygraph procedure and its results involves physiological responses purportedly related to the act of lying. It is professed that lying causes conflict to arise within the individual subject. The conflict produces fear and anxiety which, in turn, produce physiological changes which the polygraph devices can measure and record. Thus, the assumption underlying the polygraph test is that a uniform relationship exists between an act of deception, cer-

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22415 tain specific emotions, and vardous bodily dha.nges.23

A typical polygraph examination may contain several features. The subject to be investigated is usually ushered into a waiting room where it is hoped he will avail himself of the favorable polygraph literature left for his attention. His reactions to these readings a.re often observed by the secretary or receptionist and reported to the examiner prior to his encounter with the subJect.2' The purpose of tihis conditioning is that the person to be examined carry with him into the test a. belief in the reliabillty, accuracy, and even infallibility of the polygraph. Examiners maintain that it is important a.nd helpful in obtwl.ning good responses for a.n individual to be convinced that his lies will be detected, thus heightening his sensitivity to the questions and the likelihood of clear Jjhysiological cha.nges.25 The "spy" in the waiting room reports to the examdner the degree of skepticism or acceptance exhibited by the subject while reading the polygraph literature. In this wa.y, it is claimed, the examiner can better understand and compensate for a.11 types of recorded responses to his questions.

Still prior to his being connected to the machine, the subject is brought into the testing area, usually a room sparsely decorated and furnished to a.void the presence of outside distractions or stimuli. At this point, some polygraph operators may make use of "two-wa.y" mirrors to further observe the individual's behia.vior.2& Then, with the machine in view, the examiner typically conducts a preliminary interview which a.ids him in assessing the type of per.son he is dealing with, and in obtaining other knowledge he might deem helpful in his interpretation of the results of the polygraph test.27

The general questions pertaining to the circumstances being investigated are typica.lly gone over to familiarize the subject with them a.nd to allow the opera.tor the opportunity to alter them where he feels it is necessary to elicit clear, definite responses.2s The pneumograph tube, measuring respiration, is then placed around the subject's chest, the blood pressure and pulse cuff around his upper arm, and electrodes, which record galvanic skin responses (the change in the electrical conductivity of the skin due to increased skin perspiration) a.re attached to his hands. The examiner then proceeds with the questioning as he sits behind his control desk watching and marking the recordings of these devices.

How reliable is this process in determining the veracity of an individual? A study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded:

There exists no public body of knowledge to support the enthusiastic clraims of operators. There are no publications in reputable journals, no facts, no figures, tables, or graphs. In short, there is nothing to document the claims of accuracy or effectiveness except bald assertions." 20

Though studies and experiments to assess the polygraph's effectiveness have been done, even when interpreted favorably, their results seem far from convincing of the polygraph's reliab111ty. In an experiment conducted for the Defense Department, sub.fects were tested to determine the effect of their faith in the polygraph on the a.b111ty of the examiners to detect their lies.ao The study conclU'\:led that a belief in the machine's accuracy did aid the detection of responses under certain types of questioning,31 but it is significant to note the figures derived for the accuracy of the examiners' interpretations: only 83 percent of the subjects were correctly classified as guilty or innocent in the paradigm used.:12

Footnotes at end of article.

Even a study conducted by a large, wellknown polygraph firm, yielded results which, when scrutinized, are unsettling. The experiment was set up so that examiners worked independently and solely with the records of polygraph tests.33 The analyses of the ten examiners, averaged, produced 87.75 percent accuracy in identifying guilty a.nd innocent subjects.M The experimenters were quick to point out that the examiners involved in the project did not have the benefit of observing or interviewing the subject so a.s to "make allowances for a resentful or angry attitude, a condition which could cause an error in interpretation of polygraph records." 35 Further, when figures were calculated separately, experienced examiners achieved a.n accuracy of 91.4 percent, whereas the accuracy of inexperienced examiners was 79.1 percent.36

The enthusiasm expressed by supporters of the polygraph for results such as these seems unfounded. Even an eight or nine percent fallib111ty figure is substantial, and there is admittedly a. large degree of subjectivity in the examiner's estimation of the subject's state of mind. The fact that there are no uniform standards or qualifications which require a minimum level of competence for examiners ca.st their subjective evaluations into even greater doubt.

Polygraph promoters and examiners generally quote a 95 percent accuracy rate for the tests performed in actual, a.s opposed to experimental, situations. They also hasten to add that most errors are made in attaching a.n innocent label to a guilty individual, a. fact they apparently view as comforting. The proponents' statistics are based on test results checked against the future dispositions of the subjects: an admission of guilt, confession to a crime, or the Jud~ent of a. jury. Yet even these means of verification are not conclusive. Whether or not a person has lied can never be known beyond any doubt; the confession or Jury verdict may, in fact, be false or wrong. The staff, in short, has found no indeoendent means for confirmin~ the results of actual polvgraph examinations.37

There is an established proba.b111ty theory, however, which purports to sustain the validity of polvgraoh results. The theory of conditional probab111ty maintains that, unless a dia~nostic instrument has been demonstrated to be completely infallible, the probab111ty that it w111 be e.ccurate in any one test deoends uoon the prevalence of the condition being diagnosed in the group being tested.as In a group of 1,000 subjects, supposing 25 to be liars, a.nd with a 95 percent accuracy rate assumed for the polygraph, the conditional probabiUty for the lie detector is that for every one true liar, or "employmeni; risk," found, two people wm be falsely classified a.s such.39

Another objection to the claims of reliability for the polygraph test centers around the meaning of the physiological responses recorded. In hearings held before the House Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee, chaired by Representative John Moss, experts declared that, given a. physiological response under the polygraph test procedure, any of three inferences could be made: either the subject was lying; or he was telling the truth but some emotional factor, such as anger or embarrassment, caused the reaction; or the response was generated by a neurotic pre-condition of the subject.40 Other less frequent or obvious factors possibly affecting the ma.chine-measured replles include extreme nervousness; physiological abnormalities, such as heart conditions, blood pressure problems, headaches and colds; deep phychological problems; the use of drugs and alcohol; fatigue; simple

bodily movements; and even the subject's sex.u Thus, the fact that peculiar physiological responses may be caused by physiological factors unrelated to whether the subject is lying casts the validity of these tests into further disrepute.

Furthermore, are there mental activities besides deception that can cause the physical changes recorded by the polygraph? Psychiatric experts state that any situation or stimuli that produced feelings of frustration, surprise, pain, shame, or embarrassment could be responsible for such physiological responses.•~ In fa.ct, humans do respond differently to emotional stresses. No one would claim the physical responses of different people would be the same even under similar stimuli.43 Nor, for that matter, has there been a.ny relationship proven between lying and feelings of fear and anxiety:

" ... people cannot go through life without some lying, and every individual builds up his own set of responses to the act. Lying can conceivably result in satisfaction, excitement, humor, boredom, sadness, hatred, as well as guilt, fear. or anxiety." 44

Negative polygraph results could be obtained because of .feelings such as hostmty, possessed unconsciously by a. mentally-unbalanced subJect.•5

Are there other individual differences which could affect the polygraph? Studies conducted have shown that many individual factors, including skin pigment, may affect the galvanic skin response, heartbeat, and respiratory response measured by this device.•0 In a study conducted for the Air Force to determine the role played by environmental stress in the abiUty to detect lies,•1 the experimenters unexpectedly discovered another potential problem area. They found that the galvanic skin reactivity of a.n individual was not predicated only upon environmental or situational circumstances producing increased perspiration and electrical conductivity of the skin. Instead, it appeared that these physical responses differed among individuals, as recorded by the polygraph, in a way not accounted for in the experimenters' predictions. Further investigation seemed to point to biological, racially attributable differences a.s the reason.48

A related problem inherent in the polygraph test pertains to questions of cultural differences. It is generally recognized that values and moralities-honesty and truthare, in part, culturally acquired; a serious lie in one person's view could, based on a. different personal experience and background, be, in another's eye, inconsequential.49 This throws further suspicion on the validity of a technique which depends upon accepted notions of morality for its value.

If the public were aware of the fallib111ty oi the polygraph, would its effectiveness decrease? An important feature of the examination procedure, as previously explained, is the attempt to convince the subject of the machine's accuracy. Thus, as one authority notes, "Were the machine regarded as capable of error, fear of detection would be reduced, and this lowering of fear would result in diminishing physiological resoonse." 50 One polygraph study concluded that the more a. guilty subject could control his own attitudes and answers, the greater the contamination he could produce in the polygraph results; an intelligent subject could often succeed in eluding detection.51

What is the examiner's influence in the polygraph procedure and results? Interpretation is the essence of the process, ma.king lie detecting a. highly subjective business. Jud~ements about the subject's attitude a.nd

2'2416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977 personality, about the composition of questions, and regarding the meanings of the machine's recordings are all made by the examiner. The results presented are solely the assessment of an operator of the lines recorded in the graphs of his machine. The expertise requisite in making such interpretations raises several questions as to the reliability of polygraph reports. Familiarity with several medical specialties and an understanding of clinical and social psychology should be required and expected of examiners; yet, the curriculum offered by a leading polygraph school, a. program lauded by advocates as producing truly reputable examiners, amounts to a mere 244 hours of study with only 14 hours in psychology and 31 hours in "medical aspects." 52 Even the mere possession of a.n academic degree, unless an advanced one in physiology or psychology, should not be enough qualification.53 Clearly, the level of most examiner competence across the country, when the finest of the profession receive the minimal training noted here, falls far short of these criteria. .

Another consideration is the possibility that examiner bias will be injected into the test. There are examiners who sympathize with the employer who is seeking protection from thieving employees M who believe that most of the people who resist the tests are trying to hide something incrlmlnatlng,Gs and who maintain that the polygraph ls an effective instrument for bringing out a person's compulsion to confess.56 The chance for a.n unprejudiced examination and interpretation, with underlying examiner attitudes such as these, greatly diminishes.

With this number of potential troublespots involved, doubt must be cast upon the objectivity, accuracy, and reliability of the polygraph test. It has been noted that the acceptance of the machine is the product of circular logic: belief in the device induces confession, and the rate of confessions creates faith ' in the polygraph's effectiveness.57

In reality: "The polygraph technique only provides

measures of various autonomic responses. The stimuli that elicit these responses, the intervening variables (constitutional predisposition, past learning, conscious and unconscious motivation, etc.) and the interpretations made of the resulting graphs a.re highly complex and a.re inferences ma.de from more or less incomplete data.." 68

THE POLYGRAPH TEST: CONSTITUTIONAUTY

The courts have been embroiled ln the polygraph issue for a half-century, contending with questions of relia.b111ty and, in related contexts, with the deeper constitutional imolica.tions for individual rights. Reservations have been expressed again and again concerning the admtsslblltly of polygraph results as evidence: (1) the jury's role would be undermined by a. test purportedly as related to the determination of truth as the polygraph; (2) the test data offered by a defendant couldn't be cross-examined; (3) the problems of assuring that consent to be examined has been completely uncoerced a.re great; (4) with the polygraph usable as evidence, the presumption of innocence would certainly be damaged by a. refusal to take the test; and (5) a polygraph exam could violate the privilege against selflncrimination °9 as well as other constitutional provisions. These last considerations and concerns are also relevant to the use of polygraphs in employment, where this method of investigation threatens to violate the right to privacy possessed by every individual.

The right to privacy ls not one of the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Yet it has been recognized as an imoliclt right, intended by the Constitution and its framers, a. result of the entwtnement of express constitutional mandates and nee-

Footnotes at end of article.

essary to the preservation and via.b111ty of these liberties.

In particular, the provisions of the First Amendment have been among those deemed related to the right to privacy. "The right of freedom of speech and press includes . . . freedom of thought ... Without those peripheral rights the specific rights would be less secure." 60 Freedom in our thoughts and beliefs has been long acknowledged as being within the First Amendment freedom of speech. In Palko v. Connecticut 61 this point was clearly stated:

"Of that freedom (of thought, and speech) one may say that it is the matrix, the indispensable cond-ition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of that truth can . be traced in our history, political and legal. So it has come a.bout that the domain of liberty, within by the Fourteenth Amendment from encroachment by the states, has been enlarged by latter-day judgments to include liberty of the mind as well as liberty of action. The extension became, indeed, a logical imperative when once it was recognized, as long ago as it was, that liberty is something more than exemption from physical restraints ... 02

Freedom of thought, then, has been held to be a. fundamental right. In fa.ct the connection between liberty of thought and the right to keep those thoughts private is inescapable.

Griswold, v. Connecticut 63 is a. landmark Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of this right of privacy. The Court stated that, a.long with the other amendments, "the First Amendment has a. penumbra. where privacy ls protected from governmental intrusion."°'

In a. concurring opinion, Justice Goldberg urged that privacy does not have to be inferred from enumerated freedoms. Instead, the Ninth Amendment can be turned to, for it "simply shows the intent of the Constitution's authors that other fundamental personal rights should no~ be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they a.re not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments." 65

Justice Goldberg went on to say that in deciding what rights are fundamental we must examine our traditions to discover the principles rooted there. In Griswold, the controversy revolved around the marriage relationship and the privacy traditionally accorded its intimacies. The Court declared, "We deal with a. right to privacy older than the Blll of Rights ... " oo Certainly the right. to privacy in our minds, to speak or keep silent a.bout our thoughts, is one of the oldest and most basic principles of human individuality and life. Such a. valued tradition should not be tampered with for reasons of alleged expediency.

Though the Griswold decision focused on the right to privacy as peripheral to First Amendment rights, it was noted that other constitutional guarantees manifest this same purpose:

"The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment." 87

Boyd v. United States es recognized that in questions of privacy the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are closely tied, as explained in a passage from the Court's opinion:

"The prlnctoles la.id down in this option [ of Lord Camden] affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security ... they apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employers, of the sanclty of a ma.n's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes

the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal securty, personal liberty and private property where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offense . . . any forcible and compulsory extortion of a ma.n's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of a. crime or to forfeit his goods ts within the condemnation of that judgment [ of Lord Camden] . In this regard the Fourth and Ffth Amendments run almost into ea.ch

other.09

Several of the points ma.de in Boyd can be related to the issues of a. federal employee's rights, to the nature of the selflncrlmlnation and unreasonable search and seizure protections outside of criminal proceedings. Clearly, the Constitution does not limit these guarantees to a. criminal context. In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona,10 to secure the Fifth Amendment protection, the Supreme Court maintained that "the privilege is fulfilled only when the person is guaranteed the right 'to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will,' " 71 The Court further noted that, "Today, then, there can be no doubt that the Ffth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action ts curtailed from being compelled to incriminate themselves." 12

These tenets of Boyd and Miranda a.re indeed relevant to employment situations and polygraph-induced confession even though the purpose of such tests is not to elicit incriminating evidence for a. court. Congressional hearings into the use of polygraphs in federal employment determined that:

"The polygraph technique forces a.n individual to incriminate himself and confess to past actions which a.re not pertinent to the current investigation. He must dredge up his past so he can approach the polygraph ma.chine with an untroubled soul. The polygraph opera.tor and his superiors then decide whether to refer derogatory information to other agencies or offlcla.ls.1a

The concern in Miranda was to compensate for the coercive aura. of a. police station to in-

, sure that all precautions a.re taken so that a. suspect does not feel compelled to speak. Where obtaining or retaining a. Job ts dependent upon the ta.king of a. polygraph test, the environment can be Just as coercive. Employment is vital to existence and survival in our modem society, and the competition for jobs ls great. The submission to polygraph examinations in pre-empolyment interviews ls deemed voluntary, but the knowledge that a refusal wm a.utoma.ttca.lly end the employment opportunity undermines this claim. Furthermore, the onus of guilt, of hiding potentially damaging revelations that accompanies a. refusal to be tested by a. polygraph further reduces the voluntary aspect. Many job offers a.re conditioned upon a.n agreement to submit to future polygraph tests, entirely eliminating any element of choice. For a person seeking or obtaining a Job to be coerced to reveal private knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs would appear repugnant to Supreme Court cases which recognize the constitutional rights of employees.7' The price of gaining employment must not be a. surrendering of civil liberties.

The polygraph examiner's questions themselves can be extremely ooerclve resulting from "the sub.1ect's defensive willingness to elaborate on his answer because he fears that unless he reveals all the details, the machine wlll record that he ls lying even when his basic story is true." 75 Freedom from being compelled to make self-incriminating disclosures, a. pa.rt of every citizen's right to privacy, should be applicable to a. business setting, es1)ecla.lly where polygraphs a.re in use, for, as one commentator summarizes:

". . . the nature of an emuloyer's inquiries a.bout pa.st deeds and guilt ls often indistinguishable from criminal interrogation.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22417 Moreover, the loss of personal liberty or prop· erty which would result from a criminal conviction ls often no more significant than the denial of livelihood which may result from compelled testimony concerning pa.st and present activities, associations, and even beliefs during preemployment or promotion screening via personality and polygraph testing." 70

Another matter germane to the self-incrimination discussion ls the question of how the responses elicited by the polygraph machine and examiner are characterized. In response to the growing complex of investigative techniques available for the identifying of a suspect in a criminal case, a distinction has emerged between physical as opposed to communicative evidence. Thus, a person may be compelled to provide a sample of his handwrltlng,11 to speak,•s or to exhibit his body for 1dentlficatlon,7o but he may not be expected to be a source of testimonial evidence against himself. In Schmerber v. California.so in which the Court held that the taking of a blood sample over petitioner's objections did not violate constitutional requirements, the polygraph was discussed in relation to the difficulties inherent in the process of separating physical evidence from communications. The opinion noted:

"Some tests seemingly directed to obtain 'physical evidence,' for example, lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during interrogation, may actually be directed to eliciting responses which are essentl!l.lly testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing in which an effort wlll be made to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment." 81

The technique applied to extract information from an individual must also be weighed a,galnst Fourth Amendment considerations. Methods for obtaining evidence, though in theory permissible, must, the Court has held, adhere to other principles as well as strict constitutional ones. In Rochin v. California,81 the Court deemed it proper to refer to the sense of the community in determining whether drugs obtained from a forced stomach pumping could be used to achieve a conviction. The opinion concluded that "conduct that shocks the conscience" must be prohibited: "They are methods too close to the rack and the screw to permit of constitutional differentiation." 83

The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply merely to criminal matters. "It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property a.re fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual ls suspected of criminal behavior." M In dissenting from a 1928 opinion upholding the constitutionality of wiretaps, Justice Brandeis, gazing into the future, predicted and worried that: "Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions ... Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection· a.gs.inst such invasions of individual security?" 116

The Fourth Amendment has now been recognized as applying to more than simple physical trespa.ss.86 Electronic listening devices,87 police "stop-and-frisk" procedures,ss the ta.king of fingernail scra.pings,111 a.ll have come under its purview. The retention of a.n individual's privacy, in the face of ever increasing odds against it, ls obviously a significant concern. Courts have found it to be their legitimate duty to protect this fundamental principle, a.s set forth in Mapp v. Ohio: oo

"We find that a.s to the federal government, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and, as to the states, the freedom from unconscionable invasions of privacy a.nd the freedom from

CXXIII--1411-Pa.rt 18

~onvictions based on coerced confessions do enjoy a.n "intimate relation" in their perpetuation of 'principles of humanity a.nd civil liberty (secured) only after years of struggle." 01

In the staff's view, polygraphs used in employment indisputably fa.11 within the areas of constitutional concern presented here. To many knowledgeable commentators the relationship is evident.02 To be probed a.nd questioned so deeply, to be expected to reveal persona.I attitudes a.nd beliefs under conditions such as those imposed by polygraph testing, ls to be subjected to searches and seizures that a.re unreasonable, to coerced self-incrimination, to loss of civil liberties that amount to a true invasion of privacy.

THE POLYGRAPH TEST: CONCLUSIONS

A congressional subcommittee has concluded:

There is no 'lie detector,' neither machine nor human. People have been deceived by a myth that a metal box in the hands of an investigator ca.n detect truth or falsehood." 114

But whether or not the polygraph ls a myth, it seems clear that it is here to stay. And, given modern ingenuity, it is not unreasonable to expect that new techniques and devices wlll be devised in an attempt to facilitate determining honesty. There are, in fact, some already in use. The "wiggle seat" ls a new contraption for lie detecting derived from the original polygraph.115 It, too, measures and records physiological changes due to heart action and a. person's nervous movements, but with an added advantage over the polygraph. The wiggle seat's sensing ls mounted in an ordinary office chair. A subject sitting in the chair has his mechanical energy changed to electrical energy which is broadcast to hidden recording instruments. Thus, the response detection can go on completely without the subject's knowledge.

Another type of examination that ls gaining acceptance in American business ls the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) .11e The PSE registers the FM vibrations in a person's voice. The premise ls that under stress the FM modulation ls altered due to mouth and throat tightening. A graphic picture of the voice's modulations is made, and the presence and absence of stress are judged according to the character of the markings. The obtaining of the conversation to be assessed can be done secretively with the use of hidden tape recorders. The questions posed by this method are the same as those that critics of the polygraph have been raising, and proponents have been trying to refute, for yea.rs. Can the stress in a. person's voice be directly attributed to lying? Can the evaluator objectively a.nd accurately detect lies from physiological recordings of the voice? What of the constitutional problems of testing a speaker without his knowledge, so easily accomplished by the PSE technlaue?

These two innovations indicate that rather than being curtailed, use of the polygraph is being expanded, particularly in private business. Attitudes of employers, insofar as polygraph testing ls concerned, are characterized in the following: "If a. person refused to take the test, we probably wouldn't hire him." m "I use the polygraph because I got tired of playing God. It's hard to tell things by looking at people." 118 Even a U.S. Court of Appeals has lent its approval to polygraph testing: .

"A statement challenged on the ground that it wa.s obtained [from a. polygraph examination administered to petitioner a.s a part of a. hiring procedure) as the result of economic sanctions must be rejected a.s involuntary only where the pressure reasonably appears to have been of sufficiently appreciable size a.nd substance to deprive the accused of his 'free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer' . But the threat of discharge for a. Job as a driver's

assistant, which Sanney had held for one or two days, ca.n hardly be labelled a. 'substantial economic sanction' rendering his statement involuntary." 110

These comments indicate that if polygraphs a.re here to stay, so, in fa.ct, are the constitutional probleins inherent in their use.

The right to privacy ls basic to the American wa.y of life and recognized as inherent in a.nd guaranteed by the constitutional provisions of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The federal government ordinarily strives to curtail a.nd prevent infringements of individual rights such as these. But the polygraph, as a. tool of public and private employers, clearly demands more attention. Compulsory submission to a. polygraph test ls a.n affront to the integrity of the human personality that ls unconscionable in a society which values the retention of individuals' privacy. Employers have a. multitude of less objectionable resources a.t their disposal for investigating applicants' backgrounds and employees' performances. Expediency ls not a valid reason for pitting individuals against a degradng machine and process that pry into their inner thoughts. Limits, beyond which invasions of privacy will not be tolerated, must be established. The Congress should take legislative steps to prevent Federal agencies as well as the private sector from requiring, requesting, or persuading any employee or applicant for employment to take any polygraph test. Privacy ls a fundamental right that must be protected by prohibitive legislation from such unwarranted invasions.

FOOTNOTES

23 Ibid., pp. 699-700. 24 Ibid., p. 704. 23 Ibid., p. 705. 20 ACLU Report, p. 4. :rr Skolnick, op. cit., pp. 704 and 705. !18ACLU Report, p. 5. 20 Burkey, op. cit., p. 81. ao Martin T. Orne and Richard I. Thackery,

"Methodological Studies in Detection of Deception," distributed by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Dept. of Commerce.

n Ibid., summary. 32 Ibid. 33 Frank S. Horvath and John E. Reid, "The

Rellabllity of Polygraph Examiner Diagnosis of Truth a.nd Deception," The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, vol. 62, 1971, p. 276.

a4 Ibid., p. 278. au Ibid., p. 281. 36 Ibid., p. 278. 37 Skolnick, op. cit., p. 699. 38 Ibid., p. 715. 39 Ibid., pp. 717-718. 40 Hearings, pp. 10-11. n Ibid., pp. 12-13. •2 H. B. Dearman, M.D. a.nd B. M. Smith,

Ph. D., "Unconscious Motivation and the Polygraph Test," The American Journal of Psychiatry, May 1963, p. 1019.

<:i Skolnick, op. cit., p. 701. 4 • Ibid., p. 700. 4~ Dearman and Smith, op. cit., pp. 1017-

1018. 46 Equal Employment Opportunity Com

mission brief related to Circle K. Corp. v. EEOC., U.S. Ct. of Appeals, 10th Circuit, case No. 72-1367, p. 8 (hereinafter cited as EEOC brief).

47 S. Kugelma.ss, "Effects of Three Levels of Realistic Stress On Differential Physiological Reactivities," report for the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

'8 Ibid., pp. 22-23. •o EEOC brief, p. 7. ro Skolnick, op. cit., p. 705. 51 Joseph F. Kubis, "Studies In Lie Detec

tion," report for the Air Force Systems Command, N.Y. June 1962.

u2 Skolnick, op. cit., p. 707.


oa Burkey, op. cit., p. 87. M Pete J. Perras, "Polygraph Invaluable

Tool," The Charlotte Observer, July 6, 1971. 00 Franklin, Zoe. cit. oo Ibid. 07 Ibid. u8 Dearman and Smith, op. cit., p. 1019. ~9 Howe.rd s. Altarescu, "Problems Remain

in~ for the 'General Accepted' Polygr{l,ph," 53 Boston Univ. L. Rev. 375 (1973), p. 376.

ao Griswold v. Connecticut, 381, U.S. 479 (1965), pp. 482-483.

01302 U.S. 319 (1937). 62 Ibid., p. 327. For other related discussioru;

see Abrams v. U.S., 250 616 (1919), Holmet1 dissent; Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. ~li'1 ( 1927), Brandeis concurrence.

63381 U.S. 479 (1965). 64 Ibid., p. 483. o:; Ibid., Goldberg concurrence, p. 492. For

another discussion of privacy see Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), Harlan dissent.

66 Ibid., p. 486. WT Ibid., p. 484. 08116 U.S. 616 (1886). 69 Ibid., p. 630. 10 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 111bid., p. 460, quoting Malloy v. Hogan,

378 U.S. 1 (1964). 12 Ibid., p. 467. 1a Hearings, pp. 19-20. 1-1 See Slochower v. Board of Education, 350

U.S. 551 (19·55); Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1966); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).

13 ACLU Report, p. 35. 10 Hermann, op cit., p. 131. 11 Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967). 1s U.S. v. Dionisio, 93 S. Ct. 764 ( 1973). 79 U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). lj() 384 U.S. 757 (1966). 81 Ibid., p. 764. 82 342 U.S. 165 (1952). 83 Ibid., p. 172. 8

' Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1966), p. 530.

s.:; Olmstead, Brandeis dissent, p. 474. 86 Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967). 87 Ibid. ss Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 89 Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973). 90 367 U.S. 643 (1961). 91 Ibid., p. 657, quoting Bram v. U.S., 168

U.S. 532 (1897). 92 See ACLU Report and Hermann. m Hearings, p. 1. 11s Ann Ewing, "Lie Detecting at a. Dis

tance," Science Newsletter, Aug. 14, 1965, p. 107.

110 Fred P. Graham, "Lie Detecting By a Voice Is Center of Controversy," New York Times, June 5, 1972, p. 1.

117 Bill Bradley of Eckerd Corp. quoted in "To Catch a. Thief," Newsweek, Sept. 23, 1974, p. 80.

118 St. Petersburg, Fla.. Chevrolet dealer quoted in "To Catch a Thief," Newsweek, Ibid.

119 From a. Court of Appeals opinion, Sanney v. Montanye, 6/20/74, reported in The United States Law Week, 43 LW 2027, 7-23-74.

By Mr. NELSON: S.J. Res. 69. A joint resolution requir

ing each executive department and agency to designate a small business advocate; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. SMALL BUSINESS CONTACTS AT FEDERAL AGENCIES

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing, for appropriate reference, a joint resolution that would give the nation's small and independent business community points of contact and potential assistance within the large and often bewildering structure of the Federal Government.

The problem is that Government has become more complex as the world has become more complex, and today there are 11 Federal departments and 59 agencies, according to the 1976 U.S. Government Organization Manual. Since that manual was printed, there have been six new agencies created, and a new Department of Energy is also on the horizon. Although reorganization efforts may reduce that number somewhat, there will always be a need to have a place where citizens can go to ask questions of these agencies and seek their help when it is required.

This is acutely necessary when the citizen is a small business owner whose whole livelihood may depend on the speedy resolution of a problem, especially if that problem has been created by one or another Federal agency.

The way this resolution seeks to resolve this problem is to call upon each executive department and agency to designate at least one high-level person to serve as a central point of contact for small business matters. This person would receive the views of small enterprises and their spokesmen in connection with the formulation of policies, regulations, forms, and deadlines having a serious impact on a significant proportion of the 97 percent of the 13.9 million businessses in this country which are "small business." Such an executive can also review the major problems faced by the small business community under his own agency's programs, and can receive the views of the Small Business Administration on pressing enterprise matters.

In this way, a senior line official can become familiar with the problems of the small business segment of the economy and can be in a position to articulate their concerns and advocate their legitimate needs as the department or agency continually performs its functions.

This resolution is similar to Senate Joint Resolution 177 introduced in 1976, but not acted upon by the 94th Congress.

VALUE OF SMALLER BUSINESS

The Nation's small business community accounts for an important segment of the American economy, not only in numbers. but in performance. It provides 55 percent of all U.S. private employment, 48 percent of business output, and about 43 percent of the gross national product.

A number of recent histories of American business now confirm that more than half of all innovations-including major industrial inventions, processes, and services-have been introduced by individual inventors and small businesses.

Social scientists have demonstrated that smaller, locally owned business owners and their families are strong supporters of local charities and social and educational institutions such as churches, hospitals, and libraries.

In spite of the tremendous economic and social contributions of small business, this important sector of the economy has long suffered from neglect at the hands of Federal officialdom. Prime examples of the past half dozen years include the predominant position of large corporations in the Government's re-

search and procurement contracts; the crushing impact of recently published Government regulations and paperwork requirements in the pension and occupational safety fields; and the bypassing of the small business community in the formulation of policy in solar energy, tax, financial, and many other fields. As a result, the vigor of small and independent enterprise in this country has been undermined and the overall efficiency of our economy has been diminished.

WHAT IS NEEDED

This resolution alone cannot solve the problem of neglect of small business, but it can help to reverse the trend. That would be worthwhile. Finding voices for small business within Government would have many advantages. Great regulatory disasters could be avoided. Major policies could be tempered to make distinctions between the multibillion-dollar multinational corporations and the small bakers, printers, home builders, retailers, or service companies that operate in one city or small region. The agencies might even take into account the new firms that are struggling, against great odds, to become established and provide a living for the owners and their families.

If that happened, we would· have a stronger country. More resourceful businessmen could forge innovative technical breakthroughs as Edwin Land did with the instant camera and Chester Carleson did with the electronic copier and Eugene Houdry did with catalytic cracking of petroleum. Millions of small firms would be expanding employment, helping to solve unemployment and youth problems. More people could get into a business of their own choice. Community values would be strengthened and the social structure would benefit. In short, this resolution could be a steppingstone to a better climate for small enterprise all across this country.

It bears repetition that of the Nation's 13.9 million businesses, only about 6,000 have their stock traded nationally. These 6,000 tend to be generously supplied with specialists of all kinds. They can afford to employ people for the sole purpose of dealing with the Government, to find out what decisions are pending, to express their views, to handle the paperwork of compliance, and to look for ways to maximize the companies' advantages under the various programs.

By contrast, the owners of small businesses must cope with Government requirements after they finish a full day in the shop. They rarely know what hits them, until after it hits, and they face uphill battles in trying to change the decisions which may vitally affect their · profitability or survival.

Most of us, as Senators, are well aware from our correspondence of the problems facing small business. We hear daily from small businesses that are having a tough time with Government regulations and paperwork demands that do not distinguish between a family machine shop and the biggest multinational corporation. We have all seen small firms on the verge of closing up completely under the assault of governmental requirements.

The Small Business Administration can help to a great extent with this complex

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22419 of problems. Some of the other agencies have already established small business representatives to work on these problems. We commend the few agencies which have done so. But the work of the SBA has been uneven and understaffed, and the remainder of the Government agencies are only at the threshold of the proper recognition of small business concerns.

During the past 2 years the Small Business Committee has attempted to alleviate some of the worst of the prevailing problems.

For instance, we have helped to change several tax laws so that small businesses would be encouraged to expand while retaining local ownership of their enterprises. We have worked to reduce the regulations associated with the pension reform legislations. We have worked closely with the Commission on Federal Paperwork to cut Government paperwork.

We have passed changes in the Senate rules to provide for regulatory and paperwork impact statements aiming primarily to help those, including our small business community, who cannot make a strong enough input into the legislative and executive branches of the Government to help themselves.

However, much still needs to be done. As readers of the Federal Register know, Federal regulations are formulated daily which cut down on small business' ability to stay in business.

For instance-A series of lighting guidelines proposed

and now withdrawn by the Federal Energy Administration would have deprived small businesses of the ability to identify themselves by means of lighted signs.

A series of regulations has been proposed which require sellers of small amounts of chemicals to have Environmental Protection Agency approval.

A series of regulations concerning the operation of pension plans have effectively dried up pension funds as a source of investment for small business.

There is a limitless list of Federal policies which have negative effects on small business of which these are only a few examples.

In my view, the nature of the problem cries out for a sensitive policy, administered by sensitive officials who can make the views of small business known at the highest levels of Government agencies.

This resolution would take a small step in the direction of focusing the attention of Federal agencies on these problems and opportunities.

Other steps are needed. We should strengthen the advocacy program of the Small Business Administration. The designated agency contact should be conferring regularly with the SBA Advocacy Office. In addition. SBA should be ready to put together "strike forces" staffed and able to move in to help the agency, small business contacts work on critical small busi:,ess problems.

Further, Congress has been urging, and should begin insisting on, small business membership on the advisory councils which have been established by Federal

agencies, as we suggested in companion legislation being introduced today. We hope that both of these pieces of legislation join the speedy acceptance of this body.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S.J. RES. 69 Resolved by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

Whereas small and independent business is an important part of the United States economy, accounting for 52 percent of private employment, 43 percent of all business output, 33 percent of the gross national product, and nearly 13 million of the 13.3 m1llion businesses in the United States;

Whereas small businesses and individual inventors have accounted for more than half of all innovations, including a majority of major industrial inventions;

Whereas there is an a.cute shortage of equity capital for smaller firms and especially for new ventures, as indicated by the fa.ct there have been only 36 stock issues sold by medium-sized businesses in the first 11 months of 1976.

Whereas smaller businesses are at a. marked disadvantage in obtaining loans and other forms of credit, especially in periods of restrictive monetary policy;

Whereas regressive business income tax rates inhibit small and medium.sized businesses from raising capital through retained earnings;

Whereas regulation and paperwork by an increasing number of Federal departments and agencies have added substantial burdens in time and costs for smaller firms; and

Whereas total pressures on all business, and particularly small business, are increasing, as reflected by a dramatic increase in the number and size of bankruptcies in the year ending June 30, 1976, therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That in order to institutionalize the resources for long-range preservation of small business and maximize its contribution to the free private enterprise system and the overall economy of the nation, the head of each executive department and executive agency shall designate at least one employee of that agency whose assigned responsibilities shall include-

(1) acting as a liaison with the small and independent business community in matters of policy relating to small business; and

(2) conducting an analysis of the differential effects of department or agency policies on new, small and medium-sized independent business, as well as their particular needs under the free private enterpr!,se system; and

( 3) serving as a. liaison with the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, to work for the benefit of small business.

By Mr. RANDOLPH (for himself, Mr. HATHAWAY, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. PELL, Mr. RIEGLE, and Mr. SCHWEIKER) :

S.J. Res. 70. A joint resolution authorizing the President to proclaim the third week of July of 1977, 1978, and 1979, as "National Architectural Barrier Awareness Week"; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

NATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, much of our manmade environment presents problems for our handicapped citizens and often prevents them from full participation in our society. We are making progress toward eliminating many of these barriers. It is expected that the recently issued regulations on section 504 ·of the Rehabilitation Act will provide the impetus for progress in public sector accessibility. The private sector also needs attention.

To this end, I am today introducing a joint resolution calling for the declaration of an Architectural Barrier Awareness Week during the third week of July in 1977, 1978, and 1979. Under provisions of the 1976 Tax Reform Act, businesses may deduct up to $25,000 per year during each of the next 3 tax years-1997-79-f or moneys spent to make their operations accessible to the handicapped. By establishing one particular week as nationwide barrier awareness week, organizations at the National, State, and community level will be able to focus not only on the many problems in mobility facing our handicapped citizens, but also on the ways in which these problems can be solved.

Representative RICHARD NOLAN has introduced identical legislation, House Joint Resolution 426, in the House of Representatives. I hope the Senate will act favorably on this legislation. My joint resolution is cosponsored by Senators HATHAWAY, JAVITS, KENNEDY, PELL, RIEGLE, and SCHWEIKER.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

S.J. RES. 70 Whereas architectural barriers infringe

upon the rights of the physically handicapped by impeding their access to buildings and other fa.c111ties in the United States; and

Whereas the Congress has enacted legislation requiring the removal of architectural barriers at institutions receiving Federal funds; and

Whereas the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides deductions of as much as $25,000 per year to taxpayers to encourage the removal of architectural barriers; and

Whereas public commitment is necessary to achieve the goal of removing architectural barriers from buildings and other fac111 ties in the United States; and

Whereas public commitment to solve the problem of architectural barriers is based upon public awareness of such problem and the means to solve such problem;

Whereas the American National Standards Institute has developed standards which, if implemented, would increase the accessib111ty of buildings and other fac111-ties in the United States to the physically handicapped: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating the third week of July of 1977, 1978, and 1979, as "National Architectural Barrier Awareness Week", and calling upon the people of the United States to observe such week with appropriate activities.


ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

JACK ANDERSON URGES RATIFICATION OF GENOCIDE CONVENTION Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, when

appearing on a recent "Good Morning America" show, columnist Jack Anderson pointed out that this country has never ratified the International Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. Adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations more than 28 years ago, the United States is in fact the only major Western nation that has failed to ratify this treaty. Today, more than 80 nations from all parts of the world, have given it their support.

In his remarks, Mr. Anderson stated that it has become increasingly embarrassing for us to condemn other nations for failing to respect human rights when we continually fail to support the treaty. The Convention, after all, condemns the most hideous of crimes that men can carry out against their fellow men-the crime of genocide.

President Carter has urged this body to give the treaty its advice and consent in order to aid him in his efforts to end human rights violations throughout the world. If we are not to apnear hypocritical, I believe we must follow his advice. Let us demonstrate to the rest of the world that we wholeheartily supnort the preservation of all human rights-including the right of a people to exist.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of Mr. Anderson's remarks be printed in full in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the transcript was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

President Carter has been calling upon other nations to respect human rights. But he recently discovered, much to his embarrassment that the United States has never signed the treaty against genocide. It's the only Western nation, in fact, that hasn't signed the 28-year-old treaty. ·

The President, therefore, is bringing pressure on the Senate to approve the treaty this year. New York Senator Jacob Javits is leading the fight. Wisconsin Senator William Proxmire, meanwhile, has made a statement on genocide in the Congressional Record every day for 10 years.

But some of Carter's fellow southerners are threatening a filibuster. Such crusty, old Senators as South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, Mississippi's James Eastland, and Alabama's James Allen will fight the treaty until their last breath. They contend that Americans could be hauled off before international courts before the treaty. But meanwhile, foreign diplomats are twitting the United States for failing to support the most important human right of ail-the right to ~~ .

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CAMBODIA Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, an article

in the July 7 Chicago Tribune raises a question that I recently raised in the Senate, and that is the question why are we most silent about the worse case of human rights violations? The case might be made that the administration does not have a human rights policy. It apparently applies to no Communist government except the Soviet Union, and perhaps in this case it is a posture that covers up more fundamental kinds of

concessions. Is our human rights policy a club with which we beat our non-Communist allies in the head?

There are too many contradictions and inconsistencies in our human rights posture for it to be based on a moral principle. Recently a State Department spokesman told American businessmen that they should show investment preference to Latin American countries that adhere to human rights. Four days earlier a Commerce Department official said that trade with Communist countries "is good business. It contributes to mutual understanding." The administration recently postponed two loans to aid Chile's poor farmers because of human rights violations, but Secretary Vance recently said that the United States is ready to end the trade embargo of Cuba, and Vice President MONDALE announced in Yugoslavia our help with their nuclear reactor without mentioning Tito's human rights violations. Currently the administration is talking about aid to black African dictators while interfering in South Africa's internal affairs because they do not have one-man-one-vote.

Mr. President, I am afraid that the evidence is mounting that the administration's human rights campaign applies mainlv to countries that do not have a left-wing image.

I ask unanimous consent for the article from the Chicago Tribune to be printed in the RECORD.

There being no obiection, the article was ot'dered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

HUMAN RIGHTS AND CAMBODIA (By Nick Thimmesch)

At a time when Jimmy Carter's shibboleth, "human rights," fills the air, it is incredible that advocates of humane treatment have focused very little attention on Cambodia, where one-tenth of the people have perished in a holocaust which makes Hitler took like a piker.

It is also a bit remarkable that neither President Carter nor his appointees a.t the State Department have ma.de any special effort to deplore the bloodbath which the Communists have systematically inflicted on the Cambodian people. Occasionally, In a. congressional hearing, an official from State will mention the slaughter, but it gets scant attention in the public prints or broadcasts.

Now we have an excellent account of this Communist genocide, "Murder of a Gentle Land," by two Reader's Digest editors, John Barron and Anthony Paul, who soent a year interviewing some 300 eyewitnesses to the brutality and k1111ng. Their book is a compacted narrative of this grisly, and u:Q.finished, episode.

It began in April, 1975, with the fall of the besieged capital of Phnom Penh to the Khmer Rouge. The fearful populace waved white flags of greeting to the invaders, hoping for the best. Instead, in the name of "Angka Loeu" [Organization On High], the Khmer Rouge troops, some in their early teens, began k1lling the sick and wounded, even sbooting and beating to death hospital patients who had just come out of surgery.

Then, using the ruse tba.t American bombers were coming [they never did], the Communists ordered a brutal evacuation of the city, jammed with inhabitants and refugees. Eventually, 3.6 m1llion refugees, half of Cambodia's population, wandered toward the countryside, in pitiful columns of feeble elders, frightened women and children, and trembling men. Some 400,000 of these people are believed to have died.

When mass k1llings are the rule, the atrocities and the bodies almost lose identity. But a single wanton murder can stm stand out. The book tells of a Communist soldier

suddenly thrusting his bayonet into the stomach of a blind beggar, k1lling him. An onlooker asked, "Why?" The soldier answered: "He could never work in the fields. He was useless to society. It is better for him to die."

Indeed, this ts often the guiding force in regimes dedicated to "purification," whether they be Nazi or Communist. Through "reeducation" [concentration) camps, constant, indiscriminate k1llings, and warnings that with so many people dead, the living must work twice as long and hard, the Khmer Rouge rule Cambodia.

The Carter administration, 1f it is to maintain its credibility on "human rights," must quickly and publicly condemn the Cambodian regime, and detail the atrocity stories for the world to deplore. Moreover, it must be pointed out that the Cambodian Communist regime is Peking-oriented, and that there are at least 1,000 Chinese Communist military advisers in Cambodia. The Soviets were rudely expelled a.t the time of the takeover.

APPOINTMENT BY AMERICAN LEGION OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO PROTECT VETERANS' BENEFITS

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the veterans of our Nation are uneasy over what they see as meaningful overtures by the administration to dilute or to dismantle the present schemes of veterans' programs administered by the VA and the VA health care system.

On June 23, the national commander of the American Legion, the Honorable William J. Rogers, announced the appointment of a special committee to direct the efforts of the American Legion in protecting veterans' benefits.

So that my colleagues may have the benefit of knowing the concerns of the American Legion in this area, I ask unanimous consent that the news release of the American Legion announcing the f orma.tion of the committee, its membership and consultants, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the news release was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: LEGION NATIONAL COMMANDER .APPOINTS SPE

CIAL COMMITTEE IN MOVE TO PROTECT VETERANS BENEFITS WASHINGTON, D.C., June 23, 1977.-Re

sponding to apparent threats to veterans benefit programs, American Legion National Commander W111iam J. Rogers today a.nnouneed the appointment of a special committee to spear~ea.d the Legion's efforts to protect veterans benefits.

In announcing the formation of the new committee, the Legion chief said: "We can now identify some of those whose thinking is in the direction of the elimination of veteran programs, or their merging with social welfare programs. The American Legion will not stand idly by while some turn their backs on those who have fought the nation's wars. We intend to tell the American people what is happening, and to rely on their gratitude for the sacrifices made by the nation's veterans, which they have shown through the veterans benefit programs enacted by Congress."

The new committee, which will be known a.s the Committee on Special Problems of the Veterans Affairs and Rehabi11ta.tion Program, will be cha.ired by W1llia.m F. Lenker of South

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 22421 Dakota. Other members will be Frank Hamilton of Indiana, Al Keller of Illinois, Harry Davison of Colorado, Dorothy Andrews of Iowa, Chester Stellar of Ohio and Thad Gnldzlejko of New Jersey. Acting as consultants to the full committee will be Roy Stone of South Carolina, Dyke Shannon 01 Florida and Dr. Kenneth J. S. Desimone of Kentucky. The new Committee is expected to hold its first meeting in Washington, D.C. in mid-July.

At the National Commander's request, the Special Committee will first address itself to three dangers that Rogers outlines: an effort to merge veterans compensation and pension programs into social welfare programs now administered by HEW; a newly released report to the National Academy of Sciences that suggests merging the VA hospital system with community health care programs; and the continuing danger to VA hospitals that ls posed by National Health Insurance.

Commander Rogers stated that the Legion will conduct an all-out effort to insure that all present veterans programs are maintained intact, and that they continue to be administered for veterans by the Veterans' Administration. -·----

TRIBUTE TO SECRETARY BOB BERGLAND

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I know of few public servants more dedicated to serving the family farmer than Secretary of Aoariculture Bob Bergland.

Since taking office in January, Secretary Bergland has used administrative discretion available to him in virtually every way possible to enhance the welfare of the American farmer. He has placed the agricultural policy of this country back on the course of preserving and strengthening the so::ial and economic integrity of one of the most precious and meaningful institutions that America enjoys, the family farm.

I have known Bob Bergland for a number of years. He has a 640-acre farm in northern Minnesota. In that part of Minnesota, Bob Bergland has long been thought of as a great friend of the farmer. A number of years ago, Bob Bergland started a cooperative in northern Minnesota. Eventually he was elected to Congress where he served four distinguished terms. He knows agriculture and the needs of the farmer as much as any individual in this country.

The appointment of Bob Bergland as Secretary of Agriculture by President Oarter is one of the most outstanding appointments of this administration.

Mr. President, an excellent character portrayal of this outstanding American was printed in the July 10 edition of the Washington Post. Titled "Skip the Formalities, Agriculture's Man-in-Charge Doesn't Have Time," this article by Tom Zito gives us a picture of a sensitive, thoughtful, creative, and diligent individual.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SKIP THE FORMALITIES, AGRICULTURE'S MAN

IN-CHARGE DOESN'T HAVE TIME

(By Tom Zito) My father voted. for Hoover in 1928. Then

everything went down around his ears and he became a farm labortte. I grew out of that

environment, and. that's why I have a very suspicious streak in me.

-Bob Bergland An omen: Secretary of Agriculture Bob

Bergland has just finished telling the Millers' National Federation about grain price supports, and ls hot-footing it for his limo parked outside the Capital Hllton, when he ls intercepted by a man in a red-a.nd-whitecheck double-knit suit and white shoes.

"Mr. Secretary, I'm So-And-So," the man announces. "And I'm with the Margarine Deal."

"Ah yes, the margarine deal," Bergland repeats. You can almost see the grist mill wheels grinding in his head: wheat, soybeans, safflower oil, butterfat ... margarine? He recovers well. "You've made an appointment with my secretary?" Mergland asks. "Good. Well, we'll see you then."

Ten minutes later he's back in his office, standing behind his desk and answering the phone. "Hi. Bob Bergia.nd here. What can I do for you? Hmm. I'm not quite sure how we got into this position, to be quite honest with you. But I'll have somebody get back to you."

Even as he talks on the phone, he pulls papers from his "ln" basket, glances at them and then scrawls a left handed slgna..ture ln felt-tip pen.

"This place survives on pa.per work," he says while waiting for somebody, somewhere to pick up a phone. "I have a rule: Never handle the same piece of paper more than once. If you do, it keeps coming back."

Bob-never Robert, absolutely never Robert Selmer-Bergland ls essentially a Midwestern wheat farmer with sophistication, a guy as much at home running a combine as reading the Wall Street Journal, a bluegrass fan, an avid dancer, a 48-yea.r-old man who got elected to Congress from Minnesota eight years a.go because he didn't like the way farmers were being treated.

He knows the problems. He ran a 640-acre farm a few miles south of the Canadian border until he took over the department. He started a farmers' coopera.tlve. "It's always boom or bust, feast or famine for the llttle guy," he says.

Then on Dec. 20 last year, Bergland was at home watching the Vikings on television when Jimmy Carter called to ask him to be Secretary of Agriculture. His father, Sam, an 82-year-old populist, told him lt was "the dumbest thing in the world" to abandon Congress. A professor friend at the University of Minnesota. rang up to ask: "What kind of trouble are you in now; the FBI was here poking into your .business."

And Bob Bergland decided to give it a. shot.

"This job ls four years and then that's it," he says, with a kind of level-headed Midwestern farmer pragmatism that seems decidedly out of place ln Washington. "You can't survive more than that in this business. But you can't build a real life a.round politics. There's too much compromise involved. I don't know what I'll be doing four years from now, but it won't be politics.

"I wa.nt to broaden the department, not just for political reasons, but for humanitarian reasons. I believe in the food-stamp program, and I'm hiring the best people to work on 1 t. I decided to hire the department's biggest critics, because I figure if they can seriously crltlclze they know a lot about the problem.

"I know what it's like to be poor, because I represented one of the poorest districts in the country when I was in Congress. I shouldn't say this, but I think Earl Butz wanted to purify this place. He wanted to get it so that it would only have to deal with the large, mechanized agricultural businessman. I think that's wrong. The basic conservation of the family farm ls critical to the basic well-being of the United States."

Bergland gets up to 5: 30 a..m. in his Annandale townhouse (where his agricultural instincts are now focused on rose gardening) to read the newspapers: The Post, The Wal! Street Journal and The Times. His wife, Helen, says he hates ea.ting breakfast, so she leaves milk and eggs in the blender for him to whip up in the morning. By 6:45 he's in his llmouslne, where he reads the White House news summary a.nd finishes off the papers. At 7:30 he's in the office drinking coffee; at 8 :30 he holds a dally staff meeting. Then the visitors start.

One morning the nervous head of a farmers' cooperative has 15 minutes to ask Bergland to appear at the Farmland Annual Meeting in Kansas City. He's already committed on that day. Then there's a half hour to meet the new chairman of the Chicago Boa.rd of Trade, who proclaims that what's good for the Chica.go Grain Exchange is good for America..

"Well, we can't be pollya.nna-ish about this wheat business," Bergland says. (In the course of the day, he will use the word pollya.nna-lsh five times.) The three members of the board of trade a.re sitting on a brown leather couch ln the office. Bergland ls slumped down deeply in a. green leather easy chair, rubbing the inside of his right pa.Im with his right thumb. A secretary rushes in and whispers in his ear.

"I better ta.ke this," he says. "It's the boss." He walks over to his very neat desk, remains

standing and picks up the phone. "Bob Bergland here. (Pa.use.) "Yes, ma'am." Thirty seconds pass. "Bob Bergland here. Yes, ma'am." Thirty seconds. "Bob Bergland here. Yes, ma'am." His eyebrows start to rise. "Bob Bergland

here. Yes, ma'am." He covers the mouthpiece of the receiver and says to his visitors, "four layers of secretaries!"

The boss turns out to be some minor bureaucrat, who has undoubtedly instructed his secretary to simply say, "The White House calling."

"We have tentatively put a. hold on the papers to go to the President," Bergland tells the lackey who's inquiring a.bout pending sugar price supports. "In the last 10 days the sugar market has increased $2 a hundred.

Ba.ck to his visitors. "We can't be pollya.nna.lsh about these things," Bergland continues. "The wheat ls out there. But everybody gripes. I keep telling my friends in Kansas: 'You guys lose your crops five or six times a year.' we can't be the world's garden, or the world's grain storage fa.c111ty. We're not going to get bogged down in some little chicken war somewhere. We're taking a different attitude on foreign matters. But I tell you, if we lose some of our customers to Canada. on wheat sales, I'm going to have my head handed to me on a political platter."

A secretary comes in to politely break up the meeting. As she escorts the boa.rd of trade members out of the room, Bergland starts stalking a.round the office and clipping his nails a.t the same time. A few minutes later a secretary brings in Gertrude Skinner, who's been named National Volunteer of the Year. She arrives with several bureaucrats and two photographers, who start jumping around the room and firing off hundreds of shots of Bergland and Skinner together. Even to this somewhat silly scene, Bergland brings a sense of interest and understanding and a gentle bit of b,.osplta.llty. "A cup of hot coffee (he seems to be drinking coffee constantly) or a. Coca-Cola.?" he asks, and two minutes later sends the secretary pa.eking for eight coffees. He begins talking with Skinner .about his personal involvement in churchsponsored housing (Bergland attends St. Mark's Lutheran ln Springfield every Sunday), and the 1.mporta.nce of decent low-income housing.


"There is this general level of frustration among poor people," he says. "It's like being in jail, only the jail is their own home."

"One half of the population of the U.S. is rural, and they suffer in silence. The only thing that gets them any attention is when they start robbing banks."

At noon, Bergland is scheduled to have lunch with 12 European journalists visiting the country. He checks with an aide before he leaves: "Did the senate do anything yet? Any damage to our basic export policy?" On the way to the cafeteria., he talks of his love of farming.

"When I was on the fa.rm, you could get on the tractors all day and think a.bout things. There's so little time for that now. I get home at a.bout 9 o'clock, and a. lot of my time there is spent on homework: reading and preparing reports. I love to go out sailing overnight. It's the one thing I can do to get a.way. I don't bowl, I don't golf, I can't stand TV. I grew up on the bank of a. small river. I built a. boat when I was 11. I guess I'm pretty handy with tools. I worked for a. while in the carpentry business."

Bergland goes through the cafeteria. line with the other USDA employees and the European journalists. He scoffs a.loud at the OSI food, ca.Us it "virtually inedible," says he's thinking of suing them over the food and adds: "I'd love to have a. jury decide whether this stuff is edible." He drinks milk with lunch.

"You know, the world's population has doubled in my time," he tells the journalists. "Fa.rm yields have tripled and quadrupled. But we've also paved over the equivalent of the whole state of Ohio. Cities have expanded onto flat land that is the world's best farmland. This ls a. nation founded by farmers. And I believe in the small fa.rm. Whether a. small fa.rm is more efficlen t than a. big fa.rm from an energy standpoint, I just don't know. Fa.rm income ls up to $100 billion in this country. Federal subsidies a.re less than $2 billion. And I'm looking forward to the day when we can end all export subsidies.'

And then some humor, answering a. question:

"I've never never been out of the country, but I've been to California.. Does that count?"

At 2 p.m., Bergland has a. meeting with some European representatives of countries that participated in OATT, the General Agreement on Ta.riff and Trade. There's general discussion of export policies, and someone points out how well the French have managed the problem.

"Of course, the French government is pa.rt of the EEC, but it seems that every time it wants something it levies a. tax for six months to get the others in line," says Bergland. At 3: 15 he meets with several people from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to see how the nation's meteorological data. can be ma.de more useful to the farmer. As the men come in, Bergland logs little cellophane packets of Georgia. pea.nuts at them.

"I can't offer you a. drink," he says. "So I'll offer you pea.nuts."

"Actually," he says later, "pea.nuts a.re very nutritious." When one of the men sta.rts talking a.bout cloud-seeding experiments, Bergland says, "I'm not very big on snake oil.''

Just as the NOAA officials a.re walking out of the office, Bergla.nd's secretary rushes in to say that the Vice President is on the line. He sinks down into his desk chair and fiddles with the reading glasses that are resting on his nose. "Yes sir, yes sir," he says to Monda.le, an old Midwestern political crony and a. great proponent of Bergla.nd's appointment. Bergla.nd's eyebrows a.re arching. He la.ughs a. shallow la.ugh, and you can tell that this is a. serious political matter-a. fact confirmed by the next can.

"Harold, what the hell is the story on the FHA (Farmers Home Administration) direc-

tor in Tennessee? I've got to call a. sena. tor from Tennessee on the matter."

He hangs up, buzzes his secretary and sum-mons an aide. ·

"Do you know why Alex wanted to keep him on?" he asks the aide, who has come hustling into the office.

"I don't know; some negotiation." "Hello, Jim? Bob Bergland here. I Just

spoke to the Vice President and he said you have some questions a.bout the state FHA director. So I'm at your beck and call (Pa.use.) They're dickering with him not only to get out of Tennessee but also out of government? This guy has raised money for the Republican Party in the state of Tennessee? Well, I will look into this persona.Uy, and keep you posted with a. blow-by-blow account of what's happening." (The man ls now in the process of retiring.) · Bergland hangs up the phone. He leans

back in his chair and gets philosophical for a. minute. Later that night he will have to attend a. reception for one of his assistants and then the 23d Annual Sioux City Steak Dinner. He recognizes this as the grit of political life: the quick appearance; the pat on the back; the clever, impromptu speech.

"On the other hand, you're dealing with a. lot of chit-chat," he says. "On the other, you've got incredibly sensitive matters to handle. Right now someone is a.bout to come into my office a.bout declassifying a. document. That might seem like chit-chat. That might seem very sensitive. We have these crop reports here that stay locked up in a. vault until they're released. Sometimes I sit a.round and wonder how many people in this department have taken advantage of knowledge they're privy to.''

Deputy Prime Minister Anthony of Australia. enters the office, with several assistants. They have a. brief meeting on wheat sales to the People's Republic of China.. As he leaves, a. secretary comes into the office with several messages.

"Ben. Abourezk's office has called several times," she says. "Those men a.re still waiting in his office."

"I know they're waiting," says Bergland. "They've been waiting there since Inauguration day. They all want Jobs. I don't blame them. But I don't have any Jobs to give them. I don't think I'll return that call today."

He gets up from his desk an~ walks toward a. closed door.

"You know," he says. "When you've worked your way up in the bureaucracy, you get some rewards. I've got my own private can right here. And right now, I'm gonna. use it."

AMANA CO. SUPPORTS ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, earlier this month, Dan McConnell, vice president of Amana Refrigeration Inc. of Amana, Iowa, testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Regulation.

He expressed Amana's strong support for minimum efficiency standards for appliances and outlined the steps Amana has already taken to make energy-saving products. Amana's record demonstrates very clearly that there is a real potential for energy conservation in appliances, and I think their support for the standards gives additional credibility to that part of our energy conservation program.

I believe Amana should be commended for stepping forward on this issue, and I am sure other Senators will be interested both in their success in improving the energy efficiency of their appliances and in their reasons for supporting minimum efficiency standards. I ask unani-

mous consent that Mr. McConnell's remarks before the Energy Conservation and Regulation Subcommittee be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY AMANA REFRIGERATION, INC.

My name is Dan McConnell and I am Vice President, Planning of Ama.na. Refrigeration, Inc. We a.re delighted to have an opportunity to express our views on the appliance efficiency provisions of s. 1469, which we consider to be one of the most important pieces of legislation facing this Congress or any Congress in my view of the energy crisis confronting our nation. Before outlining our position for the Subcommittee on this bill, we would like to very briefly identify our company and the products it manufactures.

Amana. Refrigeration, Inc. was founded in 1934 and is a. manufacturer of quality appliances for the home. In our Ama.na., Iowa plant we manufacture refrigerator-freezers, chest and upright freezers, and Ra.da.ra.ngeB microwave ovens. In our Fayetteville, Tennessee plant we manufacture room air conditioners, central air conditioners, central heating equipment, compactors, dehumidifiers, and xnicrowa.ve ovens. Late this summer we will begin manufacture of electric ranges, in a. new fa.cillty in Fayetteville, Tennessee.

It is our understanding that s. 1469 would a.mend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act so as to authorize the Federal Energy Administration to promulgate mandatory federal energy conservation standards for appliances. Ama.na. supports this concept as embodied in this proposal and hopes that this Subcommittee will approve Pa.rt B Subpart 1. Only through the promulgation of federal mandatory standards would the appliance industry be able to manufacture its products uniformly for sale throughout the United States without the fear of varying state standards. Also only with federal mandatory standards will the consumer be able to purchase energy efficient appliances throughout the country irrespective of where the consumer lives. Sueh a mandatory approach by the federal government wm be beneficial to both appliance manufacturers as well as consumers and will certainJy result in energy efficiencies which is the ma.in purpose of this legislation.

As a pa.rt of our basic belief in building a. qualdty product, we have emphasized good design, construction, and quality control in order to offer better performance and reliability. For many years, we have promoted the benefits of better design, including lower electrical or gas consumption resulting in lower operating cost even though the initial purchase price was somewhat higher. In other words, we a.re quite fa.mma.r with the principle of promoting more efficient appliances, even when the cost of energy was relatively low. ,

For example, we have manufactured and sold electric heat pumps since 1956. We began development of central heat pumps in 1954. Although heat pumps offered drama.tic reductions in electricity consumption over electric resistant heating systems, the high initial cost of heat pumps and certain early reliability problems inhibited the growth of the heat pump market. By the early 1970's even With major improvements in relia.blllty there were only five (5) remaining manufacturers. During this period Ama.na. persisted in promoting the efficiency advantages of heat pumps. Today, of course, the increased cost of electricity has created a. boom market for this product, and deservedly so.

In addition, since 1958 Amana has manufactured a. line of window type air conditioner-heat pumps, a. product manufactured by relatively few companies that offers genuine efficiency advantages especially in moderate climates . .


Another energy saving product emphasized by Amana is the combination electric cooling-gas heating system for the home with the Heat Transfer Module ("HTMR"). This device has been called "the first major breakthrough in heating technology in years". The HTMR is an advanced type of burner / •heat exchanger, the basic technology of which was derived from aerospace research. On the basis of independent laboratory tests, gas fuel consumption can be reduced from 22 % to 26 % for various northern cities as compared to a conventional gas furnace. Amana began development of the HTMR system in 1966. After several seasons of field testing, we moved to full-scale marketing of HTMR systems in 1971. A recent improvement in these systems has raised the EER of the cooling side of these systems up to 8.9. · The HTMR system incorporates direct spark ignition, thereby eliminating standing pilot lights. In addition we have manufactured a line of convention gas furnaces with direct spark ignition since late 1975. The elimination of the pilot light signi:flcantly reduces the annual consumption of gas.

Iµ refrigerator-freezers, Amana introduced energy saver controls into the market in 1965. These controls, currently the subject of heavy market promotion, permit the user to switch off· ~ntisweat heaters when they are not neces·sary to prevent condensation. In most climajes, and for most of the year, humidity conditions are not great enough to require that these heaters be energized, hence the logic, pioneered by Amana, that a control be provided to switch them off when they a.re not needed.

Also, in 1965 Ama.na. introduced a. new line of DeepfreezcR Chest Food Freezers with polyurethane foam insulation. These chest freezers were so well insulated, that the entire Ama.na. line will meet the new California minimum efficiency standards without change.

In 1973, Ama.na began work on a radically new refrigerator-freezer design that incorporated all of the latest technology in refrigeration such as thick wall polyurethane foam liners, radiant shell condensers and low wattage fan motors. This design was virtually identical to that proposed in a study published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1974. The Amana design concept was presented in a technical paper before a.n ERDA sponsored conference in May 1976. The new design was put into full scale production in August 1974.

In late 1974, Ama.na began development work on a further refinement of this concept and a massive retooling of refrigeratorfreezers, and upright freezer production lines. Thi~ activity has led to the introduction in January 1977 of our new "2 plus 2¥2" llne of refrigerator-freezers and freezers. These models in a wide selection of capacities incorporate 2 inches of foam insulation around the· refrigerator section and 2¥2 inches fi'round t:1:?,e zero degree freezer where it is ~~«med the most. All of these models represen ~ a major reduction in electricity consumption over conventional refrigerators.

Similarly, we have undertaken wide-scale development programs in central air conditioning and room air conditioning products to produce air conditioners with EER's from 7.7 to 10.1, all of which are considered to be in the high efficiency category.

In microwave ovens, which are an inherently efficient cooking product, Amana has shown the highest efficiencies of any brand tested in independent laboratory tests. Ama.na also undertook a large scale study of . the comparative efficiency between microwave ovens and conventional electric ranges in 1973. The technical report describing this study was chosen as the best microwave paper of 1974 by the International Microwave Power Institute.

In brietly describing our overall corporate program for the design of more efficient appliances, we do not mean to imply that the

task ts not difficult. To incorporate all of the la.test technology in appliance efficiency, while creating a product that fulfills the needs of the consumer, and to do so for a reasonable cost, is a formidable task indeed. It is being accomplished at Amana primarily because we started with basically efficient designs many yea.rs ago, and because we have pursued a comprehensive plan to improve all of our product efficiencies for the past five years. we still have a great deal of work ahead of us and we a.re pursuing it di11gently.

The investment is very great. The new "2 plus 2¥2" line of refrigerator-freezers a.lone required an investment in excess of 9.5 million dollars. And Amana is not the largest manufat'turer of refrigerators and freezers.

Prior to addressing the subject of federal minimum efficiency regulations for appliances, we would like to make reference to the minimum efficiency standards recently enacted by the State of California. These standards, which apply to refrigerator-freezers, room air conditioners, and central air conditioners--ca.n be met, although not without some difficulty, when the standards go into effect in November 1977. We expect to meet the California standards with few exceptions. When our industry filed suit against the State of California. to overturn these standards, we chose not to participate. Subsequently we resigned from our industry association over this issue.

we believe that any federal standards that are enacted should be essentially as ambitious a.s those imposed by the State of California. Only then will the goal of a sign1:flcant reduction in energy consumption be realized. Only then will the issue of preemption of state standards be settled effectively. Or as we have mentioned, the California standards ca.n be met---and, if a reasonable time period is granted to manufacturers similar federal standards could be met without any serious economic disruption, without any life-cycle cost increase to consumers, and without any loss of jobs.

As more states pass tough minimum efficiency standards in the next year, which is a virtual certainty, the need for equally tough federal standards becomes even stronger. Recently, the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota have passed a minimum efficiency requirement for air-conditioners that are patterned after the California standards. And others are in process.

Amana favors tough mandatory federal efficiency standards for appliances, as long as the standards are based on performance criteria that are feasible to attain.

Amana encourages continuing progress 1n the current FEA program to issue test procedures based upon current industry test methods. These test procedures provide a uniform meth'Od by which engineers may evaluate the efficiency of an appliance, and they provide a sound data base on which progressive improvement can be measured. We must have uniform federal test. procedures and we need them as soon as possible.

Amana respectfully suggests some reconsideration of the format on appliance efficiency labels as set forth in § 324 of the Energy Polley and Conservation Act. § 324 delegates to the Federal Trade Commission the authority to prescribe labeling rules. § 324(c) (1) (B) requires that the rule must require the label to disclose "information representing the range of estimated annual operating costs for covered products ... ".

Amana requests that Congress amend the Energy Polley and Conservation Act so as to delete § 324(c) (1) (B) so that the requirement to state the range of cost wm be removed. The reason that Amana suggests that deletion of the range requirement ls that we would opt to begin labeling our appliances as soon as the labeling format were finalized by the Federal Trade Commission, thus implementing the Act as early as possible. But

we can not do .so. Under the current method we must wait 'tor all of the ·industi:y "figures to be filed and authenticated so that the official range of values can be establlsq.ed fqr ea.ch appliance category, before we could "pro~ ceed. In addition, every time a manufacturer of the worst or best model in a category makes a design change, the label will be incorrect and obsolete. This concept appears unnecessarily complex and counterproductive. The label could be simplified by requiring that a manufacturer show his own consumption :figures on the label and not the industry range.

Even though Amana opposes the label which contains the range of estimated annual operating costs, Amana does support the cost of operation concept as a. basis for energy efficiency labeling for most products. Cost of operation gives the consumer a means of calculating the "payback" on any initially higher cost that might be paid for a more efficient appliance. However, there are many oroducts that would benefit by adding 1:1.n.>ther measure, such as EER or kilowatt hours, to the label to avoid misleading the consumer since to show only the cost of operation in the face of widely varying utility rates could lead to overstating or understating cost of operation by several times. Therefore, we would urge that both cost of operation and a measure of consumption be st.ated on a label.

Amana favors the minimum efficiency proposal. It provides a simple clear-cut target toward which the design engineers can work. It is administratively simple, dispensing with the necessity for filing sales figures, a matter of some controversy due to the sensitive nature of such company :figures. Furthermore, a minimum standard is inherently fair since it provides the same objective to all parties. And :finally, the federal minimum standard promises uniform national criteria which permits an orderly program of product development and efficient investment of equip-_ ment and facilities. The only requtre.ment, :to assure the accomplishment of thit effect"tve conservation of energy, is that minimum efficiency standards be based upon attainable technologies reasonably applied.

The task of improving appliance efficiencies is not as simple as some would maintain. Sound engineering principles must be applied so that the resulting product is reliable and performs satisfactorily for the consumer. And the end product must be reasonably priced.

In addition, there are some important components that affect appliance efficiency that are not always under the direct control of the appliance manufacturer. In these areas, we can only attempt to convince suppliers that efficiency improvement should be made in the products that they supply to us. For example, Amana does not manufacture motors, that is, fan motors, evaporator motors and the like that are used in nearly every appliance. By working with one motor manufacturer over several yea.rs, we were able to reduce the consumption of an evaporator fan motor from 54 watts to only 12 watts. We need cooperation and investment from compressor manufacturers and motor manufacturers, and we need technological improvement in insulation and refrigerants. Any breakthrough in these universally used products would have enormous leverage in reducing energy consumption by the entire industry.

Our country's need for conservation of energy is clear. And a federal minimum efficiency standard for appliances is a straightforward step in its accomplishment. Amana Refrigeration, Inc._ is in favor of this program.

THE ARTS

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, on March 21 of this year I addressed this Chamber on the financial crisis facing


our cultural institutions all across the country. I spoke then supporting full funding of the new challenge grants program of the National Endowment of the Arts which would aid arts organizations improve their fundraising capacities.

On July 10, the New York Times Sunday Magazine published an article by Robert Brustein entitled, "Can the Show Go On?" This article details the financial collapse threatening not only our new struggling arts organizations but also our most treasured and well-established institutions. The threat is very real and very immediate. If we fail to respond to the cnallenge, our Nation will suffer an immeasurable loss. The Congress must work with private contributors, both individual and business, and foundations which have so long been in the vanguard of assuring the survival and flourishing of the arts in America to see that this challenge is met.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from the New York Times be printed in the RECORD in order that it become part of our deliberations on this most important matter.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

CAN THE SHOW Go ON? (By Robert Brustein)

These a.re a few of the things that happened to performing arts institutions over the past 12 months:

The Joffrey Ballet canceled its entire spring sea.son.

The New York City Ballet was shut down by a musicians' strike.

The American Shakespeare Festival in Stratford, Conn., failed to open for its 1977 season, and its future is in doubt.

The American Ballet Theatre averted bankruptcy by selling its Cha.gall sets.

The Sara.toga. Performing Arts Center cut be.ck its orchestra. sea.son by one-quarter.

The Buffa.lo· Philharmonic spent $900,000 of its endownment to pay pressing debts.

The Hartford Ballet reduced its touring sea.son from 26 weeks to silc weeks.

The Metropolitan Opera succeeded in salvaging its 1977 season by raising $12.5 million in emergency funds, and now needs an additional $11 to $14 million annually merely to open.

Joseph Pa.pp announced his decision to withdraw from Lincoln Center, and to close down all operations of the New York Shakespeare Festival in the Vivian Beaumont.

Is there a crisis in the performing arts? The question is ot.viously rhetorical, and the various foundation officers, artistic directors, managing directors, boa.rd members, advocacy chairmen and agency officials whom I interviewed recently over a period of weeks confirmed an impression that the problem is fast approaching the critical point.

Nobody is in disagreement over the ca.use: Symphony orchestras, dance and ballet companies, opera companies and theaters a.re all experiencing a.ti inflationary increase in expenses accompanied by a corresponding decrease in private giving. As a recent report puts it: "The rise in demand for the arts, and the increasing popularity of the arts, means that arts organizations must provide more services to the community. That in turn means more performers and staff, for arts organizations are 'labor intensive.'" But at the same time that services a.re multiplying and performing arts groups a.re proliferating, the gap between income and expenses is steadily widening. (Even though a.udienc·es pay as much as $22.50 a ticket at the Metropolitan Opera, they a.re

still being substantially subsidized, the ~rts institutions.) Most important, the tra.diiona.l sources of support--pa.rticula.rly the private foundations-a.re reducing rather than increasing their subsidies.

Take the largest of these, the Ford Foundation, for yee.rs the foremost patron of the performing arts in the United States. A shrinking portfolio has reduced Ford's . total annual grants by more than half-but its contributions to the arts has been slashed by more than four-fifths I More ominous than these statistics for the future of the arts at the foundation was the one of Henry Ford's recent letter of resignation from the boa.rd of trustees, where he singled out the Office of the Arts as an area which has ceased to be "innovative" and "experimental," instead stickini "without some programs for yea.rs and yea.rs." Mr. Ford was critical not only of the foundation's continuing support for existing programs, but of its failure to appreciate "private enterprise" and reward "individual" achievement-hardly cheering to the performing arts which, by their very nature, a.re essentially communal, cooperative and collaborative public structures.

When I interviewed McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation, in the company of his newly appointed "acting" vice president for the arts, Roger Kennedy, it was clear that the foundation was in the throes of change. Large numbers of staff had recently been "terminated", and Mr. Bundy was preparing to rent the empty offices of this resplendent glass building to outside tenants. While assuring me of this ongoing commitment to the arts, Mr. Bundy was equally firm in expressing his conviction that "the foundations a.re not the solution." The appointment of Mr. Kennedy, a fiscal officer of the foundation, to re-examine the Ford's arts policy was a signal that some sort of radical cutback was underway, and the figures I received confirmed this melancholy supposition. The foundation's arts commitment used to be $20 million annually. It is now down to $4 million with $1.4 million of the total going to nonprofit film distribution. Mr. Bundy dismissed my conjecture that Henry Ford's admiration for individual rather than institutional achievement was having any influence on foundation policy. But with reductions of this kind, it was inevitable that grants to individual artists would begin to eclipse assistance to institutions . . Such giving is both cheaper and more visible than the kind of support Ford was once able to provide, when it lavished $80 million on symphony orchestras and $25 million on resident theater companies.

The Rockefeller Foundation-formerly second only to Ford in its annual support for the performing arts-has already begun pursuing a policy of small grants to the "creative person," with only token help going to the institutions that support such persons. In theater, for example, Rockefeller makes a.bout eight annual grants of $8,500 to playwrights, a.long with $3,000 to the theaters with which the playwrights ask to be associated. Rockefeller's arts director, Howard Klein, told me that his foundation is in no position to respond to cries for help from a.111ng institutions. The ma.in criterion for its "programmatic" grants, he said, is "quality," though he conceded that his staff was too small to make many qualitative judgments. Thus, Klein turned down a survival appeal from the trouble-ridden American Shakespeare Festival, even though he had never seen a play there-his decision was partially based on "reading the reviews over the years." An equally compelling reason, one suspects, was budgetary: Rockefeller, which gave almost $3.5 mlllion to 47 performing arts institutions in 1972 gave, in 1976 only $2 million to 30 such institutions, with $1.4 million of the total going to a program invented and entirely funded by the foundation-the American Recording Society, which manufactures albums of American music.

This leaves $600,000 annually for all the live performing arts, a precipitous drop of nearly 85 percent in four yea.rs!

Some smaller private foundations, like the Andrew Mellon and the Shubert, a.re still strongly committed to the performing arts, but their portfolios a.re not sufficient to generate more than occasional relief. Mellon, under its young arts administrator, David Saltonstall, normally changes its beneficiaries from year to year to accommodate larger three-year grants to different kinds of institutions-resident theaters in 1974, modern dance companies in 1975, classical ballet in 1976, symphony orchestras in 1977 ~Mr. Saltonstall would like to repeat the cycle when these grants run out). As for Shubert, this foundation has ma.inly been supporting theaters, preferably (though not exclusively) those which "stimulate the economy" by developing plays for New York. I found a general apprehension among some foundation officers that Ford or Rockefeller would disburden themselves of responsibility for the arts in the belief that other philanthropies were picking up the tab. But virtually all these officers were a.greed that Federal, state and corporate money was the only answer to declining private support.

Of all these money sources, the corporate role is at once the most promising and the most problematical, depending on whom you talk to. Goldwin A. McLellan, president of the Business Committee for the Arts, holds the unshakable conviction that "there a.re only two areas that will solve the crisis for the arts-the business community and private philanthropists." This view is warmly seconded by his vice president, Gideon Cha.gy, who, upon my arrival at B.C.A., uncorked the stunning news that corporate support for the arts in 1976 (admittedly a Bicentennial year) a.mounted to $221 million, or almost two and one half times the total budget of the National Endowment for the Arts. Where is all this money going? Doubtless corporate philanthropy is often imaginative and altruistic, but a disproportionate share of these tax-free contributions is being poured into television, still the favoria.te medium of the "new patrons of the arts" (as Mr. Cha.gy calls them in a book of that name). While corporations had no trouble underwriting such popular programs as BBC's "Upstairs, Downs.ta.irs," tney were much more hesitant a.bout supporting "Visions," a series of origLna.l television plays by new American dra.ma.tists-"business concerns," The New York Times reported recently, "were reluctant to be associated with the series because many of its dramas have controversial themes."

Examples like this confirm a suspicion that much corporate support for the arts tends to be a digntfled form of institutional advertising, a.voiding the ha.rd-sell approach of traditional sponsorship but retaining many of the same prohibitions. As Lincoln Kirstein, general director of the New York City Ballet, puts it wanly, "Big advertisers will not allow you to be left with a vision superior to that of Mobil or Exxon." An official of the National Endowment for the Arts is even more blunt: "Corporations a.re buying the arts like they buy any other commodity." Still, things start to get rather fuzzy when you try to determine exactly which arts a.re being bought. Mr. McLella.n told me, for example, that 7 cents of every corporate arts dollar (a.mounting to $15 million, or four times the figure disbursed by the National Endowment) is going to legitimate theaters. But he could not '-mmediately identify which theaters were receiving benefits, aside from those produced on the PBS "Theater in America" series and those, like Kennedy Center and Lincoln Center, receiving aid from the United Corporate Fund. Finally, he remembered a theater entirely funded by corporate money-the La Crosse Community Theater in La Crosse, Wis., which was built, maintained and supported for the creative expression of its employees


by the Trane Corporation, a manufacturer of bathroom fiXtures.

Obviously, not everyone would agree that this constitutes a genuine contribution to theater-and the problem is even more widespread. While more Americans than ever believe the arts to be important to the quality of life (89 percent, according to a recent Harris poll), there seems to be considerable .?onfusion over precisely what the arts are. The arts crisis," according to Marcia Thompson of the Ford Foundation, "is a lack of clear definition of what we are talking about. There is no national voice of sufficient strength to make qualitative judgments." There is no strong national policy either. According to Joan Mondale-President Carter's chief unofficial spokesman on the subject-the arts are defined by the yearning of most Americans for "personal expression." This ls warm and democratic, but it does little to distinguish high art from basket-weaving, or trained horn players from the brass section of the high school band. As for the National Endowment for the Arts, this important Federal agency ls growing increasingly vague a.bout what areas a.re meant to lie within its mandate. One officer there complained to me recently that of the 12 divisions funded by the N.E.A., only six could properly be called "a.rts"-the rest include such marginal endeavors as folk arts, handicrafts, inner city community activlty, social and ethnic programs and the like.

Problems of definition are only one of the dilemmas afflicting the National Endowment; others may prove even more discouraging to those who pinned their hopes on rescue from the public sector. Federal, state and municipal contributions to performing arts institutions remain a.n important component of annual budgets, but the money is not increas,ing fa.st enough; it is being spread too thin and in some cases it is compounding existing problems. The New York State Council on the Arts is both generous and discriminating in its support of the performing arts, but in this it is virtually unique; most city and state agencies are too small to provide more than moral support. And while the National Endowment can proudly point to annual increases in appropriations from Congress, after 12 yea.rs it still has not reached the $100 million mark, and the United States continues to lag behind every other major country, including Canada., in per ca.pita. contributions to the arts. Moreover, legislative pressure to distribute grants on a. geographic basis, regardless of quality or number (Shubert's Gerald Schoenfeld calls this "force-feeding the boondocks"), is having a. starvation effect on some of the major urban performing arts centers. No theater company, for example, receives more than $150,000 annually from the National Endowment, though some of the budgets are in the m11lions, and even the Endowment's 1976 grant of $600,000 to the Metropolitan Opera represented only 2.4 percent of the Met's annual expenditure of $25 million.

An added difficulty-the consequences of which have yet to be measured-is being created by a new National Endowment program-the challenge grant, whereby eligible institutions receive $1 in Federal funds for every $3 they can raise from the community. Matching grants of this kind are designed to stretch the fund-raising capacities of performing arts, organizations, to increase fiscal responsibility, and to stimulate independent private support-all laudable goals. But whatever the financial benefits that may accrue from this plan, the challenge grant is virtually guaranteed to reward sophisticated managements at the expense of less well administered groups, meanwhile encour-aging everyone to become more expert at producing money than at producing works of art. Those organizations without their own

fund-raisers will be forced to hire some for the purpose, thus inflating the budget that has to be raised by swelling the already large managerial bureaucracy-an example of the way Federal money can sometimes exacerba. te the condition it is trying to cure.

Another example is the growing list of rules and regulations to which ea.ch institution must conform in order to receive Federal money. Typical of these ls Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, prohibiting discrimination against the physically and mentally handicapped (alcoholics and drug addicts included) in federally assisted programs. One of the features of this otherwise compassionate piece of legislation may have dire effects on the a.rts-the requirement that every performance area. be "barrier-free" within three yea.rs so as to provide easy accessibility to people in wheelchairs, as well as providing a.ids to the deaf and the blind. The cost of such structural a.Iterations-new ramps, elevators, audio equipment, expanded lavatories etc.-ls estimated in the billions. And although the Federal Government may provide some of the money needed to alter these spaces, there is little doubt that such a.ddltlona.l funds wlll also be counted as "aid to the arts," taking the place of incremental support for basic programs.

In short, li!te the private educational institutions, the performing arts organizations a.re learning that Federal money has restrictions as well as advantages. And while the Government's insistence on compliance with social action programs is undoubtedly preferable to its previous pressure for conformity in the political area., the consequences may be just as limiting to the artist. One cannot escape the conclusion that the major sources of financial support, which spell the difference between survival and extinction, are either in the process of drying up, or a.re proving insufficient. The result: The performing arts a.re destined to undergo a profound change.

One inevitable consequence is that a number of American companies will soon be closing down. Almost all of the people I talked to expect a. serious depletion in the ranks of symphony orchestras, opera companies, resident threa.ters, dance companies and ballet groups over the next few yea.rs. True, there was a general consensus that the large establishment institutions-the "dinosaurs," as one person called them-would survlve the crisis, since their demise would have a serious effect on American prestige a.broad. But even here, there was not total confidence. McGeorge Bundy, for example, though "betting against the death of any large institution," speculated that the Metropolitan Opera might ca.11 a. "sa.bba.tica.1-it might go dark for a year," while Amya.s Ames, chairman of Lincoln Center, could not assure me that the Met would be able to open after the coming sea.son. Regardless of how they viewed the Met, almost everyone a.greed that the smaller, more marginal institutions would expire without an extra.ordinary emergency plan; and Mr. Bundy believed that the New York City Ballet might be among those going down.

An equally important worry is whether survival would be worth it, given the kinds of changes these institutions a.re being forced to make in order to stay a.live. One obvious transformation now overtaking the performing arts ls the subordination of their artistic growth to managerial know-how. Partly in response to foundation pressure for more "fiscal credibility," many arts organizations are presently being run by their administrators, if not by their boards, with much time and energy being expended on behalf of new membership techniques, marketing, audience development and increased royalties. These administrators now hold the power to hire and fire the artistic director, largely on the basis of his capacity to de-

liver audiences or develop income-producing properties; no wonder the work ls becoming increasingly commercial. The most obvious victims of this change in structure a.re the resident theaters. Many are establishing close ties with the commercial theater network, a.nd-sometimes in partnership with a Broadway producer-a.re selecting plays and de-1eloping productions that ca.n be moved intact to New York.

Some observers consider this a subsidized form of out-of-town tryouts, the resident theaters taking over the role previously performed by the Shubert chain. Others, notably Gerald Schoenfeld of the Shubert organization, are more sanguine a.bout this development, considering it both financially shrewd and culturally inevitable: "Broadway is merely a. geographical location. Broadway theater ls no more commercial than most large regional theaters. We deal with the same union, we suffer from the same economic problems, we attract the same audience, we charge the same prices, we strive for the same standard of excellence. The only differences are, we pay taxes and we receive no subsidy. In a capitalistic society like ours, paying taxes is a noble pursuit." The observation is true, though it is sad that so few find it regrettable. Actually, the Kennedy Center is virtually indistinguishable, in its theatrical activities. from a commercial management, even though it was constructed with the a.id of $43 mlllion in Federal funds and is soon to receive $4.5 million more for repairs. It is no wonder that some Broadway producers, like Richard Barr, president of the League of New York Theatres, are beginning to demand government subsidy for commercial theater. Some of the subsidized theaters now resemble Broadway in everything but name.

And this condition ls not exclusive with the theater. The Metropolitan Ouera recently created a partnership with the Kennedy Center for the purpose of booking attractions during the off season-Olivia Newton-John, the pop singer, has just finished such an engagement at the Met. "Isn't the Met commercial?" reasons Mr. Schoenfeld. "They have a restaurant, a bookstore. Isn't the Smithsonian commercial? They have a garage business, a book business, souvenir business, they rent cassettes. We don't have fully subsidized theater in America. What we have is a. little government funding, some private supportand the rest is business."

Of course, his point ls indisputable. And it is as a business-as a "major growth industry," in fa.ct-that lobbying groups and advocacy committees feel compelled to "sell" the arts nowadays. The publications of the National Endowment proudly observe that "though the arts are not self-supporting, they are a fertile economic resource, generating over $3 billion in expenditures and receipts annually." And the National Report on the Arts, a publication sponsored by Amyas Ames's National Committee for Cultural Resources, makes its appeal not so much on the basis of esthetic achievement as on the synergistic influence the arts a.re having on the economy-the jobs created, the tourists attracted, the restaurants and hotels filled, the goods and services purchased: "Arts organizations," the report concludes, "play a vigorous, stabilizing even vita.I role in the economic life of the nation and of its states and cities." This makes good, sound practical sense, a.11 right. But it might have given some American performing artists pause, when they were first practicing an instrument or learning a 'plie to know that their work would have to b~ justified on the basis of how it helped to stimulate the economy, or how it helped sell T-shirts or posters in the lobby during intermission.

As a matter of fa.ct, the general effect of a.ll this on the American performing artist has been far from saluatory. Alwin Ni.kolas is

22426 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE July 12, 1977 only one of those to express despair lately over how much time must be spent in filllng out quadruplicate application forms for funds, while Alvin Alley, both exhausted and depressed, ls preparing to take a year off from his company, finding that the demand on him for fund-raising, for "hobnobbing with politicians and kissing so-and-so's hand at a cocktail party,'' ls cutting seriously into his creative life: "Man, that's like seven hours of rehearsal. I could have made a new dance in that time." As for the Paul Taylor dance group, having run out of funds, it had to abandon last season's appearance at the City Center: "Tomorrow," a New York Post item announces, "the dancers are staging a. picnic at City Center, where industrialists and other potential sponsors wlll be wooed with wine. dance and food."

When do performing artists prove their quality enough to stop rattling the tin cup? Apparently never. Joseph Papp finds this both outrageous and humlllating: "It's downhlll all the way. It's disgraceful for us, and even the Met, to have to go begging for money. It's not just the indignity of raising cash all the time. It's ridiculous. It doesn't work."

But Lincoln Klrsteln's long experience with the New York City Ballet and School of American Ballet has taught him that the situation ls chronic: "I have come to the conclusion," he told me recently, "that it isn't going to improve because the performing arts are neither a necessity nor a service. The blomorphlc unit, the biped man, doesn't change--for a long time, he has lived by bread alone. There's no Eleventh Commandment that says, Thou shalt have symphony orchestras." Kirstein believes that most people a.re terrified of the imaginative process, and don't like to talk about quality because they don't know how to measure it. "Only a very small elite feel that a.rt ls a necessity. The rest treat it as a diversion. A diversion from what? General horror and boredom."

Many years in the lists have taught Kirstein to be philosophical. The scrappy Joe Papp, on the other hand, has been impelled by his fiscal troubles into new heights of combativeness. "I want the arts to be considered part of the national crisis a.nd not just our own crisis," he says. "The time ls over to depend on private support. The question is, do you want us or not?" Papp has found it impossible to operate the Vivian Beaumont under present conditions. He receives $176,000 annually from the United Corporate Fund, and about a half mtlllon dollars more from miscellaneous foundations, but he has had to pay Lincoln Center $450,000 each year just for housekeeping expenses (the Met pays out $3 mllllon for the same services). On a $6 mllllon budget at the Beaumont, Papp estimates that within two years Lincoln Center would have drained all his money, including his profits from "A Chorus Line.".

Papp ls convinced that the only answer to his and others' problems lies in massive infusions of Federal funds-sums not just in the mllllons but in the bllllons. And in this, President Carter wm have to play a crucial role. "In the same way he's conserving fuel, he must conserve these resources-a multimillion crisis area. You have to up the stakes. The ante must be raised." When I asked him how he would persuade a populist President, even one who listens to Mozart while he works, to support such a relatively elitist enterprise as the performing arts, Papp proposed his dramatic gesture. "I'm going to abandon my operation at the Beaumont, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other performing arts institutions join me. Imagine what this country would be like without its cultural institutions. Let Lincoln Center become a burnt-out area like the South Bronx-let graffiti be the only trace of art in those buildings."

Whether the other institutions elect voluntarily to close down with Papp by means of a general strike, or as seems more likely, to close involuntarily because of a. failure to meet expenses, the nature of the crisis ls becoming clear. For all the interest in the arts today, no clear authoritative voice ls doing the work of judgment and definition. And without a national conscience to prod and protect them, the performing arts are being caught in a crunch among three strong forces-American individualism, American utilltarlanism, and American capitalism-all of them considerably more powerful than the appetite for creative fulfillment. Individualism, if sympathetic at all to the arts, ls more responsive to stars and soloists and personalities than to institutions, perhaps oblivious to the fact that playwrights cannot function without theaters any more than violinists can play without orchestras or prima ballerinas can dance without ballet companies. Utllltarlanlsm. accustomed to measuring things with practical yardsticks, ls unable to comprehend the invisible values of a.rt. And capitalism distrusts all systems that fall to return tangible rewards or to prove themselves in the marketplace. As a result, private enterprise ls gradually crushing the delicate qu.,sl-soclallst membrane of the communal performing arts, or ls changing them into something more commensurate with traditional commercial values.

Well, private enterprise has certainly made its contributions to our national life, but it hasn't done very well by our cities or our natural environment, and it's not likely to do much more for our music, dance, or theater. What is obviously required now ls for the Federal Government to recognize that the performing arts are a.n endangered natural resource, worthy of preservation like other treasures of nature, and, like them, in serious jeopardy of being polluted by commercial wastes. After all, one doesn't measure the value of the Colorado River or the Teton Mountains by how many tourists they attract or how many hot dog stands they support; by the same reasoning, the arts must not be subject to economic or numerical criteria.

They are nourishment for the soul and, as Bernard Shaw observed in a passage I like to quote, the soul ls a very expensive thing to feed: "It eats music and pictures and books and mountains and lakes and beautiful things to wear and nice people to be with. In this country you can't have them without lots of money; that ls why our souls are so horribly starved." In our own soul-starved country, we can't have such things without lot.c; of money either. But if we lose the performing arts, after this long difficult struggle to create and sustain them, then the blight on our spirits wlll be irreversible and profound.

ARMS CONTROL Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, the

trend of the arms race today has led reasonable people to fear that either we may blow ourselves out of existence or we may spend ourselves out of existence. The quantitative and qualitative expansion of nuclear weapons arsenals, the proliferation of nuclear weapans to new nations, and the skyrocketing cost of the next round of strategic weapans modernization, all indicate the validity of this fear.

At its recent annual meeting, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed an arms control resolution to express support for President Carter's new policy of negotiating for the eventual goal of "drastic reductions" in nuclear weaponry.

The conference called on the administration and the Congress to transfer funds saved through negotiated arms reductions into meeting the needs of the cities.

This concept of reordering our national priorities by transferring funds from unwarranted military expenditures into domestic programs will become increasingly important under the constraints of a balanced budget. I am pleased to see that the mayors, who understand so well that our domestic strength and economic vitality are impartant elements· in our national security, supported this concept.

The mayors also demonstrated that arms control issues need not be discussed only by weapons specialists or defense experts. Nuclear arms policy and efforts to reduce the threat of destruction should concern electric officials at the local level, domestic issues organizations and other groups as well. The Conference of Mayors has taken a step forward on the long road of building a new arms control constituency in America.

I ask unanimous consent that the arms control resolution passed at the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, June 11-15, 1977, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

ARMS CONTROL

Whereas, continued escalation of the nuclear arms race poses a direct threat to the survival of world clvlliza.tion and to the national security of every country; and

Whereas, strategic arms negotiations in the past have enabled the United States and the Soviet Union to expand their nuclear arsenals both quantitatively and qualitatively instead of reducing them; and

Whereas, President Carter has de<:tared a new policy of negotiating "drastic reductions" in nuclear arms and has proposed the eventual goal of "zero nuclear weapons"; and

Whereas, expansion of new strategic weapons systems, higher mmtary expenditures and increased international tensions are probable consequences of the failure to negotiate equitable strategic arms limitation agreements; and

Whereas, the U.S. Conference of Mayors continues to support a level of mllitary forces sufficient to preserve our national defense,

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the U.S. Conference of Mayors declares its support for President Carter's goal of achieving real reductions in nuclear weaponry; and

Be it further resolved that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls upon the Administration and the Congress to transfer funds saved through arms reduction agreements to fund the domestic needs of our nation and cities.

SERMON BY THE REVEREND FELTHAM S. JAMES, D.D., ON AMERICA AND THE BIBLE Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I

have just read the sermon of the Rev. Feltham S. James, D.D., which was delivered at the South Carolina American Legion Convention in Greenville, S.C., on June 27, 1977.

Dr. James' career as a minister in the Methodist Church and his work with the American Legion encompass more than four decades of selfless and distinguished public service. A native South Carolinian, Dr. James was educated at


Wofford College and Duke University. In World War II he served as a chaplain at posts of duty at Fort Jackson, Fort Belvoir, and Walter Reed Army Hospital from 1941-46.

Dr. James' work with the American Legion began shortly after World War II. Since that time, he has served in various leadership capacities, including national chaplain, department commander, and department chaplain. Since 1956, Dr. James has been awarded the Freedom Foundation Medal five times and was awarded a doctor of divinity degree by his alma mater, Wofford College, in 1960. Dr. James currently resides in Aiken, S.C., where he is the chaplain of the Aiken Community Hospital.

Mr. President, in order to share the sermon of this great American with my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the sermon was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

AMERICA AND THE BmLE

(By Feltham S. James, D.D.) The eighth verse of the Book of Genesis

reads like this: "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he formed." I wonder if we might not paraphrase this verse and let it read: "And the Lord God planted a garden westward in a land to be known as America; and there he guided men to establish a nation of freedom, justice and democracy."

It is thus that we must go to the Bible to find the basic concept of our Nation. No country owes more to the influence of the Bible than the United States. For a hundred years the "New England Primer," which was essentially a Bible primer, designed by the early colonists to teach children to read and to know the Bible, was the schoolbook of the overwhelming mass of Americans in Colonial days.

When the people began to populate the great spaces in the West, the little schoolhouse was ever the companion of the little church on the advancing frontiers of America's westward expansion. In the recorded history of these early days one will find Circuit Riding preachers who took the Word of God into the frontiers and on that Word laid the foundation for a new world. Although he has not been pictured as the hero in many books and films, he was the bearer of God's Good News and as such he was instrumental in determining how the Bible shaped America.

There never has been a book like the Bible. It has guided men of all ages, from the lonely nomads, who first felt its matchless power, from the men and women of the catacombs of Rome, who cherished its brilliant flame among the ashes of a dying civilization, and from the dark ages of Europe, when its words guided men toward a new world.

Whait is it, then, that makes America unique among the na.tions of the world? What is the central reality that has shaped its destiny? When all the history books have been written; when our heritage has been reviewed over and over again as it was dur- , ing our Bicentennial; when our culture has been assessed, we can come to no other conclusion than that America is America in Its authentic sense because it has been founded on and guided by the Holy Bible.

In resting this Nation and its destiny on the truths found in the Holy Bible, our Founding Fathers built into its structure the moral la.w derived from the Ten Commandments. This moral law was to be the foundation of all law. Civil law was to derive its

authenticity from the higher law contained in the Bible.

The teachings of the Bible have overthrown monarchs, conquered caesars, and destroyed dicta.tors. They have overcome selfishness and undermined power being used to degrade mankind. After all, the Bible is a Book of Democracy. The laws written in our statute books rest upon the Ten Commandments. The good will observed in all communities, the recognition of the rights of citizens of all races and creeds, and the demand of peaceful behaviour among the nations have their epitome in a single sentence known as the Golden Rule. Ever since Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address described ours as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people," scholars have sought to trace the origin of that deathless sentence. We must pass by those to whom credit has been given for its first use, for John Wycllffe, in his preface to his translation of the Bible in 1284, "The Bible is for the government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

I think we can say with certainty that Western civ111za.tion owes much in its laws and institutions to Biblical inspiration. In AD 871, Alfred the Great, who was a man of prayer and a lover of the Bible, was crowned King of the West Saxons. In 893 he became nominally King of all England. He ordered a translation of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon, and, in fa.ct, heloed in the translation. As a result England rose from a state of barbarism into a civilized monarchy. Queen Victoria said to an inauiring prince from a far-off land that the Bible was "the secret of England's greatness."

It but follows that the influence of Biblical principles has been a definite blessing to the United States, and any attempt to remove all traces of the Bible from public institutions shows an abysmal ignorance of the source of America's greatness and stablllty. Yet, there are those who think the Bible has outlived its usefulness, but, when they begin to search for treasure by which this Nation ls to live, they will uncover the Bible amid the debris sunk by planetary storms and discover again its worth.

It was the Bible which made the men and women of the "Mayflower" what they were. It was truly a. la.mp unto their feet and a. light unto their path. The Pilgrims were a. people of the The Book. All their hopes of personal, civil and religious liberty hung upon their Bibles. On it the American Commonwealth may be said to have been built. So it ls that within the ca.bin of that little ship, the "Mayflower", this Republic had its origin in the compact signed by brave men, who had faith in God and fa.1th in the Bible.

History reveals no doubt in the Biblical inspiration of our first two presidents, George Washington and John Ada.ms. Andrew Jackson, "Old Hickory", our nation's first log-cabin president, born on the joint frontiers of North and South Carolina., said to one of his sons-in-law: "Go, read the Scriptures, the joyful promises it contains will be a. balsam to all your troubles." Ulysses S. Grant, although a better general than a president, said to the nation in its hour of great disillusionment, "Hold fa.st to the Bible as the sheet anchor of your liberties; write its precepts on your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we a.re indebted for the progress made, and to this book we must look as our guide in the future." And, in later years, it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who wrote in the foreword of the Pocket Testaments given to all service men in World War II, these words: "As Commander-in-Chief I take pleasure in commending the readin~ of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men o! many faiths and diverse oril!'ins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, coun-

sel and inspiration. It is a. fountain of strength and now, as always, an a.id in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul." So it has been, from the very beginning, that those who have guided this nation have turned to the Bible for wisdom and guidance, making it important for Americans to remember that the roots of our Republic run deep into the rich soil of the Holy Bible.

Any attempt at the separation of the government from religion represents a definite departure from the intent of the Founding Fathers, who never intended to purge public life in America entirely of biblical principles. Those who founded our nation did not hesitate to declare their dependence upon God, to mention Him in public utterances, to open Congress with prayer, to set up Chaplaincies, to declare their faith in the Bible, and to ask the President to call days of prayer and thanksgiving to God. They knew that the very concept of religion and liberty was founded upon the teachings of the Bible. How well they knew it is evidenced by the fa.ct that the States a.re impregnated with Biblical principles. How else would we have come to realize that freedom and liberty, which is distinctively American.

If we ever forget that we are a. nation founded on the Biblical precepts, we shall lose what others have created. Work as we will at the intricate mechanisms of government, if we do not have the same deeo faith in the Bible which its creators held: we shall lose those blessings of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" enunciated by our Founding Fathers.

When we think of liberty, we must realize that there ls a striking link between the Bible and liberty. The book of more than a thousand tongues has taken part in more than a thousand battles for liberty. For, in the Bible, man ls set forth as a. being who has infinite value for God, his Creator. No human authority has a. right to degrade or enslave man or to deprive him of his right to self-development. He should be free to assume responslb111ties for which he ls best fitted. None should demand of him a. love or loyalty which ls due God alone. The Bible has played a. great part in securing for man his liberties and freedom. The United States, more than any other country, was founded by men mastered by the Bible. It ls thus, that it ls characteristic of America. to uphold freedom, liberty and human dignity. Let the Bible be repudiated as the supreme guidebook of mankind, and freedom and liberty will die.

The core of biblical religion is the conviction that God dwells in the midst of us. In the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington you will find these words: "God who gave us life gave us liberty." Thus it ts that liberty is profoundly wedded to biblical religion, meaning that our whole concept of liberty ls found within the covers of the Bible.

Here, then, is a book whose pages contain tho founh,in from which flows the crystal waters of freedom and liberty. Here is a book, that no matter how many books a.re written, always stands out in front in the market place, indicating that it contains the fundamentals for the building of a. life and the building of a. nation. Here is a. book that men and nations turn to in times of special strain and need. In the emergence of our nation, tho Bible became the anchor of hope. Here is a book that has a. singular connection and relationship with what we call human welfare, and has laid the foundation of education, democracy and all we call civ111za.tlon. Here is a book that has provided the inspiration of the best men and women in the history of our Nation. All this adds up to the significant fa.ct that the Bible shaped America.

As the Pilgram Fathers stepped a.shore with the Bible in their hands to build a. new nation based on the precepts of that Bible,

22428 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE July _12, 1977 so did the crew of Apollo 8 on December 21, 1968, carry that same Bible 230,000 miles into space to orbit the moon.

On Christmas Eve at 8:48 p.m. CST, Astronauts James A. Lovell, W1lliam A. Anders and Frank Borman sent Christmas Message across those 230,000 mlles, reminding America. and the world of the role of the Bible in the life of our Nation and its people. From the depths of outer space, their voices rang out stirring the minds and hearts of all the world:

Astronaut Borman began: "We are now approaching the lunar sunrise and for all the people back on earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send you."

Astronaut Anders began reading from the Book of Genesis: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form a.nd void a.nd darkness was upon the face of the deep ... "

Astronaut Lovell continued: "And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day ... "

Astronaut Borman concluded the message as he continued to read: "And God said let the waters under the heavens be gathered up together into one place. And the dry land appear. And it was so ... " As all the world listened, the Bible's message of creation became a memorable part of the mission into outer space in the same way as the message of the Bible became a memorable part of the mission to establish here a new Nation-a. Nation under God.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away."

FIGHTING AND REPRESSION CONTINUE IN LAOS

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the expulsion of the last Western correspondent in "liberated" Indochina by the Laotian Government last week reminds us that repression, fighting, and suffering continue in that part of the world. John Everingham, tht Austrian journalist who was hurriedly pulled off to jail with a pistol in his face by an officer of the Communist Party in Vientiane, vividly described in Sunday's Washington Post the horrors in Laos that Communist rule has perpetuated.

When America was ripping apart Laos with bombs, Mr. Everingham wrote articles and published photographs illustrating the massive destruction. The Pathet Lao assumed on the basis of the journalist's reports that he would issue reports favorable to the regime in the future. Indeed, Mr. Everingham hoped for a better future under the new regime.

But, the journalist tells us, disillusionment has grown steadily since the Communists took control. Laos has been ruled by force, and "fear has become the major motivating factor in changing the social fabric" of the country. The number of Laotians now in camps for "reeducation" or as outright political prisoners runs to about 50,000, a "startlingly high figure" for a nation of only 3 or 4 million people.

About 200,000 people have fled the country by crossing into Thailand, and thousands of others have fled into the jungle to begin the first full-scale anticommunist insurgency ever seen in the region. Mao guerrillas left over from the CIA-financed army, use arms and ammunition cached in remote mountain

areas years ago to conduct ambushes along Route 13, the main highway leading north from Vientiane. Now years since the United States withdrew from Southeast Asia, the fighting goes on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Everingham's important article be printed in the RECORD.


ARTICLE BY MR. EVERINGHAM

BANGKOK.-For 10 yea.rs Indochina. had become a. career. Through the courtesy of the new Communist government in Laos and my own guarded Journalism, I ha.d been permitted to remain as the sole Western correspondent in "liberated" Indochina. some two years after all the others had been squeezed out. Ten years of journalistic files and photographs were carefully preserved in my teakwood office in Vientiane, with its magnificent view through pa.Im trees to the Mekong River. Good relations with the government made my toehold on Communist soil appear as secure as the setting was serene.

Then, in the dratnatic style of an anticommunist horror tale came a knock on the door, a. pistol in the face, handcuffs, neither explanations nor permission to contact my embassy, and a swift trip off to jail. My last glimpse of my office showed two local employees, my translator and the keeper of my photographic library, plus a group of arriving friends similarly handcuffed, while six policemen were searching through my notes, books and films.

Since the jails of Vientiane have long been filled beyond capacity, my next six days were spent locked into the tiny kitchen of what was once the city's Masonic lodge. The room's one small window had once served food into the main hall, now home for nine Lao prisoners. For three days I lay on a wooden bench, handcuffed, permitted out only to the toilet before again being herded back in at gunpoint. Later, my captors brought a mattress from my house, a blanket, a towel and a toothbrush, and removed my handcuffs.

My six days in pri"on gave me time to reflect on what had caused my arrest. The previous rightist regime had threatened to exoel me for criticizing its benign neglect of the country. When America turned Laos into the most heavily bombed nation on earth, I wrote articles and published photo,zraphs 1llustra.ting the massive destruction. The incoming Pathet Lao a"sumed I would write in their favor, and, indeed, like ma.~es of Laotians, I hoped for a. better future under the new rulers. Dic::lllusionment was not far behind, for the Pathet Lao ruled by the gun and failed to live up to the expectations of the people. Perha.os, I surmised in jail, I was there for not lauding the new government in the manner expected of a friendly Journalist.

ACCUSED OF SPYING

The charges against me and the fl ve foreign friends who happened to visit my office on the day of my arrest, however, were more serious: We were accused of running a major spy ring. My office, with its volumes of information, was the "nerve center." For evidence, the police pulled from my office an assortment of notes, government press releases, letters to my wife in the Lao language and any information I had compiled a.bout the Lao Communist Party and its leaders.

The arrests and investigation, I learned after the fact, had been coordinated by a new internal secret police organization previously unknown to foreigners. Trained abroad, these police had their headquarters in the United States' old Silver City residential compound, seized by the Pathet Lao in 1975 but stm claimed by the American embassy.

The emergence of this newly discovered

secret police unit has led to speculation among diploma.ts that foreign missions in Vientiane wm soon become a target of the kind of internal survelllance practiced against the rest of Laotian society. Throughout the Lao v1lla.ges and urban communities, spy rings have been active almost since the Communists came to power two years ago, working to cleanse society of all elements that the new rulers consider either undesirable or subversive. Hardly a family in Vientiane today remains entirely intact.

The number of Laotians now in camps for "reeducation" or as outright political prisoners runs to about 50,000, a startlingly high figure for a tiny nation of only 3 or 4 million people. And the arrests continue. Regular flights from Vientiane to camps in the far north help ease the load on the overburdened prison system. New jails like the Masonic lodge in which I wa.s held simllarly help contain the huge influx of new inmates.

A SOCIETY RULED BY FEAR

Fear has become the major motivating factor in changing the social fabric from capitalist to communist.

In government offices, the knowledge that even suspicion of "unpatriotic behavior" or mistakes ca.n bring the feared midnight knock keeps all but the top party officials from making any decision that ca.n be avoided. The introduction of traditional Communist bureaucratic practices has led to red tape so impenetrable that, instead of the progress promised by the new regime, Laos appears to be sliding into deeper trouble.

Little of Vientiane's limited light industry has been put back into full production. Breakdowns occur, a.nd the government's severe restrictions on the spending of foreign currency forbid even state-controlled plants from purchasing the required spare parts abroad. A recent survey of the 18 sa.wmllls in -the Vientiane area showed only four in anything resembling full production. Half remained at a dead halt.

The Loatian economy was shattered the da.y the United States cut off all aid to the Communist regime in June, 1975. It has never recovered.

Thousands of city dwellers and small merchants have been forced back to rice farming, a move that eventually should help win the self-sufficiency in food that still eludes the new regime. For the moment, hunger has been averted only through the generosity of the Soviet Union, the regime's chief patron, which keeps some 400 technicians in Laos.

Superstitious farmers blamed last year's poor harvest on the new regime for banning the traditional fireworks festivals they believe fertilize the clouds. The farmers also resent the introduction of limited forms of communal farming-into a society where every farmer owns his own land-and the imposition of an unpopular rice tax designed to raise desperately required revenue.

Another source of enmity toward the regime is the soldiers' interference in the people's Buddhist practices. Buddhist holidays, previously the major events of the Lao calendar, have been reduced to working days, while Communist holidays like May Da.y now call for major festivities. The Lao people, with their traditional love of festivals and slow-paced lifestyle, do not seem to appreciate the regime's introduction of six-day work weeks, voluntary labor on Sundays and political indoctrination at night.

The reaction to these changes ha.s been uncharacteristically sharp for the Laotians. In addition to about 200,000 people who have fled the tiny country by crossing the Mekong into Thailand, thousands of Lao men and boys have fled into the jungle to ta.ke up a.rms and begin the first full-scale anti-Communist insurgency ever seen in the region.

The success of these rebels has puzzled all observers. Their only advantage is the sane-

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 22429

tua.ry of Thai soil a.cross the Mekong; despite government charges that U.S. a.id to Thailand is supporting the rebels, no one has found evidence of this.

In Laos' southern panhandle, these anticommunist rebels have managed to reverse the tables completely age.inst the Communists during the pa.st two yea.rs. The guerrillas control most of the countryside and villages along the Mekong plains while the Communists struggle tenaciously to control the major cities and highways age.inst their attacks.

The best-known of the rebel leaders, Bua. Lien, is a. former Pa.thet Lao soldier who switched to the rightist side with several hundred followers before the Communist takeover and now continues to fight from the jungles. "We can never even find him, let alone destroy him," one Pa.thet Lao official in Vientiane told me.

Help from Vietnamese troops sent south to fight on the government side has only driven more villagers in the traditionally conservative panhandle into the rebels' camps. With a. supply of wee.pons, the rebels could well pose a. serious threat to the survi va.l of the regime.

Further north, some 2,000 Meo guerrUla.s left over from the CIA-financed army led by Gen. Vang Pao have expelled all Communist troops from a. wide track of mountains stretching from the area. around their old base a.t Long Cheng below the Plain of Jars and west to the Thai frontier. The Meo reportedly a.re using arms and ammunition cached in remote mountain areas yea.rs a.go.

Meo ambushes have made Route 13, the main highway north from Vientiane to the old royal ca.pita.I at Lua.ng Praba.ng, as dangerous now as it was a.t the height of the war; only large convoys can make the trip safely.

In retrospect, the Laos I leave in 1977 is not much more settled than the Laos I found 10 yea.rs a.go. Laotians were killing Laotians in a. test of wills inspired by Ea.st and West. Though the Western power, the United States, has long since withdrawn, giving all the long-term odds to the Communists, the fighting goes on.

HUMAN RIGHTS A LIVE ISSUE IN EUROPE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have just returned from . a week-long trip to Europe where I traveled to learn more about the impact of our human rights campaign upon the people of that continent. I met with dissidents, government officials, and delegates to the preparatory meeting currently working on the agenda for the Belgrade Conference which will commence later in the year to review implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. All commented on the American position concerning human rights, and it is their views that I wish to share with my distinguished colleagues in the Senate.

DISSIDENT HOPEFUL

In Vienna, I met with refugees from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, and Soviet Russia, all of whom had left their respective homelands within the last 3 months.

The most recent emigre was Zdenek Mlynar who left Czechoslovakia on June 13. A high ranking Communist Party official during the Dubceck era, Mr. Mlynar was one of the original signers of Charter 77, a document calling for greater respect for human rights by one of the more repressive regimes in Eastern Europe. He assured me that Charter 77 represented the sentiments of most

of the people in Czechoslovakia. They also support America's current human rights crusade and they look to Belgrade with great hope for the future.

A refugee couple from Hungary, where the regime is . somewhat less repressive than in Czechoslovakia, informed me that they left their homeland to improve their spiritual and not their material condition. Since both are engineers, they owned their own apartment and an automobile. Still, they were no longer able to live in a country where they were always afraid to speak their mind, even with their closest friends.

Pavils Bruvers, a Baptist dissident from Soviet Latvia, indicated that despite a strong antireligious and Russiflca tion campaign, more and more young Latvians are being converted to the Baptist faith and the Latvian national heritage is far from dead. "The Russians try to intimidate other nations," Bruvers told me, "but they respect strength. That's why it's important for the United States to stand firm at Belgrade."

A Polish refugee echoed Bruver's words. The dissident movement is on the rise in Poland and the intellectuals are joining with the workers in an effort to reform the system. Most Poles, he told me, are relatively unfamiliar with their rights under Polish law. Thanks to Radio Liberty, however, they are learning about them and their dissatisfaction is growing.

Jurij Mnukh, one of the last members of the Helsinki Watch Committee in Moscow, informed me that while the short-term future of dissent in the Soviet Union appears to be grim, the longterm gains are bound to be beneficial. "The United States must be prepared for a long human rights campaign," he told me, "because the Soviet Union won't change overnight."

All of the dissidents agreed that a Helsinki process which continues to call attention to human rights must be preserved and continued after Belgrade.

While in Vienna, I also had an opportunity to visit the refugee camp at Traiskirchen and the Jewish resettlement center at Simmering. I was impressed with the devotion and dedication of the Austrian and Jewish staffs that administer these centers where refugees are welcomed and reassured as they begin to rebuild their lives.

ALLIES SKEPTICAL

At Belgrade, I learned that while some of our NATO allies agreed with our human rights position in principle, th.ey were somewhat skeptical of the efficacy of our present approach. Their feeling was that our unwillingness to compromise would damage detente. Like the dissidents, however, they felt that the Helsinki process must be preserved at Belgrade.

OUR DILEMMA

And that is the dilemma the United States is facing at the present time. On the one hand, we have the dissidentsthose who know the Communist countries best-urging us to remain firm in our conviction and not to give in at Belgrade lest the Soviets believe we have lost our will to pursue foreign policy objectives in the human rights arena. At

the same time, we must consider our allies-without who.Jll. w_e cannot _achi~ve our Belgrade objectives:_who are ready to compromise with the Soviets in order to save detente.

THE FUTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS

If there is one thing that I shall always remember from my trip to Europe, it is the great love for America expressed by the refugees and dissidents with whom I met. They believe we are still the greatest nation in the world, and they rejoice that we are willing to champion their cause. We cannot let them down.

No one is interested in confrontation if it proves to be counterproductive. Let us pursue, if necessary, a policy of quiet diplomacy if that will permit the Soviets to save face and allow them a period of respite so tha,t they can reassess tJ;leir approach. But let us not back away from our commitment. Let us continue to press firmly and without equivocation our concern for human rights and let us use every responsible means available to us to convince the Soviets that we must go beyond detente, beyond a simple relaxation of tensions, in our relations with each other. We must strive for a peace that is predicated on mutual trust and a respect for human dignity. Only in this way will we truly preserve the Helsinki process and use it to build a better world.

DIVULGE: HENNEPIN COUNTY'S CONFIDENTIAL TELEPHONE HOTLINE Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, our

criminal justice system badly needs the support and help of ordinary citizens. But sometimes fear of reprisal has stymied citizens' assistance to their law enforcement agencies.

The sheriff's department in Hennepin County, where Minneapolis is located, has developed a unique approach in obtaining investigative leads. The citizen who has information useful t:> the police, but wishes to remain anonymous, need only pick up the telephone and dial D,-I-V-U-L-G-E (348-8543) and leave the information on a tape. If the call is of an emergency nature or needs immediate attention, the caller is directed to call the central dispatching number.

Through this simple hotline system, the citizens of the Twin Cities have provided the police with useful leads. One of the primary reasons for the program's success is the ready identification of the DIVULGE number-the caller simply dials a single word.

The. July issue of FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin has an article describing DIVULGE, written by Donald Omodt, the sheriff of Hennepin County.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of Sherif! Omodt's article be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DIVULGE: HENNEPIN COUNTY'S CONFIDENTIAL

TELEPHONE HOTLINE

(By Dona.Id J. Omodt) Today, private citizens in the metropolltan

Twin City area of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn., are providing valuable investigative leads to law enforcement agencies telephon-

22430 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE July 12, 1977

ica.lly-by dialing 348-8543, DIVULGE. DIVULGE ls an a.round-the-clock hotline program which guarantees caller anonymity, and since its implementation by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department in July 1974, it has proven that local residents can be of significant assistance to law enforcement agencies.

Central to the DIVULGE program is a tape-recording device which is activated automatically when a citizen dials the DIVULGE number. Callers may remain anonymous or leave their names if they wish to be contacted during the next business day. At no time are their calls monitored, and no attempts are made to identify the callers.

DIVULGE callers offer their taped information at the conclusion of recorded instructions. These instructions advise them in part, as follows:

Thank you for calling our confidential reporting number. If your call is of an emergency nature or needs immediate attention, please hang up and call our central dispatching number. A deputy is on duty to handle such emergency calls. When leaving your nonemergency confidential information, please try to be as complete as possible. Include, if known, such things as the full name of the suspect, physical description, nicknames, license numbers, and date of birth. Please be assured that the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department will do its best to follow up your lead or refer it to the proper Jurisdiction. If you wish to have a deputy return your call on the morning of the next working day, you may also leave your telephone number. At the sound of the tone, you may leave your message.

Every business day at 7:45 a.m., messages from DIVULGE are evaluated and appropriately referred. The Minneapolis Division of the FBI, the Minneapolis Police Department, and many suburban police departments have received through DIVULGE informative leads which have contributed materially to a variety of investigations of child abuse, illicit drug traffic, prostitution, and other criminal activities.

No rewards are offered to induce callers to contact DIVULGE. Should the caller insist on monetary compensation or immunity from prosecution prior to "divulging" usable information, he or she is requested to meet personally with a detective from the department's criminal division. If the individual's lead is accurate and contributes to the solution of a particular case, he or she may be compensated or granted immunity, pending the approval of the county attorney's office.

One of the primary reasons for the program's success ls ready identification of the DIVULGE telephone number. The caller ls not required to spend time needlessly looking up an unfam111ar, meaningless telephone number; he simply must remember and dial a single word-DIVULGE.

Although less than $2,000 has been expended on advertising and promotional materials such as handouts and bumper stickers, DIVULGE has become a household word among Twin Cltia.ns. Bus placards have been an inexpensive but highly effective advertising medium, and last winter, these placards appeared as a public service message on more than 400 buses during a 120-day period. The only costs incurred by the sheriff's department were nominal printing expenses and labor charges for the installation and removal of the placards.

DIVULGE gained widespread attention in April 1975, when a local theatrical group performed a satirical skit about the inab111ty of a caller, when attempting to report criminal activities of an emergency nature, to remember the spelling of the word "DIVULGE." The skit appeared during prime time on a local television station in the Twin City area. A week later, during the same time slot, the station broadcast a letter of

clarification which stressed the nonemer- sons may be exposed to potential danger. An gency nature of the type of criminal activity, anonymous female caller reported that she actual or suspected, that should be reported had been raped by a suspect who was being to DIVULGE. Matters requiring immediate sought by police for a number of rapes in attention, it was emphasized, are to be re- the community. Because the caller's descrlpported directly to the department's emer- tion of the rapist was consistent with other gency communications center. known information, an attempt was made to

The effectiveness of publicity and adver- contact her through a notice in a local newstising is reflected in the number of calls re- pa.per. She failed to respond, and additional ceived through the DIVULGE program. Dur- efforts to locate her were ineffectual. Even ing the first month of operation, when a though a caller's failure to supply adequate multimedia promotional campaign was in information might present a major problem, full swing, more than 590 calls came in on police can only wait for the caller to reconthe hotllne. Although almost 75 percent of tact DIVULGE in the near future. these calls were blank or contained inadequate information, the promotion was successful in introducing DIVULGE to the Twin City area. Since that record-setting month, the average number of monthly calls has leveled off to 298. Since the program's implementation in 1974, 6,000 calls regarding criminal activity have been received.

More than 70 percent of the calls received during the first 2 years of the program were not usable. They were either prank calls, blank, or contained insufficient information. The high figure, however, was not considered significant in assessing the overall value of DIVULGE. Even a paucity of usable leads can be a justification for the program. For example, an escape from a county workhouse was averted as a result of a DIVULGE tip received in advance. Similarly, 2 months after the inception of DIVULGE, a call was received which led to the apprehension of two escapees from a State reformatory. A bicycle-theft ring was broken up also as a result of DIVULGE tips.

Typical of DIVULGE calls is one received in early 1976. An anonymous female caller described an automobile, its trunk filled with small business machines, which had pulled into a local gas station. The occupants of the car sold one of the ma.chines to the station manager. The caller recorded the automobile llcense number, dialed DIVULGE, and reported the incident. The call was reported to the appropriate department, and suspects were, subsequently, ta.ken into custody.

The narcotics division of' the sheriff's department has had good success in pursuing leads that a.re relayed through DIVULGE. Almost 55 percent of the usable tips that come in over DIVULGE involve the possession and sale of illegal narcotics. Although the majority of the leads do not result in immediate arrests, the information ls often helpful in building a case against a suspect arrested at a later date. All usable tips are carefully checked for validity before an arrest is effected or the information ls entered in permanent DIVULGE case fl.les. In the interest of protecting the civil rights of the individual, information is not recorded in the DIVULGE case files until corroborating evidence 1~ obtained.

Although the potential for recruiting new informants through DIVULGE exists, the program ls not designed to fulfill such a function. The principle of caller anonymity is basic to DIVULGE. It ls conceivable, however, if a particular caller regularly supplied reliable information, pollce would attempt to contact him by telephone, assuming he had volunteered his name and telephone number. If such an informant wished to remain anonymous, he might be assi,Jned a number which would be used as an identifier for subsequent contacts. In this way, police might be able to procure warrants when feasible without disclosing the caller's name. But, as of yet, there have been no instances of individuals supplying viable leads via DIVULGE on a. regular basis.

To date, less than 3 percent of the callers have revealed their identities or volunteered their telephone numbers, and no attempt has been ma.de to contact the callers unless circumstances indicate that they or other per-

Although the prank calls constitute less than 7.9 percent of all calls received, every call is ta.ken seriously. In May 1976, DIVULGE received several threats from one individual who warned of a bombing at a. Twin City elementary school. Although the voice of the caller indicated that he may have been of grade school age, a thorough search of the school was conducted prior to each of the three times the caller said a bomb was to detonate. Despite the facts that no bomb was discovered and no explosion ever occurred, the risk was too great to ignore such a threat. When the lives of innocent people a.re on the line, every precaution must be taken.

It is believed that prc,zra.ms like DIVULGE have a bright future. The potential is great. As long as citizens continue to provide police with good leads, there will always be a place in law enforcement for the confidential telephone hotline.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President,

Robert Hill, U.S. Ambassador to Argentina retired from his post after serving in that important and troubled country for nearly 4 years. This was the fifth ambassadorship for Bob Hill in his long and distinguished career with the State Department which started in 1944 as a vice consul in India.

Many of us remember Bob Hill from his days as clerk of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee during the 80th Congress. Later, he served successfully as Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations under John Foster Dulles, The Congress came to know him well during this assignment.

A number of prestigious papers in Argentina printed complimentary remarks about Ambassador Hill's tour of duty in their country. As one example, I ask unanimous consent that recognition of Ambassador Hill's service, as noted by La Prensa of May 9, 1977, be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

After residing three years among us, Mr. Robert C. Hill, Ambassador of the United States of America, leaves to return to his country. His task was not easy, for he had to work during one of the most agitated periods of our political evolution, while at the same time the great democracy of the north suffered the crisis that culminated With President Nixon's resignation.

In the complex circumstances he had to face, he displayed tact and prudence, demonstra tlng an exact understa.ndlng of our difficulties a.nd an unchanging respect for our nation. This shows a. thorough knowledge of and a sincere affection towards our country, affection that has been amply reciprocated.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE 22431 When the change of government in our

country occurred, hls opinion was with no doubt a decisive factor in the immediate recognition of our new government by the U.S., with the favorable consequences that this recognition had in our relations abroad.

The circles he frequented here have bidden him farewell with the cordiality and respect he rightfully earned. It ls fitting, moreover, to leave written evidence that he has efficiently accomplished hls mission, not only in regards to his country, which he has represented with intelligence and ability, but also in regards to ours.

TAX DEDUCTION REPEAL-A BURDEN ON THE MOTORING PUBLIC Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the

city of Chester, S.C., has a population of around 7 ,000. Its people are hardworking, engage in a va~ety of occupations from farming to textiles, and are representative of the makeup of many of the small towns throughout South Carolina.

Don McKeown, the editor of the Chester newspaper, the News and Reporter wrote an article on the House Ways 'and Means Committee's action to repeal the income tax deduction for State gasoline taxes that undoubtedly reflects the feelings of many citizens in small towns and rural areas not only in south Carolina but all across the country.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this editorial which appeared in the June 29 edition of the Chester News and Reporter be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: TAX DEDUCTION REPEAir-A BURDEN ON THE

MOTORING PUBLIC The federal income tax deduction for

state and local gasoline taxes may get the axe if the Congress follows the lead of the House Ways and Means Committee. That committee, which has Rep. Ken Holland of South Carolina's Fifth District as a member, decided June 9 to repeal the deduction for state and local gasoline taxes that has been granted on federal income tax returns. The reason given by the committee for the decision to eliminate the deduction was that it would reduce driving and, consequently, save fuel. No doubt that ls another energy conservation plan based on the economic theory of supply and demand. When one controls the price, one also controls the demand.

Apparently, the committee and the administration believe that by making the product less attractive in cost, the demand wlll diminish, thus helping the nation conserve its precious energy supply. The theory sounds good, but does it work today? We tend to believe that motorists will continue to buy gasoline without a substantial decrease and cut corners elsewhere to pay the price. Surely if the tremendous increase in gasoline prices since 1973 has not curtailed gasoline consumption by the American public, then the loss of this income tax deduction would have no effect. Let's face the reality that the continuing increase in gasoline prices over the past four years has not produced an-y great evidence that would substantiate the committee's reasoning.

What repeal of this deduction would do, in our opinion, would be to affect drivers living in rural areas who have no alternative means of transportation to get to and from work. Those who reside in one county-as ls the case here in Chester County-but work in another would have an extra burden to carry. We're not talking of Joy riding, but, instead, of the amount of driving done as a

necessity. We're talking about people who live in Chester County and work at Grace Bleachery at Lancaster, or in Columbia, or Charlotte, Rock Hlll, Carlisle, or other places. We're also talking about traveling salesmen. These are working people whose jobs depend on their transportation. What kind of job would it be if the cost of transportation to and from work became too high for the worker.

That may be all well and good in metropolitan areas where there are mass transportation systems that would allow reasonable, quick service. But, in small counties and states, the automobile ls the only means of transportation anu many people must depend on it for a livelihood.

Also, a great majority of the states that impose income taxes pattern their tax generally on the federal return and permit the federal gas tax deduction to be counted as a state deduction as well. County and municipal governments in some states do the same. Thus, we believe that any change in the federal deduction allowed the motoring public will have a ripple e!l'ect throughout the tax structure of state and local governments.

The little man is left holding an empty bag once again.

FEDERAL LANDS Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, recently

a hearing was held in Seattle by the Subcommittee on Genera: Oversight and Alaska Lands of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The subcommittee's hearing dealt with an issue of great importance to my State, the congressional consideration of Federal lands withdrawn for study as potential additions to the National Park, Wildlife Refuge, National Forest, and Wild and Scenic River Systems. One of the witnesses at this hearing was Washington's Governor, DixY Lee Ray.

Governor Ray, a renowned biologist, and former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, dealt with many of the problems which Congress will be faced with during its consideration of the "d-2" lands issue. Governor Ray's testimony speaks for itself, and I commend it to the other Members of the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this testimony be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the testimony was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DRAFT SUGGESTED TESTIMONY FOR Gov. DIXY

LEE RAY BEFORE THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON ALASKA LANDs-SEATTLE, JUNE 18, 1977 Mr. Chairman and members of the Com

mittee: I am here to discuss with you how the concept of "national interest" lands should be applied to Alaska. The solution to this issue wlll have profound effect on Alaska's future, certainly. In addition, however, the effects of Congressional action on Section 17 (d) (2) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act wm extend far beyond

. Alaska's borders. They wlll affect the economy of the State of Washington almost directly, the economy and energy supply of the entire Nation, and potentially they wlll affect the underlying relationships between the state and federal landowners and managers throughout the West and the Nation as a whole. Gentlemen, your present deliberations a.re much more than a last cha.nee to do something "nice" for the environment. They a.re bound up not only in conservation, but also in the very economic fa.bric of the

Northwest and the entire energy situation in the United States.

Certainly, the establishment of a rational number of new national parks, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and national forests in Alaska should be a high priority for Congress. This action is in the national interest, and also in the interest of the State of Ala.ska, as expressed to me by Governor Hammond. But I would encourage you not to forget that the national interest in Alaska is more complicated than Just the preservation of scenic and recreational land values. National interest also involves a reasonable access to Alaska's minerals and energy. And the national interest in Alaska involves establishing a climate of close cooperation between the Federal Government and the state of Alaska (which will own over 104 million acres) and the Alaska Native Corporations (which will control over 44 million acres) . I do not believe the broad national interest lies in a simplistic cordoning off of huge areas with little more than scenic grandeur and wildlife populations in mind.

This Committee can do no better than to reach a middle ground, within which Alaska's multitude of truly significant scenic, wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values would be well protected, Alaska's mineral and energy sources could be extracted in an environmentally sensitive manner, and Native landowners would have true incentives to manage their lands in true cooperation with the federal land managers. Such a climat~ne of cooperation, reasonableness, and stab111ty-could only be in the nation's as in this region's, best interest. I would like to briefly outline a few principles that I would encourage the Committee to keep in mind as you deliberate this important issue.

The first of these involves the rationality of certain land management units and practices, and the irrationality of alternative methods. There has been much talk regarding "protection" of "whole ecosystem" in Ala.ska. As an ecologist, I can tell you that this ls not only a severe misuse of a scientific term, but a self-delusory concept under most existing proposals. Ecosystems have no regard for political boundaries. True Ecosystem management requires cooperation, even in the vast land masses of Alaska, between adjoining landowners. It is as simple as that. It is simply not within the purview, even of the United States Congress, to legislate ecological boundaries and thereby insure that all values within these boundaries will be managed as intended by either Congress or the federal land manager.

I feel it is incumbent upon you to design some system of cooperative management not only to insure that federal lands are not adversely affected by activities of adjoining landowners, but also to insure that the entire State of Alaska, as opposed to simply that fragment of Alaska that wlll be federally owned, is managed on a rational basis for state, regional, and national needs. It ls within your power to establish a system for cooperative management between federal, state, and native landowners in Alaska. I hear from Alaska that they would be very kindly disposed to participating in such a system. I personally feel that this legacy would be an even prouder legacy than simpleminded creation of new units of parks and wildlife refuges in A~aska, with nothing new and creative established to address the broader, more basic problem of holistic land management.

Secondly, it is clear that the lands under question are, indeed, property of the people of United States as a whole. (Parenthetically, let me say here that I would urge this Committee to delete the portion of HR 39 that take back land already patented or tentatively approved to the State of Alaska. This seems a clear abrogation of the Alaska State-

22432 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE July 12, 1977 hood Compact.) It is clear that everyone in the United States should have something to say about how federally owned lands in Alaska are managed. However, it seems a principle of logic and history that the people most affected by government actions, that is the people who live nearest those actions, should have a lot to say about the day-to-day implementation of any federal action. This should be true not only because they are the people most affected in their daily lives by the federal decision, but also because they are the people who could surely make day-today decisions more intelligency than anyone sitting in Washington, D.C.

It is ironic to me that when the people of Alaska were fighting the Nixon-Ford OCS leasing program, in an attempt to moderate its speed and allow Alaska's tiny coastal communities a chance to get ready and ameliorate massive cultural change, many environmental groups took their side and reaffirmed the basic right of local people to be "a little more equal". Even in HR 39, the wisdom of letting local people have a lot to say regarding hunting and fishing regulations is reaffirmed. And yet, this Committee to date has seemed totally resistant to the notion that people of the State of Alaska should have a formalized advisory vote concerning management of lands within their state.

The people of Alaska have, it seems to me, put forth a most generous offer. They do not ask that their opinions be determinative in the future over federal land. In addition, they have offered the federal government (in the person of the federal side of the Land Classification Commission they are proposing) an equivalent say over management of lands owned by the State of Alaska. I would urge the Committee to consider seriously this very earnest proposal by Alaska for cooperative management and the Joint commission, through which a local voice may be heard in the future.

Thirdly, I would like to stress to this Committee that Alaska ls an extremely progressive state in terms of land management. Recent hearings have tended to cast Alaskans as rapists of the wilderness and unrepentent, voracious developers. If this is the case, why does Alaska have the largest state park system in the nation? Why has Alaska already set aside over four and a half m1111on acres of their roughly thirty-five m1111on acres of patented and tentatively approved land as state parks, critical habitats and refuges? H this ls so, why have the people elected a dedicated conservationist as Governor? Why did Alaska take the stand it did on the Federal Outer Continental Leasing Program? Why has Alaska established incredibly strict tanker 11ab111ty standards? Why has Aleyska Pipeline Service Company continually complained that Alaska State pipeline monitors were doing their Job much too thoroughly? I submit to you, that if any state of the union can be trusted to be a full, fair partner in cooperative management of state and national interest lands, it is the State of Alaska.

Fourth, as a trained biological scientist, I would like to stress unequivocally that I believe that it is very possible to extract needed energy and mineral resources from Alaska while at the same time protecting not only basic biological resources, but also scenic, recreational and wilderness resources. All it takes ls a little creative management and hard work by the respective land managers.

To allow this to happen would require a non-traditional approach among some of the federal management agencies. We should never forget that these agencies (such as the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service) were designed several decades ago, for other parts of the country than Alaska. It makes no sense to try to force the round peg of Alaska into the square hole of federal management. I would hope the Committee would reconsider the attempt to do this, and instead

consider more flexible guidelines and rules under which federal agencies may manage Alaskan land.

As Governor of a western state containing a significant amount of federal land, I have become increasingly aware that the system as it now exists ls much too open to bureaucratic abuse by well-meaning but narrowly directed federal land managers. I feel it would be in the best interest of all western states if Alaskan land questions could be solved in such a way that might lead the way to new cooperation between federal and state governments throughout the western United States. Our coming need to rationally balance environmental and economic concerns makes this imperative. The alternative ls a western United States full of federal and state enclaves, fighting one another at their boundaries, and a disastrously patchwork land ownership and management system. An enlightened Congress can insure that this does not occur in Alaska, and I urge your thorough consideration of the cooperative management proposals that are before you.

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK FINANCING NOTIFICATION

Mr. PROXMmE. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues a communication I have received from the Export-Import Bank pursuant to section 2(b) (3) of the Export-Import Bank Act notifying the Congress of a proposed Eximbank loan and guarantee to assist the construction of a nuclear power plant in Spain. Section 2(b) (3) of the act requires the Bank to notify the Congress of any proposed loan, guarantee, or combination thereof in amount of $60 million or more at least 25 days of continuous session of the Congress prior to the date of final approval. Upon expiration of this period, the Bank may give final approval to the transaction unless the Congress dictates otherwise.

In this case, the Bank proposes to extend a loan in the amount of $85,250,-000 to three Spanish electric-utility companies and a guarantee of loans by . private financial institutions in the amount of $54,250,000 to assist construction and provide the initial fuel core of a 930 megawatt nuclear powerplant in Spain. Exim's participation will cover 90.0 percent of the total cost of U.S. goods and services for the project. The loan will bear interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum. The portion of the loan and the guaranteed private loans which is for construction of the nuclear plant will be repayable over a 12-year period commencing April 1, 1984, and the portion of the loan and the guaranteed private loan for fuel fabrication will be repayable over a 5-year period beginning April l, 1984.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Exim pertaining to this transaction together with the accompanying materials be printed in the RECORD.


WASHINGTON, D.C., June 29, 1977.

Hon. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Chairman, Senate Committee on Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance with Section 2(b) (3) of the Export-Import Bank

Act of 1945, I have reported to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on application currently pending consideration by the Bank. I respectfully furnish herewith a copy of this statement for your consideration . .

Sincerely, JOHN L. MOORE, Jr.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 29, 1977.

Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE, President of the Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Pursuant to Section 2(b) (3) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, Exlmbank hereby submits a statement to the United States Senate with respect to the following transaction involving U.S. exports to Spain.

A. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION 1. Purpose

Eximbank is prepared to extend a direct credit of $85,250,000 to three Spanish electric ut111ties-Empresa Naclonal de Electrlcldad, S.A. (ENDESA), Empresa Nacional Hldroelectrlca del Ribagorzana, . .- s~i, (ENHER), and Electricas Reunidas de Zara.:: goza, S.A. (ERZ) (Borrowers) and to guarantee loans by private financial institutions to the Borrowers in the amount of $54,250,-000 for purchase of a U.S. nuclear power plant and initial fuel core. Repayment of the Exlmbank credit and the loans guaranteed by Exlmbank will be unconditionally guaranteed by Instituto Nacional de Industrla, Banco Espanol de Credito, Banco Hispano Amertcano, Banco March, Banco de Bilbao, Banco Central, Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Zaragoza and Banco de Vizcaya (Guarantors). The participation of each Borrower and Guarantor will be as follows:

Percent of financing, borrower, and guarantor:

72.5%, ENDESA, and Instituto Nacional de Industrla.

15.0%, ENHER, and Instituto Nacional de Industria.

12.5%, ERZ, and Banco Espanol de Credito, Banco Hispano Americano, Banco March, Banco de Bilbao, Banco Central, Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Zaragoza and Banco de Vizcaya (Jointly and severally).

The purpose of the Eximbank financing ls to facilitate the purchase from the United States of goods and services required for the construction and initial fuel core of one 930 MW nuclear power plant to be located in the Province of Zaragoza and designated as the Escatron 1 project. The power plant, when completed, will be directly tied into the Spanish national power grid.

The principal portion of the U.S. equipment and material which is to be financed by . Eximbank wlll be manufactured in the United States by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The related services will be performed by Westinghouse and other United States firms. The estimated total project construction cost is $950, 700,000 of which $155,000,000 represents purchases or United States goods and services, including the initial fuel fabrication costs estimated to be approximateiy $18,000,000.

Exports of the equipment and fuel will be made within the framework of a bilateral Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Spain Concerning Civil Use of Atomic Energy, which entered into force on June 28, 1974. Safeguard provisions required by the bilateral Agreement -for Cooperation were implemented by a trilateral Agreement to Amend the Agreement of 9 December 1966 Between the Interna;.. tional Atomic Energy Agency, the Government of Spain and the Government of the United States of America for the Application of Safeguards, which also entered into force

July 12, 1977 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 2·2433 on June 28, 1974. Recently, the Spanish Government has agreed upon mutual consultation and agreement prior to the reprocessing of non-U.S. origin fuel irridated in U.S.supplied reactors. In order to avoid changing the terms of the 1974 bilateral Agreement for Cooperation to reflect such reprocessing assurances in advance· of negotiations for over-all revision of that Agreement, the State Department has argeed to commence such negotiations no later than November l, 1977. These negotiations will seek to incorporate as provisions in the amended Agreement the assurances on reprocessing of non-U.S. origin fuel.

The Spanish Government has also agreed that no U.S.-supplied material can be used for any nuclear explosive device.

Under Spanish procedures, the electric utility companies receive commitments from ENUSA, the Spanish nuclear fuel agency, for the supply of enriched uranium for fuel when needed for specific nuclear plants. ENUSA draws on various global sources for enrichment services, including the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. At present; ENUSA • has an open commitment from ERDA to supply fuel enrichment services for two additional Spanish nuclear power plants, but a required "Appendix" to that contract which would make the commitment apply specifically to fuel for Esca tron 1 has not yet been negotiated. If chronological order prevails, it is likely that the ERDA commitment will be used for the Sayago and Vandellos 2 nuclear projects and, in that event, fuel enrichment services for Escatron 1 would have to come from the Soviet Union or, when completed, from the French-led Eurodif facility. Thus, the Eximbank financing support for the initial fuel applies only to fabrication costs and not to enrichment services.

The Executive Branch has approved Eximba.nk's financing for this project. Export licenses must be obtained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before export of the equipment and fabricated fuel for the Esca-. tron 1 project. Applicatipn for such export licenses for Escatron 1 is now pending before the NRC.

2. Identity of the parties ENDESA, incorporated in 1944, is a corpo

ration owned 90.75 % by Instituto Naciona.l de Industria. (IN!). ENDESA is the 8th largest electric utility enterprlse in Spain and has, in addition to its role as a producer of electricity, the function of expanding the usage of Spain's indigenous coal reserves.

ENHER, incorporated in 1946, is a "national enterprise" corporation controlled by Instituto Nacional de IndusJ;ria. (!NI) and is the 6th largest electric utility enterprise in Spain. .

ERZ, a small integrated private company, is the 13th largest electric utility in Spain.

Instituto Na.clonal de Industria (!NI) is an autonomous agency of the Spani~h State established in 1941 to promote the establishment and reorganization of industrial enterprises important to the economic development of Spa.in.

Banco Espanol de Credito is a commercial bank located in Madrid and founded in 1902, with total assets of $9,926.7 million, capital and surplus of $665.0 million.

Banco Hispano America.no is a. commercial bank located 'in Madrid and founded in ·1901, with total assets of $11,648.0 million, capital and surplus of $481.6 million.

Banco March is a commercial bank located in Palma de Mallorca and founded in 1946, with total assets of $916.7 million, capital and surplus of $80.3 million.

Banco de Bilbao is a. commercial bank located in Bilbao and founded in 1857, with total assets of $8,093.1 million, capital and surplus of $532.9 million.

CXXW--1412-Fart 18

Banco Central is a commercial bank located in Madrid and founded in 1919, with total assets of $12,718.4 million, capital and surplus of $551.0 million.

Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Zaragoza is a savings bank located in Zaragoza., with· total assets of $1.552.3 million, capital and surplus of $55.5 million.

Banco de Vizcaya is a commercial bank located in Bilbao and founded in 1901, with total assets of $14,058.3 million, capital and surplus of $665.0 million.

3. Nature and use of goods and services The principal goods to be exported from

the United States for use in the construction and initial fuel core of the project will consist of a nuclear steam supply system, a main turbine-generator set and components. In addition, Westinghouse and other United States firms will perform various related technical services in connection with the design, installation, fuel fabrication and startup operations of the nuclear power plant.

Projected generation costs, calculated by commonly accepted utility standards, for the Escatron 1 nuclear power plant are approximately 34 mills/kWh as compared to 44 mills/kWh for an alternative oil-fl.red power plant operating under the Spanish conditions. Operation of an oil-fired plant comparable to the Escatron 1 nuclear plant would require an increase in Spanish oil imports of approximately 8 million barrels/year at a cost of approximately $115 million/year.

B. EXPLANATION OF EXIMBANK FINANCING

1. Reasons The proposed extension of credit by Exim

bank in the amount of $85,250,000 and the guarantees of $54,250,000 of private financing will result in the export of $155,000,000 of United' States goods and services.

Eximbank perceives no adverse impact on the United States economy from the export of these goods and services. This transaction will have a favorable impact on employment for substantial numbers of United States workers, as well as on the United States balance of trade. The domestic market for nuclear power equipment has been well below our productive capacity and, therefore, foreign orders have· become a vital portion of United States nuclear power equipment manufacturers' business which enables those manufacturers to retain specialized engineering and technical staffs and production work forces. Westinghouse estimates that, for itself and other suppliers (expected to include, among others, Bechtel Corporation, Combustion Engineering, Cameron Iron Works, Speedway Machine and Tool, Lukens Steel, Allis-Chalmers and · Esco Corporation), the Escatron 1 project will generate 7,500 direct man/years of work in more than 30 cities in at least 18 states.

Power plants in general, and particularly nuclear power plants, are classic examples of the economic necessity for Eximba.nk support. Private U.S. export financing sources are normally limited to 5 to 7 year maturities. In this project, however, the construction perioa. is over six years, with another twelve years repayment period, making a total term of more than 18 years. Thus, private financing is inadequate to meet the financial requirements of this project. Eximbank has had to extend both a credit and a guarantee in order to generate sufficient funding to enable this project to go forward.

Competitive prices and dependable performance by U.S. suppliers, together with the avaliability of Eximbank financial assistance, have resulted in repeat orders of nuclear plants from the United States. However, today manufacturers in Germany, France, Japan, Canada and Sweden are fully capable of supplying complete nuclear steam supply systems. These countries, together with Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Italy and others, are capable of supplying all or part of the

equipment for the Escatron 1 project at competitive prices and delivery schedules. In fact, in July, 1975, a Spanish nuclear power plant in which ERZ is a participant was awarded to German suppliers.

In the case of Escatron l, there was intense French competition with highly favorable financing terms supported through the French government-supported export credit insurance agency, COFACE. Suppliers from France and the other countries mentioned above are continuing their intense marketing . efforts for nuclear plant sales in Spain, and the national export credit agencies of these countries will continue to aggressively support their manufacturers.

In view of the magnitude of the transaction, the necessary repayment term and the existence of foreign competition, Eximbank's credit and guarantee are necessary to secure this sale for United States manufacturers.

2. The financing plan The total cost of United States goods and

services to be purchased by the Borrowers is $155,000,000, which will be financed as follows:

[Dollar amounts in thousands!

Plant Fuel costs costs

Percent of U.S.

Total costs

Cash payment_ _________ $13, 700 $1, 800 $15, 500 10. 0 Eximbank credit__ ______ 75, 350 9, 900 85, 250 55. O Private guaranteed loans. 47, 950 6, 300 54, 250 35. O

Total__ ________ .. 137, 000 18, 000 155, 000 100. 0

(a) Eximbank Charges The Eximba.nk credit will bear interest at

. the rate of 8 % per annum, payable semiannually. A commitment fee of 0.5 % per annum will also be charged on the undisbursed portion of the Eximba.nk credit. In addition, Eximbank will charge a guarantee fee of 1 % per annum on disbursed a.mounts of the guaranteed loans and a commitment fee of 0.125 % on undisbursed a.mounts of the guaranteed loans.

(b) Repayment Terms The Eximbank credit and private guaran

teed loans for the nuclear plant costs, which total $123,300,000, will be repaid by the Borrowers in 24 semiannual installments beginning April 1, 1984. The first 9 and a portion of the 10th installment will be applied to repayment of the private guaranteed loans and a portion. of the 10th and all of the last 14 installments will be applied to repayment of the Eximbank direct credit.

'.!'he Eximba.nk credit and private guaranteed loans for the fuel fabrication costs, which total $16,200,000, will be repaid by the Borrowers in 10 equal semiannual installments beginning April 1, 1984. The first 3 and a portion of the 4th installment will be applied to repayment of the private guaranteed loans and a portion of the 4th and all of the last 6 installments will be applied to repayment of the Eximbank credit.

Sincerely, JOHN L. MOORE, Jr.

HARD ENERGY VERSUS SOFT ENERGY

Mr. GARN. Mr. President, I should· like to introduce into the RECORD another in the series of criticisms of Amory Lovins' essay on foreign affairs, "Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken." This essay is by Daniel Kane, a professional engineer, and president of the nonprofit Council on Energy Independence. Mr. Kane's particular preference is for coal gasification and liquefication, and he.has some particularly critical comments

2·2434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977

with respect to Mr. Lovins' expertise as a power engineer. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kane's article be printed in the RECORD.


A PERSPECTIVE AS TO THE TOTAL COST OF "SOFT" ENERGY

(By Daniel W. Kane) Amory Lovins is rather specific about what

he wishes to do away with, but is vague when it comes to what will replace the items eliminated. For example, he wishes to do away with, and feels there is no real need for, central electric power stations regardless of power source ( coal and nuclear central power stations at present and solar central power stations in the future) . Nor does he believe that large-scale coal gasification and liquefaction plants for producing synthetic natural gas and gasoline should be built. Instead, the above items would be replaced by "soft technology" hardware, such as household solar panels, fluidized-bed coal burners and household or local windmills.

Much of Mr. Lovins' theory is reminiscent of certain ideas utilized by the People's Republic of China during the "Great Leap Forward." At that time. certain Chinese policy-makers stated that new large "central station" iron and steel production plants were not needed to double production. What was needed were thousands of backyard iron furnaces and steel converters, which the Chinese proceeded to build by the tens of thousands. It is rumored that as many as 20 million Chinese may have been involved in the effort. The backyard steel turr~ed out to be unusable due to its poor quality, and the "Great Leap Forward" became the "Great Leap Backward." Apparently, Mr. Lovins believes that the United States can succeed where the Chinese failed.

"SOFT" COSTS

It is well recognized by ~xperienced engineers that a practical home he,ating system based on solar panels at most United States locations can at best supply roughly one-half of the necessary household heating, and that a conventional (e.g., gas) heating system ls also necessary if one wishes to avoid freezing at certain times during the winter. It is our understanding that such solar heating systems currently sell for $7,000 to $10,000 or more installed. The price ls not likely to be reduced radically in the near future since a significant portion of the total cost is due to installation charges.

Assuming that a $7,000 solar panel heating system were required per home or per two apartments, and assuming that the system was installed in virtually all U.S. homes and apartments (there were 40 million homes and 24 million apartments in the United States in 1970 1 ), as Mr. Lovins suggests, the resultant cost to the American public which Lovins neglected to provide, would be $364 billion. This cost would, of course, be directly borne by home and apartment owners.

There is certainly not likely to be any immediate stampede to buy these heating systems without a heavy government subsidy. Most people do not have $7,000 to spare and would have to borrow money from a bank under a home improvement loan. Should one get a "real deal," say an 8% % loan and a 30-year repayment schedule, the homeowner would have to pay $660 per year to the bank for the solar heating system, non-inclusive, of course, of any maintenance costs. Since the homeowner would save only roughly half his gas bill, the gas bill would have to exceed $1,300 per year in order for him to break even.

If, however, the homeowner gets a more

1 U.S. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1974 (9·5th Edition), Washington, D.C., 1974.

common 12 % home improvement loan, repayable in ten years, his yearly payment would be $1 ,205 and his "break-even" gas bill would have to be over $2,400 a year. Even with the 8% % loan, natural gas prices would need to increase by three times or more before solar panel - heating truly becomes barely economical to homeowners.

If the U.S. government and/ or industry were to invest $364 billion in large-scale coal gasification plants to produce synthetic natural gas for homeowner use, the "problem" of natural gas shortages would essentially be solved.

Mr. Lovins' idea of providing electricity ( or some other convenient source of energy) via home windmills is even more "innovative," and the costs even more immense. The amount of electric power required by the typical modern home is relatively ·large. And to our knowledge, systems have yet to be marketed in the U.S. which would supply reasonable quantities of electricity (e.g., 600-700 kilowatthours per month) at affordable costs.

A typical system is stated to supply only around 375 kilowatthours per month and cost $10,000 to $15,000. If, for illustrative purposes, one assumes that an adequate system can be made available and installed for $10,000 and that such a system will serve either one home or two apartments, then using the number of homes and apartments previously listed, the cost would be $250 billion to the U.S. public.

Assuming again that the bank provides an interest rate of 8% % on a $10,000 loan over 30 years, the homeowner must pay $944 a year for his windmill, again non-inclusive of maintenance. Unless electric bills from utilities exceed $944 a year, most people are not going to rush out to buy home windmill electrical systems. (Incidentally, the cost per kilowatthour (kWh) from the home electric windmill system, assuming that it generates 700 kWh/month, would be 11.3 cents/kWh.)

Government subsidies in the form of comparatively low interest rate loans could, of course, make windmills more attractive. However, even a loan at the low rate of 6% would require repayment at a $719-per-year rate for a $10,000 loan repayable over a 30-year payment period.

The cost 2 to the public of both solar panel heating ($364 billion) and windmill power systems ($520 billion) comes therefore to roughly $884 billion. In comparison, Lovins estimates that "hard technologies" would require the power industries_ to make an approximate $1 trillion investment, an amount he considers to be too expensive. But, it is important to note that a trillion dollars spent by the power industry will supply at least several times the additional power that a similar expenditure by American homeowners would "save" or produce.

For example, to double present electrical generating capacity (using a mixture of coal and nuclear power plants) would cost very roughly around $520 billion, assuming a cost of construction of $1,000 per kilowatt of electricity, which is certainly a reasonable number based on actual power plants being planned at this time. However, for $520 billion home windmills would provide electricity only for the homes themselves. Since home use of electricity is approximately 33 % of total U.S. electricity usage, homeowners would be paying, in effect, $520 billion to in-

2 A discussion of the economics of the last "soft technology" solution to the energy problem, fluidized-bed home coal burners, is somewhat pointless since tl)ey are not available in the United States. However, when and if they do become available, probably a reasonable guess is that they would cost $5,000 or more installed. Full utilization of such a system in the United States would be, therefore, in the hundreds of billions of dona.rs.

crease U.S. electrical generating capacity by only 33 %-industry would also have to spend roughly that same amount to increase generating capacity by 100 %. Consequently, Mr. Lovins' suggestion would appear to be non-cost effective by a factor of three or more.

ALCOHOL POWER

Among the numerous questionable "facts," statistics and statements in Lovins' article are a few points that provide some insight as to his competence in the power field. He implies, for example, that if the volume of U.S. production of beer and wine were scaled up by a factor of 10 to 14, we would have enough alcohol to replace one-third of total annual gasoline demand-assuming, of course, that one distills out the alcohol. His numbers appear to be off by roughly a factor of 10 or more. To illustrate: in 1973 a, U.S. wine production was 599 million gallons, beer production 4,433 million gallons, and gasoline production, 2,399 million barrels (at 42 gallons per barrel, this equals roughly 100,800 million gallons of gasoline) . Assuming beer to be 5.5 % alcohol by volume and wine 10%, and assuming a heating value for gasoline of 20,000 Btu per pound and that for ethyl alcohol 12,800 Btu per pound, it was calculated that the equivalent of roughly 839,000 million gallons of beer and wine would be required to replace one-third of total gasoline demand, or 33,600 million gallons of gasoline. Thus, the ratio of required to present production of beer and wine is roughly 166 (836,000 million divided by 5,032 million). Mr. Lovins arrived, somehow, at the ratio 10-14. Furthermore, the 166 ratio does not take into account the heat necessary to distill out the alcohol. Thus, the actual ratio is presumably even higher.

Mr. Lovins' knowledge of power engineering in general, and nuclear engineering in particular, appears to be on a par with his knowledge of wine and beer production. Example: "Where we want only to create temperature differences of tens of degrees, we should meet the need with sources whose potential is tens or hundreds of degrees, not with a flame temperature of thousands or a nuclear temperature of millions-like cutting butter with a chainsaw." Typically, the highest temperature in a light-water power reactor is the fuel centerline temperature which is roughly 4,000°F-the cladding temperature of the fuel is approximately 600°F, while the steam is produced in the 500-600°F range.

One is also forced to wonder just what Mr. Lovins is referring to when he mentions "with a flame temperature of thousands." Can it be that he believes that fossil fuels burn with flame temperatures of thousa~ds of degrees at electrical power plants but burn at flame temperatures of only tens or hundreds of degrees in a home hot water heater or furnace?

Again, in discussing "local energy generation" alternatives, Lovins fallaciously argues against interconnected supply grids. Their necessity was adequately demonstrated by the harsh realities of this winter, when many areas of the country would have been virtually without electricity for varying periods of time if not for interconnected electric power grids.

Finally, Lovins proceeds to imply that energy, gross national product and jobs are really quite unrelated topics. It is suggested that he tell this to the two and one-quarter million workers ( as reported by the news media) who were laid off due to energy shortages during the recent cold weather.

a Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1974, 95th Annual Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Library of Congress Card No. 4-18089.

July 12, 1977 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 22435 Our oil and natural gas supplies are

rapidly shrinking and will be virtually exhausted within the next 20 to 30 years regardless of whatever practical conservation measures may be employed. The United States government must rapidly implement the commercialization of coal gasification and liquefaction to provide synthetic gas and gasoline. In addition, it must utilize coal and nuclear fuel to the maximum possible extent for the generation of electricity if an economic disaster is to be avoided.

Mr. Lovins claims to describe two roads. He has not, however, followed these roads long enough to determine where they lead. If he did, he would find that our forefathers demonstrated infinite wisdom in their decision to eat grain and burn coal.

HARPER'S MAGAZINE ARTICLE ABOUT A SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE INVESTIGATION OF THE HONORABLE HOW ARD <BO) CALLA WAY

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in the July 1977 issue, Harper's magazine published an article by Jim Hougan, concerning an investigation conducted by the Senate Subcommittee on Environment and Land Resources involving the Honorable Howard-Bo-Callaway, the former Secretary of the Army. I commend this article to my distinguished colleagues to help bring this investigation of alleged wrongdoing into better perspective.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the article by Jim Hougan in the July 1977 issue of Harper's magazine to be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE PERSECUTION AND CHARACTER ASSASSINA

TION OF HOWARD (Bo) CALLAWAY AS PERFORMED BY INMATES OF THE U.S. SENATE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

(By Jim Hougan) This is a Washington story, which is to say

that it deals with the technique of character assassination, and at the risk of committing

·a tautology, with the tactical use of false appearances, public pieties, and moral fraud. It tells how a cabal of Democratic senators, all of them well known for their fine and upstanding concern for the well-being of the Republic, combined to destroy the reputation of Howard (Bo) Callaway, who, at the time of his impeachment, was President Ford's campaign manager. The hit was sponsored by the Senate subcommittee on the Environment and Land Resources, before which tribunal Callaway was questioned about rumors to the effect that he had used his office as Secretary of the Army to further his financial interests in a Colorado ski resort. There was little evidence for the allegations brought against him, but Callaway was not in the hands of the judiciary. Senate privilege, and not the common law, decided the question of guilt or innocence. As Sen. Lee Metcalf (Dem.-Mont.) remarked, in an effort to give the hearings a semblance of respectability (while, at the same time, explaining the general disregard for Calla.way's civil rights). "It's sort of like a grand jury."

Sen. Floyd Haskell (Dem.-Colo.) presided as chairman over the legislative "Gong Show" in which Callaway's reputation was ruined. The hearings exhausted more time and money than the same subcommittee had appropriated to its consideration of the Alaska pipeline-but its effect on the Ford campaign, a~ least to the parties interested in the result of the eventual election, presum-

ably was worth the price. Sen. Henry Jackson, a Presidential candidate at the time, and chairman of the Committee 1 as a whole, could have stopped the hearings, but he chose not to do so. Instead Jackson indulged himself in a ritual handwashing, seeming pious by virtue of inaction. Sen. Frank Church (Dem.-Idaho) ,· equally pious and also a candidate for the Presidency, was not so circumspect. He failed to attend a single hearing; nor did he bother to read the final Report, but he permitted his proxy to be voted twice in the cause of political expedience. Together with Haskell, Church, and Metcalf, two other Democratic Senators, James Abourezk (S. Dak.) and Dale Bumpers (Ark.) did what was necessary to accomplish the subcommittee's purpose. As is usual in such affairs the press proved itself a willing instrument of the subcommittee, allowing Senator Haskell to leak his innuendos in such a way as to bring down the maximum damage on Callaway. The object of the attack was not so much Callaway himself, but the Presidential campaign of President Ford, which (at the very least) can be said to have come unstuck in the shadow of a Colorado peak known as Snodgrass Mountain.

CRESTED BUTTE

The unraveling of Bo Calla.way's reputation can be traced to his hopes for the rejuvenation of Crested Butte, Colorado, a town roughly a hundred miles southwest of Denver. Established in 1829 by representatives of the Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., Crested Butte had waxed and waned for more than a century as seams of coal, silver, and gold appeared and disappeared in its vicinity. At 9,000 feet, the city has always had a rather precarious hold on existence, and local residents sometimes feared that the town might "go the way of Gothic-or even Irwin and Pittsburgh." The first reference is to a nearby ghost town, whose empty shells stand as testament to the perils of a one-dimensional economy; the allusion to Irwin and Pittsburg is even more pessimistic in that both these vmages have disappeared entirely, leaving no testament at all.

And yet, as long ago as 1971, there was cause for. optiIIlism in Crested Butte. After a century of intermittent exodus and decline, the town's citizenry once again numbered more than 500. Many of the new immigrants were urban expatriates whose correspondence with senators and foresters suggests that their values could be looked up in the index to the Whole Earth Catalog. But a great deal of the town's new wealth was derived from the local skiing industry, whose fortunes sank below sea level in the mid-1960s. Driven into bankruptcy, the former proprieto::-s of the Crested Butte Ski Area relinquis!led ownership of their property to a consortium of banks. In 1970, the consortium sold its interest to the Crested Butte Development Corporation (CBDC), a creation of Bo Calla.way's.

The scion of a family tree rooted in the loamy traditions of the Old South, Callaway, a husky and distinguished-looking fiftyyear-old with a fondness for squash, enjoyed inherited wealth and the benefits of an unsentimental education at West Point. A conservative respect for the value of hard work in a context of free enterorise was tempered in him bv a history of family philanthropy. Politically active in the South, Callaway virtually reinvented Georgia's Republican Party in 1964, winning a seat in Congress. At the time, Democratic domination of the Peach Tree State was so complete that GOP candidates were often forced to petition for official recognition of their party. Calla-

1 The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to which the Subcommittee on the Environment and Land Resources is responsible.

way himself had to obtain more than 100,-000 signatures when, in 1966, he returned from Washington to run for governor. A moderate in a decade of rhetorical extremism, he challenged Lester "Give-Em-the-Axe,-the Axe,-the-Axe" Maddox. He defeated Maddox in the general election, but his victory was short-lived: falling 2 percent short of an absolute majority, Calla.way's 48 percent plurality was declared null and void. In a procedure unique to Georgia, the election was remanded into the custody of the state legislature. There, in a sort of mono-partisan Electoral College, the assembled Democrats overturned the popular vote, and gave the governorship to Maddox. Despite the loss Callaway remained a popular and important figure, albeit within an impotent state party. In return for his services, and for his later support of Richard Nixon's candidacy, he was appointed to various state posts and served as Georgia's Republican National Committeeman.

Politics was an important part of Calla.way's career, as were his philanthropic and business responsibilities. As president of the Callaway Foundation he presided over "Callaway Gardens," a large and popular southern resort established as a horticultural idyll. As the heir to a textile fortune, he's always been weal thy, and serves as chairman of the board of Interfinancial Inc., an insurance and real-estate combine with more than 16,000 stockholders. His other business affairs, however, were far from the Peach Tree State. Calla.way's commitment to the Crested Butte ski resort in Colorado was a multi-milliondollar one that involved rebuilding virtually all its existing facilities . He persuaded his brother-in-law, Ralph Walton, to run the day-to-day affairs of the resort in exchange for an option to buy a one-third interest in the Crested Butte Development Corporation. The future of the firm depended upon its ability to succeed as a so-called "destination ski area." Because Crested Butte is a remote location, its clientele tends to consist of skiers whose priorities are short liftlines and uncrowded slopes. To compete with the bigger resorts, it must provide "a higherquality skiing experience," and that entailed rebuilding, refinancing, and expansion.

The logical place for expansion was nearby Snodgrass Mountain. To accomplish this, however, Walton and Callaway needed the permission of the U.S. Forest Service. Much of the vertical land in the country is owned by the federal government, and Snodgrass Mountain is no exception: the county in which it stands is about 85 percent National Forest. There's nothing unusual in the private rental and development of such federal lands. On the contrary, roughly one in three U.S. ski resorts, including Crested Butte, have received "special use permits" enabling them to build lifts and trails on taxpayers' land.2 Often, as with Crested Butte, the skiing operation is part of a parallel real-estate venture in which the resortowner builds vacation homes, lodges, and "warming houses" on privately owned land beneath the slopes. Obtaining a special-use permit presents bureaucratic difficulties on a gigantic scale, involving a succession of overlapping jurisdictions: city, county, state, and federal governments. Master Plans, unit plans, site plans, conceptual plans, and development plans must be prepared in various drafts and repeatedly amendec., with the firm's criteria, alternatives, and priorities set forth in meticulous detail (with maps and flow-charts appended). Public .hearings must be held, commentary solicited, and drafts of Environmental Statements filed detailing the proposed development's projected impact upon local air, water, soil, flora, fauna,

2 From Forest Service statistics: the actual figure is 174 out of 522.

22436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA TE July 12, 1977 noise, fisheries, and waste disposal. It is, in short, an enervating, if necessary, procedure requiring entrepreneurs to tread capital for years. Because the process is more or less indifferent to fluctuations within the economy, oil embargoes, interest rates, and changes in tax law, it occasionally happens that the money runs out while the permit pends. In any event, the businessman must endure a financial rite of passage during which the value of his assets is in doubt, and planning is well-nigh impossible. For all he knows, he's sitting on another Comstock Lod~r another Irwin.

So it was with the Crested Butte Development Corporation. In the spring of 1971, Callaway's firm formalized year-old discussions with the Forest Service, submitting a revised Master Plan for the resort's developmentincluding a plan for expansion to Snodgrass Mountain. If and when that Master Plan should be approved, OBDC could begin the torturous process of applying for a special permit which, if granted, would enable the development to take place. A decision on the Master Plan, however, would have to wait upon the Forest Rangers' completion of the East Riv'er Unit plan. (This was a document pertaining to the area of the Gunnison National Forest which contains the Crested Butte ski resort and Snodgrass Mountain.)

So Callaway knew he was going to have to wait. And wait. And wait again. He would wait for the Forest Service to produce a draft of the East River Unit plan. He would then attend upon public hearings and revisions of that draft. At each stage of the proceedings, his firm would be required to prepare a series of increasingly detailed environmental impact statements, each of them requiring negotiations with the Forest Service. Assuming that all of these obstacles were successfully overcome. CBDC could then, and only then, apply for a special permit-and, of course, wait years for a decision. And, in the end, if all permissions were granted, and if the money were still available, a few thousand more vacationers could be hauled up to the top of a mountain where they would be allowed to pay for the privilege of roaring down 11,000 feet of snowflakes on slim boards of plastic.

A METICULOUS ARMY SECRETARY

Bo Callaway became Secretary of the Army on May 15, 1973. If few people took notice of the appointment, they can hardly be blamed. In Washington that week almost everyone was consumed with anticipation of the testimony that James McCord was to give to the Senate Watergate Committee two days later. In any case, Callaway's office was a subCabinet post that carried more honor than responsibility. As Secretary his most important job would be to "make the All-volunteer Army work." How seriously he took that task would be up to him.

In the Senate confirmation hearings, Callaway submitted his financial affairs to public scrutiny. Satisfied that there were no conflicts of interest, the Senate allowed him to take office in the Pentagon.

As a West Point graduate, Callaway had a special affection for the Army and for his new role as its commander. ("I loved that job. It was the best job in Washington. It was the best job I ever had.") Accordingly, he became an active Secretary, traveling from one military base to another in every part of the world. By all accounts, these were working visits during which Callaway would hold inspections, attend receptions, and give speeches about the virtues of a volunteer army.

The Watergate scandal must have seemed a world apart. But the atmosphere of suspicion created by it led Callaway to take precautions with what the Army's General Counsel later described as "an overabundance of care." On those occasions when Callaway's wife accompanied him on official trips, the

Secretary reimbursed the government for her passage-despite a ruling that he needn't do so. He ordered a meticulous log kept of his telephone contacts and, though it was unnecessary, he reimbursed the Army for every personal call. Even in the matter of postage, Callaway was circumspect, supplying his secretary with stamps for use on his private mail. Moreover, and again at his behest, a record of his daily activities was maintained: submitted to the Senate under unhappy circumstances, the record showed that, during his twenty-seven months as Secretary of the Army, he accumulated more than 3,000 hours of "overtime" by working twelve-hour days and weekends. Of this amount, he recovered perhaps forty hours, spending less than five minutes per day managing his private affairs from his office in the Pentagon-a minuscule amount in view of his holdings.

In all things, Callaway was governed by policies and regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense (DOD). The evidence is clear that he followed them to the letter. Despite the impression created by Senate Democrats, Callaway has never been publicly accused-by anyone-of breaking any law or viola ting any policy governing the demeanor or actions of a public official.

Admittedly, the precautions described above were as much a result of political prudence as ethical conviction. The point, however, is that Bo Calla.way gave every appearance of being an honest and hardworking public official. And, in the end, that's what it came down to: appearances. The Senate inquiry, in re Calla.way would do everything in its power to uncover wrongdoing, but it would have to settle for the appearance of impropriety, an appearance, moreover, that the Senate would itself create by the simple means of questioning the man's integrity. In their own way, Senate Democrats would wage the same war of innuendo against Calla.way that George Smathers once waged against Claude Pepper. ("Are you aware," Smathers used to harangue voters, "that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fa.ct that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, practiced celibacy." a Callaway would be found guilty of similar offenses.

While its owner served in Washington, the ski resort hummed. Although the East River Unit plan was years from completion, Callaway's brother-in-law helped incorporate the town of Mount Crested Butte (population 150 plus). Located only two and a half miles from its "sister city" to the south, the new town virtually guaranteed local approval of CBDC's plans for Snodgrass Mountain. Opponents of the new municipality charged that an "end-run" had been committed and that Mount Crested Butte would be a "company town." While CBDC disputed both descriptions, they seem accurate enough. Many of the new town's residents work for the firm, and its financial condition has a direct impact on virtually all of the town's residents. What is not valid, of course, is the implication that a "company town" includes a "company store." Incorporating Mount Crested Butte, therefore, was a logical business decision, and entirely within the letter and spirit of relevant laws.

Soon after the town's incorporation, however, fateful events occurred. Responding to a Forest Service request for statistical data, CBDC provided figures that would be used to calculate the resort's skiing "capacity." The capacity of the resort would be used by the rangers to decide upon the timing of the proposed expansion (if and when permission should be granted for it). Until there was a

3 Miami Herald, Tropic Magazine, May 2, 1971.

need to develop Snodgrass Mountain, the rock would remain untouched. What made this event "fateful" was the fact that the Forest Service used the CBDC figures to calculate the area's "maximum capacity"rather than its "comfortable capacity." The distinction is a critical one for a "destination ski area." Using the wrong formula, the Forest Service arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the Crested Butte ski area was years away from any need to expand. If the resort would not, as the wrong numbers suggested, reach "capacity" for another decade, local Smokeys responsible for preparing the East River Unit plan could safely procrastinate upon the expansion proposal. They need only label it as a subject of consideration for some future time.

Repeated delays of the plan's publication, however, were frustrating to CBDC. They had waited five years for a decision. Their original request had been made at the height of the Vietnam war. Since then the Paris Peace Talks had come and gone, detente had been reached, wars had begun and ended, and a President had been elected and politically impaled. The world had changed, and still there was no decision as to whether or not Bo Callaway would be permitted to put a ski lift on Snodgrass Mountain. And though CBDC had good reason to expect a favorable decision, the firm needed an official commitment.

SUSPICIONS

The trouble began in January 1975, with the release of what was called "a tentative draft" of the East River Unit plan. The purpose of the draft, as the document itself stressed, was to generate public discussion, in consideration of which changes would be made. The reader may not be surprised to learn that the plan was ambiguous on the subject of Snodgrass Mountain. The good news was that "The management we [the Forest Service] propose for the Snodgrass Mountain area will protect its potential for future ski area development." The bad news was that the expansion would not be permitted "at this time" in view of the fact that "Crested Butte Mountain appears to have sufficient development capacity to satisfy public skiing demands ... for approximately 10 years."

So, after five years of waiting for a decision, Callaway was told that the Forest Service proposed to make a decision in ten more years.

CBDC contacted the Forest Service, pointing out that the tentative plan was based upon the misleading formula for "maximum ca.pa.city." They were told to submit new figures, and it was stressed once again that the tentative plan was subject to major revision. The new figures submitted by CBDC showed that the Crested Butte ski area would exceed its comfortable capacity within two years-and that, therefore, expansion to Snodgrass Mountain required a prompt decision.

A month after the tentative plan was released, two things happened, and both of them aroused suspicion. First, John T. Minow, the Forest Supervisor responsible for the East River Unit plan, was promoted and transferred to Denver, leading some to speculate that his expatriation from Crested Butte was "a punishment" for his work on the plan. In fact, however, the promotion preceded the plan's release by more than two months; the outgoing supervisor, moreover, was considered favorable to the expansion proposed by CBDC. By an unfortunate coincidence, however, his replacement, Jimmy R. Wilkins, was another career forester whose last assignment happened to have · been in Atlanta, Georgia; in the atmosphere created by Watergate, it was inevitable that some would suspect a conspiracy. In fact, however, the new supervisor had never met Callaway


or any other CBDC employee-and had, like his predecessor in Crested Butte, learned of his transfer long before the tentative plan's release. Both transfers, in other words, were routine-as the Senate later found. But people wondered at the time.

The second event genera.ting.suspicion was the rejection of the tentative plan by the regional Forest office in Denver. A month after the plan's release, the regional office described it a.s "unsuitable," pointing out that it included no alternatives, contained technical and factual errors, and actually violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A "tentative" document in the first place, it was also erroneous and contrary to law.

Meanwhile, the revised figures provided to the Forest Service by CBDC resulted in a reconsideration of the tentative plan's approach to the Snodgrass Mountain issue. It appeared to those preparing the East River Unit plan in the spring and summer of 1975 that the expansion ought to be considered and not deferred. To some of the residents of Crested Butte, it appeared that the Forest Service had undertaken a dramatic reversal of position following what amounted to the wholesale transfer of local rangers to the asphalt Jungles of Denver and Durango. That the new man in charge of the local office was "from Georgia" (and ipso facto thought to be a "crony" of Bo Calla way's) seemed "too coincidental." Talk of political pressure ma.de the rounds of the cha.lets, a.nd a. veil of con -spira.cy-theory settled ·over the town. Not since Irwin and Pittsburg vanished ha.d local residents had so much to talk a.bout. In their own wa.y, they'd become a. pa.rt of Watergate. Like everyone else in America., they'd been touched by current events.

To some of those in Crested Butte, unfolding events surrounding the ski resort resembled a. scenario for a sequel of a. Billy Jack film: a.s the romance wa.s perceived, "progressive youths," nostalgic for time pa.st a.nd a.n innocence that never wa.s, found their inner peace a.nd outer surroundings threatened by what they believed to be a corrupt a.nd rapacious pol, a. wheeler-dealer bent upon demolishing the wilderness from the ·va.nta.ge of his Pentagon aerie. "Working within the system," the youths would nevertheless triumph through the courageous efforts of the town's embattled newspaperman, a. feisty mayor, a.nd .a liberal senator. As a film, the scenario wa.s as plausible a.s it wa.s hackneyed. But a.s reality, it wa.s only the fanta~y of suspicious naifs.

THE ARBER MEMORANDUM

Bo Callaway left office as Secretary of the Army on July 3, 1975, on the eve of America's Bicentenary celebration. His new post was much more influential than the one he'd Just left: Calla.way ha.d been named campaign manager for the incumbent President, Gerald Ford. At the time of Callawa.y's appointment, Ford's chances for success appeared great. Not only was he liked by most Americans, but he ha.d skillfully sloughed off the Pardoner's image, exchanging it for one of Healer. With numbing frequency, the citizenry was told that "Watergate is behind us" and that the man in the White House was, above a.11 else, a Decent Ma.n. It seemed unlikely that the electorate would reject a well-liked incumbent in the Bicentennial year, opting for still further change in the aftermath of the Watergate maelstrom. On the contrary, the word in the streets was "Slow it down. Just. slow. it. down." Callaway . and Ford understood that, a.nd also understood that the biggest threats to their success was internal. "The enemies within," so fa.r a.s they were concerned, were the possib111ties that Watergate might somehow be reinvented, and that the party's m111-ta.nt right wing might somehow slip its lea.sh. But, so long as Nixon remained under de

facto house arrest, a.nd providing that Ronald Reagan could be trounced in the opening primaries, the future was Ford's.

The Democrats were in their usual disarray, divided between a. redistribution of the wealth a.nd the immediate invasion of Soviet Russia.. Sen. Edward Kennedy remained in political hermitage, and a. multitude of other candidates spread a.cross the scene, muddying it. Senators Henry Jackson and Frank Church were noisely engaged, as were Hubert Humphrey, Fred Harris, Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Mr. Ca.r~r. but few people thought they could win. The best analysis indicated that they'd get 48 percent of the vote, regardless of who ra.n, a.nd alienate the staff of Ms. magazine.

What the Republicans did not anticipate, however, was the impact of the Crested Butte Chronicle, a weekly newspaper with a circulation comparable to that of a. college "little magazine." The proprietor of the Chronicle is Miles Arber. A graduate of New York University Law School, Arber did not fail to notice the local controversy swirling a.round Calla.way's resort. And it seemed to him that as he later said, "something funny" w~ going on. Accordingly, at about the time Bo Ca.Ila.way took over the Ford campaign, the small-town publisher "got together with" the mayor of Crested Butte, Tommy Glass, a.nd a. Gunnison County Judge, John Levin. "We a.11 thought it looked mighty strange," Arber said, referring to developments in Crested Butte, a.nd so "we a.greed to keep an eye on" the situation.

In October, Glass and Levin decided that their suspicions justified a "full-fledged" Senate inquiry . . Armed with their doubts, they went to Denver for a meeting with Sen. Floyd Haskell, chairman of the Senate subcommittee on the Environment and Land Resources. A lifelong Republican who'd held senior posts in the Colorado State legislature, _Haskell switched his allegiance to the Democratic party in 1970. Be<:ause that reversal of. loyalties took place the da.y after the invasion of Cambodia, the apostasy was widely interpreted as an act of courage and moral principle. And, while Haskell did not pa.y a. high price for the switch (indeed, he was elected to the U.S. Senate one campaign later), the change seems to have been more than superficial. As a. former Denver ta.x lawyer, he'd represented some of the largest and most conservative corporations in America. Upon entering the Senate, however, Haskell revealed himself to be an uncompromising liberal and a powerful advocate of environmentalists' concerns. The depth of the change surprised many of his colleagues who, in trying to explain it, resort to religious metaphors about the convictions of those who have been "twice born."

Confiding their suspicions that Ji. conspiracy was in progress, the mayor and the Judge won a promise from the Senator to keep their rendezvous a secret. Judge Levin later testified that the secrecy pledge was sought in an effort to protect Calla.way's reputation from harm. It may ·be cynical, but one might also add that the secrecy pledge had another virtue: it kept Callaway in ignorance of the innuendos raised against him and put him at the mercy of events that would · transpire "behind the scenes." Haskell asked the pilgrims from Crested Butte to provide him with a statement in writing. Returning home, Glass and Levin told Arber of their secret mission and asked him, as a Journalist, to prepare a confidential "memorandum" for the Senate.

So great was the atmosphere of paranoia and intrigue in Crested Butte that every event pertaining to the resort assumed a slgnifica.nce of vast proportions. When the CBDC Master Plan appeared in the Appendix of the first published draft of the East River Unit plan, Arber et al. apparently viewed it as proof that a. decision had been made fa.-

voring expansion to Snodgrass Mountain. In fact, the Master Plan was added to the larger document in an effort to satisfy legal requirements that Unit plans include alternatives that the public might review. Still, it was apparent that the Forest Service was considering the expansion, contrary to recommendations contained in the "tentative plan" rejected months earlier. This, then, was the first public indication that CBDC would eventually get its way.

In January, while Callaway was managing President Ford's primary campaign to an · unbroken string of successes, Arber completed his "confidential report" to the Senate.

Its opening pages analyze the "disastrous" financial condition of CBDC, describing the ski resort as a "marginal" operation. Pointing out that "bankruptcy was clearly unacceptable to a man as highly politically motivated as Callaway," Arber asserts that the firm's only chance for survival rests upon its ability to attract new capital. Depleting Callaway anq Walton as financial desperados-"men who would do whatever had to be done"-the publisher notes a series of "ploys," "foils," and "schemes" carried out by "sleight-of-hand." Addressing the issue of expansion, Arber mentions Forest Service fears that "development might interfere with the life of the elk who make the mountain their habitat and that ... expansion ... might have a deleterious effect on ... the former ghost town of Gothic . . . where the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory conducts its research." Claiming that CBDC has "its back ... against the mountain," Arber tells how "Reports of private meetings between CBDC executive personnel and Forest Service personnel began leaking out, the reports being to the effect of some heavy pressure being brought to bear on the men responsible for [making al momentous decision." Subsequent to this "personal pressure," "one by one, the local personnel . . . were transferred" and replaced by an "inexperienced" group led by a man from Georgia.

In conclusion, Arber put together a remarkable sequence of rhetorical innuendos· "How much influence wa.s asserted by th~ CBDC both directly and indirectly and Just what form that assertion took; the role of Callaway and his associates in asserting addl· tional influence on a national level in Washington, D.C.; why local Forest Service personnel opposed to the designs of the CBDC were all transferred ... and replaced by people whose only apparent advantage was their lack of familiarity with the entire matter. How much collusion existed on the part of high-level Forest Service personnel · why public sentiment ... was ignored; . .;,.hy the final plan inexplicably reversed earlier ... policies and ... the Judgment of the experienced local Forest Service personnel; what further machinations of the CBDC will be condoned ... ; and the implications for the people of this valley and their descendants-these are the questions and doubts that remain ...

"For all of the foregoing reasons and all the doubts that have arisen in our individual minds ... , we feel Justified in relaying this information with a request ... [for] a farreaching investigation .... This request is made with the hope its results will either lay these doubts finally to rest or . . . vindicate all the doubts and suspicions which honest men have had to acknowledge have intruded themselves so profoundly and implacably into their consciousnesses during the course of being witnesses to this unsettling episode."•

Ploys, schemes, scenarios, designs, and machinations? The doubts a.nd suspicions of

'All quotations from the so-called "Arber Memorandum" to Sena.tor Haskell.

honest men ! Mysterious changes and strange ways! The memo's grammar is the best index to its accuracy. The analysis of CBDC's financial conditon was muddied and inept. Senate Democrats would later be shocked to learn that the skiing operation was making a profit on its own, exclusive of real-estate enterprises, and that, moreover, Callaway had no personal notes outstanding on the property. That bankruptcy was an "unacceptable alternative" to Callaway is probably true, as is the assertion that he's a "politically motivated man." As it happens, however, Callaway was a. rich man unlikely to go bankrupt. And, as for his political motivations, they were explicit enough: he was Ford's campaign manager. By referring to them in the way he did, Arber harkened back to George Smathers's old speeches; he might as easily have called Callaway "a known ectomorph and masticator."

As for "reports of private meetings" between CBDC and Forest Service personnel. Arber is correct: there were frequent discussions between the two groups-as one would expect. Where Arber leads us astray, of course, is to imply that there was something wrong with this. He mentions reports of these meetings and the "heavy pressure" that's been brought to bear. We're given the impression, in the context of the questions Arber later raises, that this pressure is intense and out of the ordinary. The implication to be drawn is that Bo Callaway is yanking strings in Washington, threatening to ruin the men's careers if they don't give him what he wants.

Arber never identifies the sources of these reports, but there's no need to speculate: since the meetings were "private," the reports presumably came from the rangers themselves. And yet, each of the rangers and all of their superiors would later testify under oath that no such pressure was exerted or felt; nor had any of them ever said otherwise to anyone. As Arber told the Senate, "I don't know what went on within the Forest Service." And, in the end, the Crested Butte publisher leaves us with a set of rhetorical questions whose obvious intent is to suggest criminal activity on the part of Callaway-without ever, of course, accusing him of anything per se.

The technique is not an unusual one. Indeed, it's become the hallmark of an entire genre of post-Watergate jounalism-what might be called "interrogative" as opposed to "investigative." In this feudal genre, the words "May" and "Seem" reign as king and queen over a dazzling court of "machinations," "scenarios," and lordly "ploys." Clustered below the salt like so many syllablic catamites, anxious to serve their conditional lieges, are the Facts-ignoble and dowdy, they combine and recombine for an assembly of stooped, but venerable, Question Marks, the grand viziers of innuendo.

And yet ... and yet, while the Arber memorandum deserves to be criticized, there is no cause to interrogate Arber's own motives in writing it. As a citizen of Crested Butte, concerned about the town's welfare and the integrity of government, he had the right to petition his representatives in Congress and to advise them of his suspicions in any manner he saw fit.

A MATTER OF TIMING

On the other hand, it's hard to understand how Calla way's reputation could depend upon Arber's document, but that it did is certain. Some time after receiving the memo, Senator Haskell wrote to the Forest Service, asking for an explanation of the "disturbing allegations" he'd received. Interestingly, Arber later disputed that characterization of his memo's contents. ("I have not made any accusations against Mr. Callaway. I myself never accused him of any wrong-doing, per se .... You notice," he added helpfully, "I didn't allege these as charges. These are

the questions and doubts ... . ") Haskell's timing was also interesting. He'd spoken with Arber in December, having talked to Levin and Glass months before that. Why he should have waited until February 19 before asking the Forest Service for an explanation has never been made clear. A subsequent statement of Arber's, however, is explicit. "I spoke to Haskell in December," he said, "and I said let's wait on . .. [the] beginning of the ski season. I think it can have a devastating effect ... I would like to make sure that when it comes out it has a national impact."

To some-notably Callaway and the minority which supported him-Haskell's delay suggested that he agreed with Arber. And this raised an important question: What did the Colorado publisher intend when he referred to a "devastating effect"? Was it an effect that he and Haskell sought, or did they seek to avoid it? According to Arber, he feared the devastating effect which a scandal might have on the economy of Crested Butte, and so urged that the investigation be delayed until the spring. With the snows melting on Snodgrass Mountain the skiing season would be at an end. News of Callaway's activities might, in other words, have a "national impact" in March without deterring a significant number of skiers from visiting Crested Butte. If this was Arber's only concern, his prudence seems to have been unnecessary. Townspeople assert that, when the scandal became a subject of national news, they began to get calls from relatives and friends around the country, remarking upon the physical beauty of Crested Butte and their intentions, therefore, of visiting it. Calla.way himself, in a giddy moment of gallows humor, later remarked to the Senate that the scandal has "put Crested Butte on the map ... the dream of our marketing department has come true. We have pushed Vail, Aspen, and Sun Valley to the back pages."

That was tru.e. But it was also true that, by waiting until spring, Haskell and Arber made it possible for the national impact of the scandal to fall most heavily upon the Ford campaign. The economy of Crested Butte would be spared the effect of media attention (whether good or bad), but Gerald Ford would not. He would lose his campaign manager, and the integrity of his administration would be cast in doubt. News of the supposed scandal would project a baleful sense of deja vu upon voters, inviting comparisons between Calla.way's allegedly alleged activities, Watergate, and Teapot Dome. If the intention was to have a devastating effect upon the Ford campaign, it would do no good-indeed it would be a political disaster-to convene hearings at too early a date, especially in view of the Arber memorandum's questionable contents. Whether or not that was the intention is a matter of speculation.

In any case, Haskell waited months before contacting the Forest Service. The inquiry was an important formality: appearances, at least, demanded that the records show that an effort had been made to check Arber's innuendos before acting upon them. Failing to make such an inquiry, Haskell might easily find himself dangling from his own petard.

But that Haskell intended to call an investigation (even before the Forest Service could reply) appears certain. The possibility had been mentioned as far back as October, according to Arber, who adds that, in January, Haskell "promised to hold fair hearings." 5 And, while Senate Republicans were kept in ignorance of those intentions, NBC was not. Again according to Arber, who'd contacted the network's "head office," "NBC

.G Speech to the Gunnison Lion's Club March 29, 1976.

July 12, 1977 was called in and assisted in the gathering of further evidence in the case and when they agreed with Haskell that there were some reasonable grounds to suspect malfeasance of office on the part of Calla way ... they agreed to break the story nationwide." 8

(Or, as the publisher later explained, "I called in NBC News and I said, 'Well, gentlemen, I think we have the makings of a major national issue here.'") 7 That commentary infuriates Jim Polk, the reporter who covered the story for NBC. Polk denies that there was any collusion between himself and Haskell with regard to the timing of the news. While it's true that Haskell leaked the Arber memorandum to Polk-and that, as early as February 25, Haskell discussed with Polk his intention to hold hearings-Polk says, "The memo was silly. There was nothing in it but Arber's conspiracy theories, and I didn't have much faith in the rumor about the Forest Service transfers." Nevertheless, Polk says, there was a "remote possibility" that there might be something to it and, as an avid skier, that was all the encouragement he needed to visit Crested Butte. Before leaving, Polk promised to keep Haskell informed.

After writing to the Forest Service and providing Polk with Arber's musings, Haskell waited. For its part, the Forest Service acknowledged the senator's inquiry on the day it was received, promising an immediate report. On March 8, as that report went into the mail, Haskell was suddenly galvanized into action. Claiming that the rangers were dragging their boots, he made a formal request for a Senate investigation. Two days later, the reply from the Forest Service arrived in his office, discrediting each of the allegations and explaining the agency's procedures in detail . Nevertheless, Haskell says he was "disturbed and troubled" by the response, falsely characterizing it as "incomplete, inadequate, and, perhaps, misleading."

Meanwhile, Bo Callaway knew nothing of Polk's presence in Crested Butte, the Arber memorandum, or Haskell's intentions in Washington. His concern at the time was the impending primaries in Illinois and North Carolina, primaries intended to write finis to Reagan's candidacy. Already Reagan had lost badly in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Florida; polls indioated that the incumbent President would win easily in both the March 16 Illinois primary and the March 23 contest in North Carolina.

Callaway, of course, was not entirely unaware of the controversy in Crested Butte. His information, however, was limited to what Arber published in the Crested Butte Chronicle . Accordingly, Ford's campaign manager was unconcerned. The dispute was a local matter, in his opinion, and he could answer the Chronicle's editorials after the November election.

In fact, the opportunity came sooner than he'd expected. And, while Callaway is noted more for his ability as a squash player than for his talent as a gymnast, it's fair to say that, a& of March 10, 1976, he could kiss his - goodbye.

TRIAL BY HEADLINE

March 10 was the day Jim Polk learned of correspondence between Callaway's brotherin-law, Ralph Walton, and Richard Ashworth, a Deputy Under-Secretary of Agriculture. It seemed significant to Polk, rummaging through Forest Service records in Gunnison, because the Forest Service is a part of the Department of Agriculture. That Walton was in contact with Agriculture officials in Washington suggested (correctly) that he'd gone over the heads of local rangers. There was nothing wrong with that, but Polk wondered, "Why Ashworth? Who's he?"

8 Crested Butte Chronicle, March 18, 1976. 1 Op. cit., Lion's Club speech.

Checking further, he found that Ashworth was an ex-reporter who's served as a speechwriter in Callaway's Georgia campaign for governor. Looking even deeper, Polk learned that Ashworth met with Callaway in the Pentagon on July 3, 1975. Accompanying Ashworth to that meeting were Phil Campbell and an Associate Chief Forester, Rex Resler. Campbell, it turned out, was an Under-Secretary of Agriculture and, like his subordinate, a Georgian who counted Callaway as a personal friend. Accordingly to those involved, the meeting was "a courtesy call" arranged a few days earlier at Ashworth's suggestion. It took place during Callawa.y's last four hours in office, and one of its main purposes was to give him a briefing on the status of Crested Butte. Five months earlier, in the wake of the tentative East River Unit plan's release, Callaway had telephoned Ashworth, complaining about the non-decision. According to a memo written by Callaway at that time: "At Ralph's request, I called Richard Ashworth to tell him that I would appreciate it if someone could look at this clearly on its merits. This goes against the assurance we have been given by the Forest Service since 1971 ... I m:ade it very clear to ... Ashworth that I did not want any special favors and that we thought this should be judged on its merits only, bu~. that we felt we had a very strong case . . .

Whatever their "case," NBC had its story nine months later. After a great deal of searching by a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, the "appearance of impropriety" was finally unearthed. All that was necessary for the "impropriety" to become a fait accompli in the eyes of the public was for the Pentagon meeting to be made known. Jim Polk ls aware of that irony, and expresses sympathy for Callaway. "I'm not sure I agree that the appearance of impropriety should be enough to convict government officials of wrongdoing. But it ls. In my opinion, though, that meeting-the meeting itself-was improper. If I hadn't thought that, I wouldn't have put the story on the air. But I don't think that Callaway had any intention of using improper influence. I'm sure he thought that there was nothing wrong in meeting with Resler and his friends. Its unfair, I suppose. There never would have been a story if Callaway hadn't been who he was: Ford's campaign manager. If he'd been a first- or second-term Congressman-in fact, if he'd just stayed Secretary of the Army-we wouldn't have touched it. But that's the news business." The comment ls remarkably candid in its acknowledgement of the methodology employed against Callaway. Ford's campaign manager was singled out, Polk admits, not for what he did-but for who he was.

At the time of his discovery, Polk was using Arber's office as a base of operations and keeping the Colorado publisher informed of his findings. Reportedly, Arber was overjoyed by news of the Pentagon meetlng--so much so that Polk, fearing what he might do with (and to) his scoop, wrote a story for the Chronicle's next edition. Studiously avoiding any mention of the Pentagon meeting, Polk's anonymous article reported Senator Haskell's intention to announce an investigation into the Crested Butte controversy. That inform?,tion, Polk says, came in a March 10 phone call from Haskell to Arber. The significance of this fact ls that, on March 10, Haskell had less reason for suspicion than ever before. Rumors concerning the transfer of local personnel had been quashed: both the Forest Service and Polk agreed that the transfers were routine and even overdue. Nor was there any connection between Callaway and the rangers' replacements. Lacking that tenuous foothold in fact the Arber memorandum was an anthology of baseless innuendos. Nevertheless, Haskell was determined to hold hearings.

On March 12, Polk confronted Callaway at

O'Hare Airport. The Illinois primary was at its height, and the circumstances for the interview were less than ideal. Minutes before Air Force One touched down, tornados ripped through Chicago's suburbs, blowing houses away. As the wind roared in his ears, Callaway heard Polk ask, "What took place at the meeting in the Pentagon?" Startled by the unexpected question, Callaway replied, "We just said we had been asking for this thing for four or five years, and we'd certainly appreciate getting a chance to have our views known." With that interview on film, Polk telephoned Haskell's office, advising them of the Pentagon meeting. Twenty minutes later, Haskell called back to provide the broadcast with its hook. Callaway, he said, would definitely be called to testify under oath at hearings the following month. Like the rest of America, including Republicans on the Haskell subcommittee, Callaway would learn of the hearings on the "NBC Nightly News."

Haskell's enthusiasm was perhaps understandable, but his decision would later lead other members of his subcommittee to accuse the Oolorado Democrat of having conducted "a campaign more concerned with timing than with truth, with publicity rather than propriety." At the time he told NBC of his decision to question Callaway, Haskell had yet to show the Arber memorandum to subcommittee Reoublicans, nor had he informed them of- the investigation getting under way. The partisan nature of the hearings, then, was self-evident even before they began: Indeed, the April hearings were merely an extension of the trial-by-headline orchestrated in March. Proof of that rests with Haskell's announced intention to interrogate Callaway in the Senate-knowing full well the effect that this would have on the Georgian's reputatlon~ven before the investigation had begun. A week after his announcement, subcommittee investigators were journeying to Colorado in an effort to substantiate Arber's quasi allegations. After examining thousands of documents and questioning dozens of witnesses, they reported that the record showed that:

There had been no "reversal" of Forest Service position on the Snodgrass Mountain issue.

There was "no positive evidence" to indicate that any pressure or direction had passed .from Washington to regional rangers.

There was nothing to indicate that the local transfers were anything other than routine.

There was "no evidence" that Callaway was acquainted with the rangers' replacements in Crested Butte.

The Arber memorandum, in other words, was useless. Had Haskell waited upon the results of his field investigation before imputing Callaway's guilt, it's unlikely that hearings into Crested Butte would have been held. At this point, Haskell was committed. By mid-March, Callaway's reputation and political career had already been destroyed. To have cancelled the hearings for lack of evidence might have exposed Haskell to charges of character assassination and political opportunism. The hearings would have to be held, and, sadly for Callaway, the reputation of his inquisitor probably would depend upon their outcome.

THE DEVASTATING EFFECT

Polk's broadcast, carrying news of the scheduled hearings, had a sensational effect. Hours after the news flickered across the television screen, Callaway took leave of the Ford campaign intending to return within a week or two. The Pentagon meeting was not, in his opinion, an improper one. He had a right to meet with Agriculture officials about Crested Butte, and there was nothing unusual in his request that the Forest Service expedite its decision in his favor. On the

contrary, literally thousands of such contact3 take place in Washington every year.8

As for the meeting being held in his office, Callaway says, "It was my last day! I'd already resigned as Secretary of the Army. What was I supposed to do? Two friends I'd known for years asked if they could pay a 'courtesy call'-and I said 'fine.' Where else should we have met? In a hotel room? What would that have looked like?"

So Callaway thought the issue could be disposed of in a relatively short time. Working with his attorneys and aides, he gave the Senate a voluminous file, documenting every letter, phone call, and business contact he'd had in the preceding twenty-seven months. That file would eventually comprise more than half of the Senate's written record. It would also show that Callaway had written thank-you notes to those he'd met in the Pentagon and that, in a two-year period, he'd called Richard Ashworth exactly twice. Because the notes were typed on stationery belonging to the Secretary of the Army, this would be construed by Senate Democrats as further evidence that Callaway abused his office, attempting to bully the bureaucracy with subliminal hints at his power. To Callaway, however, it had seemed a casual thing: a letter from the President's campaign manager would have been more impressive had he actually intended to invoke his "political influence." In any case Callaway could hardly have disguised his position, unless he'd chosen to write in crayon on pages torn from a spiral notebook, signing them "You Know Who." In fact, Callaway used his Army stationery even when writing to his family. Indeed, one such letter to his brother-in-law describes the Pentagon meeting, and suggests rather clearly that the Forest Service was not intimidated:

"Ralph: I really couldn't get too much out of Rex Resler. Every time that I thought I had him pinned down, something else came out .. .'' Not that the session was a complete bust. The letter continues, "But with Phil (Campbell] and Richard [Ashworth] listening, he did agree that there would be no timing on the issue of whether Snodgrass is in the ski area or not. I believe we can hold him to this commitment."

As it happened, Callaway was wrong about that but, after March 12, it hardly mattered. Following Polk's broadcast, Callaway's fortunes precipitously declined. Some people within the Ford campaign saw the Georgian's problem as a political opportunity for themselves. Accordingly, they isolated him from the President and demanded that his leave of absence become a resignation. Callaway refused, still thinking he could clear himself. By March 15, however, rumors involving Callaway were metastasizing in the national media. Besides the Senate's, there were at least six other investigations under way,0 and no allegation was too fatuous to report.

From Colorado, a tale of bribery emerged, becoming national news a month after it

s According to former Secretary of Agri.::ulture Earl Butz, the Forest Service handled 3,687 such inquiries in 1975-!rom members of Congre~s alone. Additionally, more than fifty formal meetings were convened between congressional constituents and representatives of the Forest Service's Washington office. An even larger number of other meetings, characterized as "informal," were held for the same purpose in the offices of those who were members of the 93rd Congress. Indeed, Senator Haskell himself intervened thirty-eight times on behalf of constituents, contacting Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz with requests that he expedite Forest Service decisions or otherwise assist his constituents.

e None of the investigations found Callaway guilty of any wrongdoing.

22440 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977 first surfaced in the Gunnison Country Times. According to that newspaper's managing editor, Kyle Lawson, the story came about in the following way: "A woman who refused to give her name asked if the newspaper was aware of a $135,000 bribe allegedly paid to the Forest Service and various Forest Service officials for a favorable reaction on the CBDC application to expand .... She said she had heard this information at 'a party.' She would not say from whom she had heard the rumor. And, shortly after divulging the information, 'for whatever you want to do with it,' hung up. I was skeptical of the remark and told her so and warned her that the repeating of the rumor was tantamount to scandalous libel. The Country Times did nothing with the report, feeling it ... to be unfounded." Well, not exactly. The editor continues: "However, when the opportunity came to interview [Forest Ranger J Wilkins, our reporter did broach the subject with him to see if the Forest Service had also heard of this rumor. With the resulting-·decision of Mr. Wilkins's part to call for an investigation, we felt we had no choice but to print such a call and give the reasons for it.'' So much for Free Will.

By asking the Forest Service about "the bribery rumor,'' the Country Times created a news story, elevating a crank call to the stature of a scoop-albeit one with so little foundation that national media wouldn't touch it until Mid-March. By then, Callaway's reputation was beyond the help of an oxygen tent. The March 14 issue of the Denver Post was a veritable broadside against Ford's campaign manager, devoting a yard of news space to the leaked and baleful suspicions of Arber and Haskell. With the publication of that story, the Colorado edda moved to the front pages of the Washington and New York papers, encasing Callaway's reputation in editorial cement.

As the month wore on, Callaway twisted in the wind of print. Reports of senate investigators interviewing Forest Service officials were page-one news in the Washington Post, while Callaway's denial of office misuse was embalmed on page 28 nine days later. The national news weeklies also made much of the story, trumpeting it with their usual sensitivity and panache. Headlining its March 29 dispatch "Curtains for Callaway,'' Time magazine referred to the "genial . . . bumbling ... bigwig" who had a nicknamee that was two-thirds of the I expletive "boo!" Under a photograph of a smiling Callaway on skis, the cutline read "Two many boo-boos,'' while subheads summed the story up with the words "Scandals," "Sweet-talk,'' and (again) "Boo-boos." If you failed to get the drift the first two times, the story's last sentence chugged in with the kicker that Ford "cannot afford to wait for the final verdict on Bo's boo-boos."

Within a matter of days, Ford's campaign took a predictably sudden turn for the worse; North Carolina reversed earlier polls showing "Mr. Clean" to be ahead, and gave its mandate to Reagan. After three yeus of scandal, GOP voters began to get the idea that a new team should be brought in from the coast. Bo Callaway seemed like just another bat in the "Watergate nightmare." A week before the Sen'.'l.te hearings, he reresigned from Ford's campaign and retired from politics.

"NO SIR, HE DID NOT"

The hearings opened April 8 and, over the next three days, seventeen witnesses were read the!r rights and asked if they understood them. They did. The atmosphere in the hearings was that of a political trial. Indeed, Haskell's argumentative demeanor, interruptions of witnesses, and prosecutorial "summations" led Sen. James McClure (Rep.Idaho) to issue an unheard-of rebuke to his subcommittee chairman. "I suppose it's an

irresistible impulse on the part of any persons interested in a congressional hearing to try the case to the jury before all the evidence is in," McClure said. "I don't intend to try to make any summ!l.tion to the jury at this time," he added, alluding to the television cameras, "nor am I counsel for or against any of the participants in this inquiry." It was not the sort of commentary one usually hears in 1;he Senate. But hter McClure would go even further, joining four other senators in labeling the affair "an exercise for political advantage and excoriation ... "

As for the witnesses, their testimony confirmed the results of the field investigation. Calla.way's oonhcts with the Agriculture Department had been minimal, and entirely reasonable in light of his concern about the tentative East River Unit plan and the delay it proposed. Nothing untoward had occurred. No pressure had seeped from Washington to Crested Butte. Earl Butz's only role in the affair was to forward a memo from Ca~pbell to Ashworth; the memo, reporting Callaway's position as he expressed it at the Pentagon meeting, remained for six weeks on Butz's desk before the Secretary of Agriculture forwarded it to Ashworth with the notation th3.t 'Phil thinks Bo is right on this, ELB-call Rex Resler.'' Ashworth, however, did not call Resler, and Butz had no other contract with Callaway concerning Crested Butte.

Callaway was the seventeenth witness to be called after three days of testimony. In his opening statement, he addressed the issue of improper influence directly: "Let me say that I know something about political pressure. I have seen it first hand. I have been pressured by labor unions who want more employment. I have been pressured by Senators and Congressmen who want Defense spending in their States ... I have been pressured by governors, mayors, and local legislators ... I have been wooed by Chambers of Commerce ... I have been called by White House aides with the magic words: "The President wants ... I have been told by Senators and Congressmen, 'Bo, I don't want any special favors, but I want you to remember that I sit on your Appropriations Committee.' I have been told: 'Bo, if I don't get what I want I'm going to go over your head to the Secretary of Defense or to the President.' Let me say in all candor, there are few people in America who know more about pressure than I do. I have had it applied to me by experts. But, Mr. Chairman, in all my experience, I have never had anyone tell me that if I didn't do what he wanted, he would go to the Deputy Undersecretary of the Army, because when you want to pressure you go to the top.

"As one who has had pressure applied, I should know how to apply it. If I had wanted to apply pressure for Crested Butte, I can assure you I would have called the Secretary of Agriculture rather than the Deputy Undersecretary of Agriculture, and I would have called him not once, but once a week.

"As you can imagine, I have gone over and over in my mind during the last month all of the events in connection with this investigation. The one that stands out, obviously, is the meeting in my office on July 3. Without that meeting I don't think there would be anything that anyone could, even by innuendo, allege as an impropriety on my part. I have thought about this a lot and in retrospect I have tried to get myself to conclude that if it happened again I would do something different. But, you know, I can't really say that. Perhaps I was naive.

"Let me give you the circumstances ... On ... July l, the Army gave a farewell review in my honor. It was an emotional experience for me. I love the Army, regretted having to say goodbye and appreciated the enormous honor of a nineteen-gun salute, a

review by the Old Guard ... , and complimentary remarks by [the Secretary of Defense] and Army Chief of Staff . . . Phil Campbell and Richard Ashworth came to that review. I thought it was a very gracious thing to do, and I appreciated it. On the following day Richard Ashworth called me as an old friend, saying that he and Phil would like to come by on my last duty in office and express their gratitude for the job that I had done, and at the same time bring me up to date on the Crested Butte situation. In retrospect, I probably would say again, as I did on July 2, 'Come on by. I'll be glad to see you.'"

Having said that, Callaway went on to the Arber memorandum. "Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have requested repeatedly from this committee that I be allowed to see a copy of the so-called 'narrative,' but you have denied this request. I believe that it is fundamental to the American system of justice that a man be allowed to know the allegations against him and face his accusers . . . Surely you realized that I would be handicapped having to answer allegations that have not been made known to me.''

The accusation infuriated Haskell, who denied that the memorandum was the basis for the hearings. He recalled a letter Callaway had written demanding that Arber, Glass, and Levin be called before the committee to testify. And he asked if Callaway would like him to subpoena them. Callaway replied that "My problem is I have been twisting in the wind for a month. To wait again for another three or four weeks is not what I want." He withdrew his request for the subpoenas but offered an alternative: noting that Miles Arber was present, Callaway asked that he be called as a witness. If Arber would testify, Callaway would not ask that Levin and Glass appear. Haskell replied, "I think . . . we will recess these hearings until right after the Easter recess; we will issue subpoenas . . . to the three gentlemen.''

"You are aware that I requested that not be done,'' Callaway said. "I have a personal commitment, my daughter is getting married in that week, my desire is to get this behind me as soon as possible and I request that we finish today, with or without witnesses, please, sir, finish today."

Haskell was resolute in the pose that the subcommittee's "integrity" was at stake, and Callaway would receive, whether he liked it or not. And he didn't like it. "As I understand it," he said, "at the time you quite properly read me my rights, I waived some of those rights, such as the right to remain silent. I will happily waive the right to know more information at this time. I will waive it fully, I will not complain, I will waive the right to have additional information if we can continue and end these trials ... I would like to finish it.''

The display was a brutal one, and it was also bizarre. Arber was seated in the hearing room and Haskell had already obtained a subpoena for him. Asked if he was willing to testify, Arber said, "I am ... , (but] not without a subpoena." Nodding, Haskell then racessed the hearings for a month, until May 13. It didn't make any sense, unless you enjoyed the suffering in Calla.way's face.

It was a peculiar course of action. Virtually all of the witnesses had already testified, and each of them was in agreement on the subject of improper influence. Their responses to the following question were unanimous:

"Did Howard H. Callaway or any person known to you to be associated with him or with Crested Butte Development Corporation offer you anything of value or threaten or pressure you in any way to reach any decision you may have reached or change any decision you may have changed with respect to any matter having to do with the Crested Butte Ski Resort at any time_ from 1969 to today?"


A good question. A hard question. A question with six "anys" and four "ors" in it! And this is what the witnesses replied:

Mr. McGuire: "No." Mr. Resler: "Absolutely not." Mr. Ashworth: "None whatsoever Mr. Rupp: "No, they did not. Mr. Lucas: "No." Mr. Wilkins: "No, sir." Mr. Pierce: "Absolutely not." Mr. Edstrom: "No, sir." Mr. Larsen "No, sir." Mr. Carr: "No, sir." Mr. Butz: "No, sir." Mr. Campbell: "No, sir, they did not." Mr. Minow: "No, sir, they did not."

NO REDEMPTION

When the hearings were reconvened thirty days la..ter, Callaway had been twisting in the wind for so long that he seemed dehydrated. For more than two months his reputation had declined, despite the testimony of every witness repudiating charges of political pressure and wrongdoing. Actually, it didn't matter what the witnesses said. In the inverted atmosphere of post-Watergate Washington, a denial ls usually regarded as a form of polite confession. In any case, Callaway couldn't win: the "appearance of impropriety" was established by the fact of the Senate investigation. And predictably, Callaway's own testimony, coming a month after the hearings were recessed, was reported for what it was: the denial of a. disgraced poll,

In Washington, the s·tory was presented to public as a latter-day version of the David a.nd Golia.th saga. Filling in for the Philistines were (appropriately enough) that small, but fearsome, subculture known as the Republicans. The "Chosen People." of course, were the Democrats. And yet, a fair examination of the record reveals that Calla.way/Goliath is a hardworking family man whose powers had been wildly exaggerated. David, on the other hand, was impersonated by Sen. Floyd Haskell, whose own dimensions were minimized by media sympathetic to the Democrats--the intention being to excuse David's blatant resort to dirty tricks (I refer to the sling containing mud).

This ls a city that can only be understood through anecodotes told about it. General descriptions of Washington's ways· and means are bound to fail because it ls impossible to say anything that's completely true, or entirely false, about a town whose raison d'etre is compromise. The city ls defined by its ambiguities, its approximations, and reasonable facsimiles. A sort of urban Wonder Bread, familiar to all and theoretically capable of feeding millions, the capital is a.glutinous and insubstantial at heart, ultimately unknowable and depressing to contemplate. It's a place where prestige ls routinely confused with power when, in fact, the real power resides in the most boring process of an unreachable bureaucracy, its anonymous "transmission belts," red tape, and ringing phones.

And yet, prestige is rewarded here, Just a.s celebrity is rewarded in Hollywood. A reputation for having power is bankable (and, a.s 08.llaway found out, potentially destructive). And Washington resembles Hollywood in another way, too: like its sister-city on the West Coast, it's devoted to the manufacture of images-second-rate deceptions projected upon the brain pans of a citizenry which expects little and gets . . . disappointed.

Callaway had no hope of returning to politics, but there was a chance that hiS reputation would be redeemed in the Senate subcommittee's final Report. He asked that the allegations age.inst him be clearly stated, along with the committee's findings. "I! the committee determines there ls no evidence to support these accusations, then I respectfully request that the ... Report says so

and say I have been fully exonerated. I trust the Report will not speak vaguely and in generalities. . . . "

His trust was misplaced. The Report took almost six months to prepare, during which time Callawa.y's reputation starved. And, over the protests of Senate Republicans, the Report wa.~ withheld from the minority until the la.st minute. On September 7, it was turned over to dissenting senators with the injunction that they had Just forty-eight hours to analyze it and append any rebuttal they might have. Minority staffers said they were "flabbergasted" by the Report, as the GOP senators themselves made clear in a.

· startling ( and startled) dissent. Branding the Report a.s one filled with

"smear and innuendo," the dtssenters went on to describe it a.s "unfair and misleading," citing a.s much evidence of its "bias and prejudice" as they could type out in two days. Pointing to Sena.tor Haskell's opening statements as "damning evidence of bias," the Republicans commented that "the timing, the tenor a.nd the content" of his remarks "removed forever a.ny question regarding the chairman's objectivity. The chairman abandoned the role of a.n unbiased fa.ctfl.nder to assume the role of an outspoken advocate. The case against Callaway became his case and he argued to the public what he thought the facts were before all the evidence was in." (Emphasis in original). It was a. ringing rebuke, and it was accurate. The Report it described is a most unsenatorial document, invoking "lingering doubts" and "serious concerns" about a host of resolved issues, e.g., while there was "no evidence" that the Pentagon meeting was initiated by Callaway, and while the witnesses testified that it had no effect, the Report concludes that it was "at least translatable into the appearance of improper pressure." Translatable into an appearance? What does that mean? Similarly, the Report finds that "there is no positive evidence" of Calla.way's having influenced the Forest Service; "On the other hand," it adds, "this possibility cannot be excluded." (Thus is the virtue of open-mindedness reduced to a vice: why, if there's no evidence, should the possibility not be excluded?)

Elsewhere, the Report suggests that witness have perjured themselves: repeatedly, summations of sworn testimony are introduced with the phrase, "The subcommittee has been asked to believe ... " But, of course, no one ls ever called a liar. In yet other places, we're told that Calla.way's conduct "can raise the specter of improper pressure" and that it "poses ... serious questions of propriety." Specters, of course, are insubstantial things, and the purpose of Senate hearings ls to disperse, rather than raise, them-Just as a Senate Report is supposed to answer questions rather than rephrase them. The document, in short, commits analytical mayhem, reaching its conclusive innuendos only by ignoring the evidence given by every witness.

JUDGING REPUTATION BY PROXY

The fact of the matter ls that the damage done to Callaway's reputation and career wa.s so great that Senator Haskell had placed himself in Jeopardy. Should Callaway, in ruins, be found innocent, he would seem a ma.rtyrand Haskell, as the instrument of his unravelling, an imprudent ma.n at best, a persecutor at worst. At the very lea.st, "reasonable doubts" of Callaway's innocence would have to be sustained if Haskell was not to suffer the consequences of his inquisition. One might think that in view of the witnesses' unanimity, such doubts could not be sustained. But "reasonable" is, in the end, a matter of majority opinion. And there were seven Democrats and only tour Republicans on the Haskell subcommittee: it should not have been too hard to get a maJo:rity to approve the Report.

And yet, the subcommittee was an unusual one. Among the seven Democrats were no fewer than three candidates for places on the party's national ticket: Harry Jackson, Frank Church, and John Glenn. That in itself made the de facto impeachment of Ford's campaign manager highly suspect but Jackson, at least, had the intelligence to wash his hands of the affair from the beginning. He would not participate in the hearings, he said, or cast any vote, because it might give the appearance of partisan impropriety. This pose reduced the voting majority of Democrats to two. The majority was narrowed even further, however, when Sen. John Glenn proved unable to attend all the hearings. Glenn could have given his proxy to Haskell, but he declined. He didn't think it proper to Judge a man's reputation by proxy.

With the proxies of Jackson and Glenn withdrawn, the Democratic majority consisted of a single vote. It belonged to Sen. Frank Church. Like Jackson, he was a Presidential candidate and might have excused himself from Judgment on that ground alone. But there was another reason for him to demur: like Glenn, he would be unable to attend any of the hearings. He had two good reasons, then, to withhold his proxy from Haskell. But he did not: too many political debts could be incurred by casting it, or having it cast for him. Later, this became something of an embarrassment: Church's proxy vote on the Report put the seal on Calla.way's reputation, and he was asked about it by Rick Coffman, an Idaho newspaperman. Church said he was not a Presidential candidate at the time the hearings were called, having declared for the Presidency on March 18. Coffman pointed out that Church already had raised a sizable campaign chest before that time and had, moreover, become eligible for federal funds months before. He could hardly deny that he was running for President. In a.ny case, his !allure to attend a single hearing might be seen as reason to disqualify himself from voting-especially in view of the fact that he had not read the Report. How could he allow his proxy to be ca.st under those circumstances?

Apparently, the questioning disturbed Church. A week after the Report was approved by a 5-4 majority, with Haskell ca.sting Church's vote, a new vote was ordained. Its purpose was to afford Church the opportunity of casting his own vote: the decisive proxy left a queasy impression. Unfortunately, Church somehow failed to attend that meeting, too, and, at the last minute, Haskell endured the ignominy of having to cast the putative proxy a second time. He could hardly be blamed: if he failed to get a majority to endorse the Report, the hearings would be revealed as a fraud.

Months after the election had been lost, Callaway wandered through the editorial rooms of the Washington Post and other publications, looking for exoneration in print. Like the Ancient Mariner, he wouldn't let the issue die, but "stoppeth one in three." And like that old sailor, he received little solace. Post editor Ben Bradlee listened to his tale and sighed and shrugged. "C'est vrai," he says, "mais ce n'est une histoire." And Bradlee was right. Boy, is it not a news story! Callaway is no longer a political figure of national importance. His reputation, having been ruined, is suddenly a private matter. Besides, Callaway has had his day in the hearing room, and it dragged on for months. The resuLt was 1600 pages of turgid testimony about matters of fleeting relevance. Included in the hearings are scores of maps, excruciating chronologies of minor events spanning seven years, and literally hundreds of exhibits ranging from "Early Warning Alerts" to letters, memoranda, and telephone logs-all of it cresting in a 196-page Senate Report that reads like an investigative article in

2:2442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 12, 1977 Rolling Stone: "the specter is raised," nagging doubts persist," "there is no positive evidence but . . . " Indeed, the Senate's investigation of Callaway's activities generated so much detail that its product is, from beginning to end, almost unreadable. Any reasonable man (Sen. Frank Church, for instance) would, upon hefting these tomes of testimony, shake his head and conclude that "where there's smoke, there's fl.re," Ipso facto, Callaway must be a walking inferno. But ...

("No.") ("No, sir.") ("Absolutely not.") ("No, sir, they did not.")

NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION There is only one other anecdote to recount

about the affair, and it says more about Washington in the Seventies than it does about Bo Callaway or his accusers.

While putting together the story of the character assassination of Bo Callaway, as performed by the inmates of the Senate, I had cause to interview a man who'd worked with him for years, and considered himself Callaway's friend. We met outside the Washington Visitors' Center, and he was obviously agitated at the thought of our meeting. He didn't want to be seen talking to a reporter.

"Let's walk over there," he said, gesturing to a park filled with trees. As we strolled, we made small talk about a third world war and then, locating a bench, we sat down. "I want you to understand something," he said, "before I'll talk to you."

"Okay." "You have to agree that what I'm about

to tell you is for deep-background only. Maybe that's not the right phrase. What I mean is, you can quote what I say, but you can't attribute it. I don't want to be mentioned in your story, and I don't want you to characterize me in any way-not as old or young or middle-aged, not as a bureaucrat, an Army man, or a politician. If this gets out, my career is ruined. Understood??"

"Yeah. What is it?" He paused for a second and, in the space

of it, glanced at his shoulder. "If you attribute this, I'll have your head."

"I won't." "All right. Bo Callaway is an honest

man .... " The conversation lasted thirty minutes,

but that was all he had to say, really. And I wondered about a city in which a good reputation is "not for attribution."

LOULA F. DUNN, PAST DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WELFARE GROUP, DIES Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, in the

Washington Post of June 30, there was a news article telling of the death of Miss Loula F. Dunn, one of the most outstanding persons in the field of public welfare th~t we have ever had. At the time that Loula Dunn retired, Wilbur J. Cohen, who was then Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, declared:

The trouble is that you can't replace Miss Loula. She could work with localities, states, HEW and the Congress.

I knew Loula Dunn and had the pleasure of working in cooperation with her. She was really irreplaceable.

I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the RECORD the news item regarding Loula Dunn.

There being no objection, the news item was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, June 30, 1977) LOULA F. DUNN, PAST DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

WELFARE GROUP, DIES Loula F. Dunn, 81, a nationally known

leader in public welfare work, died Tuesday at Georgetown University Hospital after a long illness.

She had served as executive director of the American Public Welfare Association from 1948 until her retirement in 1964.

During that period, the APWA headquarters were located in Chicago, then moved to Washington in 1974.

Miss Dunn, who had frequently visited the APW A branch office here during her tenure as executive director, moved here after her retirement.

Miss Dunn had been the first woman executive of APWA. She constantly preached that politics and public welfare were interwoven because both were the "tools of the people."

At her retirement, Wilbur J. Cohen, then assistant secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, declared: "The trouble is that you can't replace 'Miss Loula.' She could work with localities, states, HEW and the Congress."

Over the years, Miss Dunn maintained close associations with such public figures as Eleanor Roosevelt, President Lyndon B. Johnson and Nelson A. Rockefeller.

Born in Grove Hill, Ala., she started as a public school teacher in 1916. In the 1920's, she completed social work studies at Alabama Polytechnic Institute and the University of North Carolina.

Miss Dunn then became a case worker with the Alabama Child Welfare Department in Montgomery. She advanced to the position of assistant director of that agency and was named director of social services for the Alabama Relief Administration in 1933.

A ye,ar later, she joined the staff of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, forerunner of the Works Progress Administration. She was based in New Orleans and was responsible for the administration of social work and employment programs in six southern staites.

It was during this period that she became acquainted with Mrs. Roosevelt and President Johnson.

Miss Dunn was named Alabama commissioner of public welfare in 1937. In the years that followed, she gained national attention for her work in establishing child-welfare services and for her participation in international efforts to protect children uprooted by World War II.

She was vice president of the Child Welfare League of America from 1940 to 1950, and toured Great Britain in 1945 as an official emissary of this country in connection with child welfare.

Miss Dunn, a familiar figure on Capitol Hill for many years, was considered a key figure in bringing together social welfare leaders from all over the country to help study and draft legislation establishing many of the current federally aided social programs.

She is survived by a brother, Robert H. Dunn, of Alexandria, and a sister, Minnie Dunn, of Montevallo, Ala.

ISRAELI WATER POLICY Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, one

of the most serious problems facing American agriculture, especially west of the Mississippi River, is the lack of a supply of water to meet projected use trends. In several parts of the West and Great Plains, farmers are simply using water at a much faster rate than the supply can be replenished. Since these areas are

enormously productive, the outlook for continued strength from these areas is in doubt. We must begin to consider exploring policy alternatives that either generate more water or conserve this precious resource in a meaningful manner.

In view of the above, I would like to share with my colleagues a report, "Israeli Water Technology Offers Models for Arid Climates Throughout the World," from the July 11 issue of the Farm Bureau News. This article not only gives us a few alternatives that we may want to review in formulating an irrigation policy for this country, but shows how a determined nation has transformed one of the most arid regions of the world into one of the most agriculturally productive.

Israel has been extremely innovative in at least two respects. First, it has developed systems, such as drip irrigation, for using water more wisely. Second, it has developed new sources of water. It has discovered water in the Negev Desert and bred plants that can tolerate salt water, thereby giving Israel the option of irrigating lands through one of the most plentiful supplies of water available to man, the ocean.

Mr. President, I would like to commend American Farm Bureau Federation President Allan Grant and his study mission delegation for making this very informative report available to the farmers of America. I am hopeful that this article will stimulate both farmers and policymakers in the search for an answer to the emerging water dilemma that America faces.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in the RECORD.


[From Farm Bureau News, July 11, 1977) ISRAELI WATER TECHNOLOGY OFFERS MOD'ELS

FOR ARID CLIMATES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD (A foreign trade and study mission of Farm

Bureau leaders, headed by AFBF President Allan Grant, completed a 10-day tour of Israel in May, where Israeli expertise in irrigation was one of the areas examined by the American farmers. What follows is a special feature to the FB News by Ellen Davidson highlighting some of the water technology viewed on the mission to Israel.) JERUSALEM.-Water is Israel's subterranean

treasure, not oil. And in this half desert country wher 95 percent of all practical water resources a.re being used, scientists have become experts at ma.king every drop count.

In the Negev Desert professors a.re 1·ediscovering farming and water storage methods used more than 2,000 years ago by the ancient Israelites. Not far away, scientists are learning how cotton, potatoes, and cucumbers can thrive on centuries-old brackish water, which has been discovered in vast quantities in reservoirs under the parched desert.

Clouds in Israeli skies are being forced to rain by clO'l.'.d seeding techniques, which have shown that rainfall in certain areas can be increased up to 15 percent, and several hotels in Eilat, Israel's Red Sea port city, are using sea water in their air cooling systems.

WATER FOR THE FUTURE These are merely some of the stop-gap

measures to insure an adequate water supply for the present. The grander schemes


hinge on plans to increase Israel's available water an impressive 50 percent by 1990.

The era of desalination is now. Three flashevaporation plants are already in operation, supplying desalinated water from the Red Sea to the people in the port town of Eilat.

This is only the beginning. Israel is in the midst of a 15-year program to develop distillation plants with capacities of one, ten, and 100 million gallons per day (MGD). The one MGD plant is already in operation in Eilat. Its success is bringing about the ten MGD plant, currently being built in Ashdod on the Mediterranean coast. The 100 MGD desalination facility wlll be built coupled to a nuclear power plant, the two processes complementing each other. This plant will produce ab0ut 120 million cubic meters of fresh water each year at between 20 to 30 U.S. cents per cubic meter.

RECYCLED WASTE AND AGRICULTURE

Desalted water will only be a part of the additional 500 million cubic meters of water Israel will produce by 1930. Much of it will be drawn from recycled sewage and industrial waste. Recycling of liquid wastes, however, is a costly procedure. A professor at The Technion, Israel's Institute of Technology, has come up with a new process that promises to be cheaper than procedures now being used . Instead of starting with the conventional treatment of sewage using primary and sec·· ondary biological processes, and then proceeding to advanced treatment if needed, The Technion system begins with a sophisticated chemical-physical stage, and works in reverse of conventional systems.

Recycled water will not be used for drinking in the near future, but it will be available for unrestricted agriculture in a country using 70 percent of its water supply in the fields . Agriculture is big business for Israel. Five percent of the population not only produces all the country's agricultural needs, but the same farmers are keeping super-sized strawberries and high quality avocados on European tables in the snowy depths of winter, earning enough foreign currency to enable Israel to cover the cost of agricultural products that it must import. This is made possible by sophisticated farming techniques and efficient national water planning.

DRIP IRRIGATION FOR FIELD CROPS

The latest news in irrigation is that field row-crops-basic commodities for food and clothing like cotton, sugar, and potatoescan be fed controlled amounts of water, soluble fertilizers, and other chemicals through an improved drip irrigation system of hoses.

In the past, the drip system of irrigation, originated by Israelis 15 years ago, has brought dramatic savings in water and increased yields in many high profit crops such as tomatoes, grapes, strawberries, eggplants, and peaches. Now, however, with the use of disposable hoses, larger areas growing field crops important throughout the world can benefit from drip irrigation.

Irrigation equipment is continually being invented, including varous levels of automation to keep a strict control on the tight water supply. Nowadays it is becoming more and more common to see a kibbutz with a special control room, equipped with electronic remote sensing, control devices, and a computer. All of these devices are used to operate the irrigation system for several thousand acres producing a wide variety of crops. Mathematical models for scheduling allow irrigation schemes to push crop yields to their maximum.

WATER ECONOMY BY LAW

Because water is so precious in Israel, the emphasis on efficient water use is not only under constant study, but is enforced by a practical and rigid system of laws passed by the Knesset, Israel's parliament. Besides obvious restrictions like metering and prohibition of water pollution, a licensing system puts pressure on industrial firms to strive for

more efficient water use. The Water Commission actively sponsors research to develop water-saving equipment and drier production processes in industry.

WATER SOURCES

The water in Israel comes not only from the Jordan River, as popularly believed; but almost two-thirds from underground resources. The main groundwater aquifers are used not only as a source of water, but as operational and seasonal reservoirs. Many are linked to the "National Water Carrier," a huge pipe which transports the bulk of Israel's water from the Sea of Galilee in the North to the arid South, artificially recharging the underground reservoirs during the rainy winters.

WATER UNDERGROUND: BURIED TREASURE

Israeli geo-hydrologists, striving for increased water production from ground-water resources, have recently located huge reservoirs under the Negev and Sinai Deserts. This newly discovered water is an accumulation of rain water that fell on the Judean Hills to the north and the Sinai Desert to the south during the time of Jesus. Over the centuries, it has traveled to where it now rests waiting to be tapped. It is too salty to be used for drinking water, but researchers are developing special strains of crops that .can tolerate it. Cotton, tomatoes, and other crops are already growing successfully and economically on such water in no-rain areas.

Israel makes the most of her water supply and continually expands plans to increase it. During the past decade, more than a thousand research activities involving various aspects of water were completed-at the Technion, Ben Gurion University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Weizmann Institute, the Agricultural Research Institute, and by individuals.

If there is water for industry and irrigation tomorrow in this isolated, but energetic country, it is thanks to the high priority given to national water planning and the scientifically oriented nature of the entire national water program. The constant stream of innovations and methods continue to emerge, relevant not only to Israel, but to many other areas of the world as well.

LEASING IN THE DARK Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, over the

years, the Federal Government has been engaged in a practice with respect to oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf that can only be described as "selling a pig in a poke." Study after study of our leasing program has called attention to the fact that the Interior Department does not have adequate information about the nature and extent of the resources which it has been turning over to the big oil companies.

Within the next fe71 days, the Senate will be considering S. 9-the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1977-which, among other things, is designed to remedy this situation through new leasing systems and emphasis on making better information about the resources available to the owners-the American people-before they are sold.

We have just received the latest in a series of GAO reports on the OCS leasing program entitled "Outer Continental Shelf Sale 40-Inadequate Data Used To Select and Evaluate Lands To Lease." The report points out that-

The Department of Interior's policy of leasing Outer Continental Shelf lands that have not been properly evaluated (because of insufficient data) encourages industry to speculate in lands believed to contain no or min-

imal resources and does not guarantee that the Government receives the fair market value for these leased resources.

It goes on to recommend an exploration strategy designed to offer "the best acreage after it has been adequately explored for resources." Most of the elements in this strategy are already in S. 9 as reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. One key additional element is needed-federally funded exploratory or stratigraphic drilling where necessary to supplement information available from other sources. The amendment which I introduced yesterday-amendment No. 493-will provide this element. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the digest of the Comptroller General's recent report be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the digest was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: DIGEST-OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF SALE 40-

INADEQUATE DATA USED TO SELECT AND EVAL

UATE LANDS TO LEASE

More and more the Nation is relying on the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program as a way to increase our domestic oil and natural gas production. Decisions on where to lease and at what rate will greatly affect whether the Nation can decrease its reliance on foreign energy supplies and have enough energy resources to meet near-term needs.

The Department of Interior's policy of leasing Outer Continental Shelf lands that have not been properly evaluated (because of insufficient data) encourages industry to speculate in lands believed to contain no or minimal resources and does not guarantee that the Government receives the fair market value for these leased resources.

To prevent this, the leasing program should be designed to offer the best acreage after it has been adequately explored for resources.

In Sale 40, held on August 17, 1976, 154 oil and gas tracts were offered for lease off the coast of Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey ( called the Baltimore Canyon). The tracts were offered to the highest industry bidders, who are required to develop tracts for oil and gas. The bonus revenues received from the leased tracts were about $1.1 billion. (Bonus revenues are initial payments at time of lease, apart from the percent of production payments the Government later receives.)

SELECTING AND EVALUATING TRACTS

Interior selected tracts for lease after reviewing limited and insufficient data and before assessing the true resource development potential of the land. (See pp. 12 and 20.)

Before actual sale, each tract is assigned an evaluation of its worth to determine the acceptability of industry bids and to help assure the Government receives a fair market value return for the lease of public resources.

As with Sale 35, Sale 40 evaluations were unreliable-made without enough data. Interior had less overall information to use in evaluating Sale 40 than it did for Sale 35. (Seep. 22.)

INDUSTRY BONUS BIDDING

The best measure of a sale's success is not the total bonus dollars received from holding a sale but the ultimate dicovery and production of oil and natural gas.

For example, the total bonus revenues received from Sale 32 in 1973 were about $1.5 billion, but resources have not yet been found. The resource potential of the Sale 32 area is questionable. Getting more geologic knowledge before a sale may reduce indus-


try's willingness to pay high bonuses, but it will provide better knowlectse of the resource potential and aid in selecting areas to b,~ leased.

AGENCY COMMENTS

Because of the need to issue the report before passage of pending Outer Continental Shelf legislation, the Department was unable to formally comment in writing within the given timeframe. GAO did, however, discuss the report's recommendations with Department officials. These officials told GAO that the Department's views on the recommendations in the Sale 35 report as stated in the June 13, 19717•, letter from the Under Secretary of the Interior to Chairman Ribicoff, Senate Committee on Government Operations could be considered representative of their views on GAO's recommendations in this report. (See app. V.) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR

The Secretary of the Interior should direct a geological exploration program which has a systematic plan for appraising Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources, including selected stratigraphic test drilling. The plan should identify the level of stratigraphic drilling necessary to provide a minimal level of data on major shelf areas.

After the plan has been developed, the Secretary should .encourage private industry to explore areas identified in the plan and confidentially share with Interior the information developed. Exploration permits issued by the Department for private drilling should provide the opportunity for any bonafide potential bidders to "buy-in" on the exploration by equally sharing the cost of the drilling.

After Interior knows what land industry has explored and how thoroughly it was explored, if any data is still needed, the Department of the Interior should take necessary actions, including public financing of stratigraphic drilling, to obtain it.

In addition, after the tracts have been selected the process outlined above should be repeated to obtain more reliable data for prelease evaluation purposes if deemed necessary.

Interior's Geological Survey and Bureau of Land Management should be required to consider all necessary information and to make final corrections to tract values before lease. Then, the Department should offer for lease only those areas for which it has collected and analyzed sufficient information to adequately identify where the resources are, their estimated value, and potential for development in the near future.

RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS

In March 1977 GAO testified before the House Ad Hoc Select Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources that the recommendations in GAO's report on Sale 35 were generally in line with bllls before the 95th Congress (S. 9 and H.R. 1614).

Review of Sale 40 has provided additional support that more geologic data is needed to reduce the risk associated with Outer Continental Shelf resources development. Consequently, the Congress should favorably consider the pending legislation.

CRISIS IN AGRICULTURE-REPORT FROM NEW MEXICO NO. 3

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, the farming community, which we have so long viewed as a prime example of our Nation's foundation of hard work and reward, has been forced to bear a major burde:c. of Government overintervention. Ill-timed and inappropriate inter! erence by the Federal Government

has created an agricultural world where good weather, hard work, and bumper crops are to be feared rather than celebrated.

The scope of our agricultural dilemma was clearly apparent as I toured the east central and southwestern counties of New Mexico during the third and fourth recesses. Guadalupe, Quay, Curry, Roosevelt, Luna, and Hildalgo Torrance Counties include a wide spectrum of dryland, irrigated, and rangeland agric!lltural opportunities. However, the farmers and ranchers and their associated communities are gradually being destroyed by Federal farm policy. With the Government's attempts to substitute distant bureaucratic judgment for the realities of nature and the marketplace, most of these New Mexico farmers and ranchers are broke or are going broke.

Even though the drought may have lessened in these areas, the farmer's financial situation gets worse through no fault of his own. With the Government's attempts to protect farming and ranching from financial lows, it has removed the compensating highs as well as the ability to make up costs. In addition, as inflation and pass·through taxes drive up costs, the farmer or rancher receives at best only about 25 percent of any increased price paid by the consumer for food or fiber. The often maligned "middleman" gets the lion's share of these price increases. About half of the total retail cost of agricultural products is taxes that have been passed on along the way to the store.

What has happened to create a situation where the better the crop, the higher the financial losses? What has happened to create a situation where farmers cannot survive in the greatest agricultural nation on Earth?

The answer to both questions is the same. The Federal Government has destroyed the ability of farmers to react to supply and demand pressures, and to market or not to market their productive capacity in the world as a whole. At the present time, the farmers and ranchers are on a treadmill of overproduction and underselling encouraged by Federal policy and legislation.

The solution to this agricultural dilemma has two facets. In the long-term we must learn again how to trade food and fiber competitively in the world markets. In both the short and the long term we must cut costs, stabilize production and assist the agricultural community to survive until new, permanent, and expanding markets are created.

THE LONG 'I'ERM

The world is starving. The people in developing countries that need food most know the least about producing it. However, those countries could purchase food through the sale of their resources. Our task is to develop markets for food and fiber in these countries while helping them to develop the ability to pay realistic prices.

Other countries such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, present a more complex marketing problem. Not only must we obtain a fair market price for our sales of food

and fiber, but we must insist on reduction in their domestic military expenditures and foreign political subversion.

Economic interdependence through trade in agricultural and natural resources is a realistic foundation on which we can stabilize relations between nations.

THE SHORT TERM

The short-term challenge for agriculture is to stabilize, improve, and preserve the entire industry until the distortions produced by excessive Federal interference can be removed. This challenge will require significant activities in four major areas: Water supply, land management, general research, and financial assistance.

Water supply: The immediate future of New Mexico's agricultural industry, and that of most of the Southwest, depends on the more efficient use of available water. A detailed assessment of existing water supplies and further development of runoff recovery, artificial subirrigation, and indefinite withdrawal of marginally productive land will help achieve this goal.

Equally important will be improved climate forecasting. With such improved forecasting, it seems possible to accurately predict multiyear periods of drought and rain. In relation to this, it will be important to encourage better management of dry land farms, including techniques of stubble mulching and land terracing.

New Mexico, as well as other Southwestern States, has the potential of producing interim supplies of agricultural water from the purification of salty waters trapped in various closed or special geologic reservoir. As the cost of purification is driven downward through research and the use of waste heat from energy production, these saline water resources-possibly 20 billion acre-feet in New Mexico alone--can free existing surface and ground water for other purposes.

In the final analysis, however, the future of "high plains" irrigated agriculture will depend on the development of economical sources of "imported" water. Continued studies and technological research into the economic feasibility of major water redistribution projects will be a necessary part of future Federal activity in agriculture.

Land management: In addition to the land management implication of more efficient use of water and the use of multiyear climate forecasting, there are major reforms required in Federal land management programs. One of the major cost items faced by farmers and ranchers is associated with the Bureau of Land Management and the Environmental Protection Agency's unnecessary regulations. Ranchers and farmers know more about protecting and managing land than do bureaucrats in Washington. Putting the results of Federal and State agricultural research in the hands of ranchers and farmers, with the Government as servant rather than master, is the best insurance against bad land management.

General research: The land grant college system and its foundation of region-


ally oriented agricultural research still provides the base for low cost and highly productive agriculture. Through the Agricultural Extension Service and other public and private groups, the dissemination of the results of this research rapidly decreases production costs and improves products.

In addition to water and land management research, New Mexico and adjoining States can profit greatly through Federal and State activity in the following areas:

Pest and drought resistant crops and livestock.

Livestock with higher yield and improved reproduction rates.

Vine, terpentine and other weed irradica-tion.

Range caterpillar control and irra.dication. Salt resistant crops. Solar energy irrigation and processing

technology.

Financial assistance: The continued necessity for various forms of financial assistance in our distorted agricultural economy is obvious. However, it is critical to view these assistance programs only as interim measures which will preserve the industry until new markets, better prices and lower production costs permit a return to free market economics.

In cases where financial assistance is necessary, such as Farmers Home Administration and Federal Housing Administration loans, emergency loans, et cetera, there must be a marked decrease in red.tape and an increase in consistency from region to region.

ECONOMIC POLICY

One of the major reasons that farm and ranch production costs are generally below market prices is the ever-present inflation. The burdens of inflation are unequal and unrelenting. The producer sees all the effects of inflation in his costs, but only a fraction of inflation in the price he receives for his product. The "middleman" and the Government get the rest.

The primary trigger for continued inflation is the annual Federal deficit. Agriculture, more than any other sector of the economy, has a major stake in the Federal Government's goal of a balanced budget and sound fiscal policies.

ENERGY POLICY

Agriculture's future, like that of the Nation, will be determined by the energy policy of this country. In the long-term, "energy crops" will not only be a possible source for alternative fuel and power, but may begin to off er another resolution to the problem of overproduction of food and fiber and low incomes for the farmer. The balancing of the use of land between energy crops and traditional agricultural crops will be a future issue of great importance.

Marginal agricultural lands may also become the most important resource we have for the gathering of sunlight by artificial means rather than by crops. Electrical power produced by these "solar farms" can provide a major weapon as we work toward victory in the war against future energy shortages.

In the near term, the costs of agricultural produ:::tion will reflect energy

costs as such costs affect transportation, cultivation, fertilizer, weed and pest control, processing, and irrigation. Agriculture's interest in greatly increased new oil and gas production to insure supply and reduce costs is as great as its interest in reducing waste of existing supplies of oil and gas.

CONCLUSION

This summary of agricultural problems and potentials is biased toward the characteristics of the high plains-"Llano Estacado"-and irrigated basins of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado. However, the Nation is in many respects as dependent as is this region upon a greatly improved agricultural economy.

In the long-term production must be brought in line with available markets.

In the near-term, production costs must be reduced as much as possible and financial assistance must be available so that the agricultural industry can survive until free market forces can be restored.

One of our biggest challenges is to preserve the small- to medium-sized farming and ranching operation and the small business and labor community that supports them.

Individual freedom and initiative reach deep into the soil of agriculture. We have no choice but to insure their roots are healthy and permanent.

FOURTH OF JULY ADDRESS Mr. PELL. Mr. President, among the

oldest and most celebrated observations of Independence Day is the annual Fourth of July parade held in Bristol, R.I. This year, as always, the Bristol Fourth of July Parade was a colorful, enthusiastic, and patriotic occasion, and I was delighted to attend and to participate in the observance.

The principal speaker at the Bristol celebration was a distinguished Rhode Island jurist, the Honorable Anthony J. Dennis, associate judge of the Rhode Island district court. In his eloquent address, Judge Dennis cited the proud achievements of our Nation, and called for a rebirth of the traditional American determination to build a more prosperous and just society.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Judge Dennis' inspirational Fourth of July address be printed in its entirety in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

JULY 4, 1977. With the coming of Independence Day we

are reminded that few events touch the hearts of Americans-as the celebration of our Nation's birthdate.

At this time of year--early sumtner when the leaves are green and full and the breezes warm-many of us experience a deeply moving affirmation of faith in America.

As it is with the calendar-so it sometimes seexns to be with our country and its system.

For there are those among us who would have us believe that America has come to its own September-that our days are dwindling down-that the green leaves of our best season a.re turning brown, and will soon be falling.

That before long-we w111 feel the :first

chill wind of a long winter and that our Nation's stand as mankind's-last best hope-will be done.

For those who preach this prophecy-and for those who believe it--this period in our times can only be a. melancholy season.

But it is to that mood-and to the views which foster it--that I want to address my remarks today.

For too long we have permitted the dark perception of America to pervade our midst.

Day after day-month after month-the portrayal of our Nation as America the unclean-America the unjust--America the unworthy has been ground into the consciousness of our people.

We no longer see the blooming flowers, for we are searching for the litter. We no longer celebrate the many fresh triumphs of justice-for we are lingering over the residue of yesterday's shortcomings.

We no longer measure the miles we have come, toward · a more humane, civil and peaceful America-for we are too busy allowing these dark perceptions to dominate us.

We are allowing our future to be shaped by visions that are small and mean-visions that diminish our potential.

We are, in simple terms-dooming those who come after us-to know what can only be called-a. second-rate America.

Just weeks before his death-A truly great patriot--Lyndon Baines Johnson-spoke on this very subject--in wh..i.t may stand as his :final farewell-to his beloved Nation.

I have taken the liberty to paraphrase his speech here-on tribute to him.

Over all the yea.rs of our Nation's existence-we have been setting goals for ourselves--and striving tirelessly to reach them. Those goals have been both the slogans and the substance of our national affairsfor generation after generation:

Full employment--decent wages-adequate housing--education for everyon&-opportunity for all-good health-good medical care-and above all equal justice under the law-for all of our fellow men and women.

America's goals have been simple and basic-all of our resources and strength-private and public-have been committed to the effort--and we have come very close to success.

Nowhere, over all the globe-have any people-under any other system-come nearer to fulfillment of such aspirationsthan we have under our system-here in America.

We have not understood-and still do not fully comprehend-where we are-or what we are about.

I see little today-suggesting that our system is failing. But I do see-all too muchwhich convincingly argues-that by our doubts-we may be failing the promise and potential of our great American system.

We are not living in times of collapsethe Nation is not coming down.

With our past ·efforts-with our long and faithfully kept commitments-with our infinite successes in so many :fields-we have brought into being the materials-with which to construct a new America.

Faced with the task of such great dimensions-we have no cause to be morose.

We have no time for melancholy-we have work to be done-the greatest work any generation of Americans has ever faced.

The essentials of a new America-a. better America-are all on hand-and within our reach-it is our duty-it is our destiny-to take up our appointed positions-and be on with our labors.

It is just such spirit that we honor on this occasion-it is by restoring that spirit to our lives-and our Nation's life-that we respect and honor our own trust as Americans.

Let us then--each day-reaffirm our faith in America ........ and with special pride-on this day-the Fourth of July.

ENERGY AND THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF IN PERSPECTIVE Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, our ec

onomic survival in the event of an interruption of imports of foreign supplies of petroleum is dependent upon our ability to rapidly increase domestic petroleum production. Oil and gas cannot be replaced in our near- and mid-term energy technology until new auto engines and increased coal and nuclear fueled electrical capacity are available. Even if we today implement an energy policy that recognizes this fact, and we seem bound and determined not to implement such policy, it would take at least 10 years before our dependency on petroleum would become manageable in a crisis.

Thus, it is almost unbelievable that we would not take prudent steps to rapidly increase our domestic reserves and production of oil and gas. However, many provisions of S. 9, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1977, would represent extremely imprudent steps toward restricting our ability to increase domestic reserves and production.

Since the first oil well in Pennsylvania in 1859, approximately 300 billion barrels have been identified which could be produced by simple methods. Two hundred and fifty billion of this 300 billion barrels have been produced already.

The volume of geologically favorable rocks yet to be explored for oil in the OCS and Alaska is roughly equivalent to the volume of rocks that originally contained this 300 billion barrels of proved reserves. Thus, it is logical to anticipate that at least another 300 billion barrels remain to be discovered. Our potential resources of oil are even larger if we consider the fact that one, OCS rocks are generally younger and therefore contain more oil and gas, and two, that secondary and tertiary recovery techniques can add lOO's of billions of barrels more to our reserves. The OCS is the prime and in many ways the most accessible and environmentally defensible area in which we will find these essential oil reserves.

The same kind of case can be made in spades for natural gas for which the potential resource base is probably at least 1,500 trillion Mcf.

If we are to meet our immediate nearterm needs for the oil and gas necessary to survive an embargo, then we must have legislation that encourages rapid development of OCS resources. S. 9 does not meet this criterion.

The most direct and most positive national energy policy we could enact has three basic elements:

One. Major national programs, in the greatest American tradition, for the de-

velopment of fusion reactors, solar electric plants, and hydrogen as a portable fuel as our long-term answers to the energy challenge.

Two. Accelerated mid-term investment in conventional and advanced powerplants utilizing coal, geothermal and nuclear fission energy combined with development of more efficient energy conversion equipment all of which will buy time for the major long-term programs to mature.

Three. Rapidly increased production and end-use efficiency of the oil and natural gas necessary to survive any nearterm interruption of imports.

It is in the near-term capability for economic survival that the rapid development of oil and natural gas resources of the OCS looms so critically important in our children's future.

CADORET'S DREAM COMES TRUE IN WOONSOCKET, R.I.

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as a result of the patience and persistent efforts of Mr. Rene V. Cadoret, the city of Woonsocket, R.I., was proclaimed Rhode Island's Bicentennial Baseball City last year by the State Bicentennial Commission.

As the Nation has begun another season of the national pastime it is timely, I think, to call attention to the contributions which Woonsocket has made to baseball.

Mr. Cadoret, who has long been active in baseball himself, was the major force behind the honor bestowed upon the city of Woonsocket, R.I. As a tribute to Mr. Cadoret's outstanding efforts, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Woonsocket Call of October 14, 1976, be printed in the RECORD.


CADORET'S DREAM COMES TRUE

(By Mike Szostat) When the City of Woonsocket is pro

claimed Rhode Island's Bicentennial Baseball City tonight (7:30), the proudest individual in Harris Hall will be Rene V. Cadoret.

Cadoret has been the major force behind the effort to have the city recognized for the outstanding baseball players it has produced.

Strangely enough, one of the fl.nest hours in Woonsocket's long and glorious athletic history might never have come about if it had not been for Frank Lanning, the Providence Journal-Bulletin cartoonist.

No, Lanning did not draw a cartoon advocating such an honor for Woonsocket. But a Lanning cartoon that appeared in the Sunday Journal on Easter Sunday annoyed Cadoret and spurred him into action.

u y 12, 1977 Lanning had been drawing a series on

Rhode Island families whose members had distinguished themselves in a particular sport. He happened to choose a family from Cranston as the state's first family of baseball.

Cadoret, who admits now that he misunderstood the cartoon when he first read it, thought Lanning was trying to say Cranston is the baseball city in Rhode Island.

For those who watched baseball in Woonsocket 30, 40 and 50 years ago, such a statement would be considered heresy. And Cadoret, you must understand, has been around Woonsocket baseball longer than I have been around this world (that's 26 years), so he set out to find a suitable way to have the city and its heritage honored.

He wrote letters to Mayor Gerard J. Bouley. He wrote to the state Bicentennial Commission. The commission was a littls slow in responding to his letters, but he persisted. Dr. Patrick J. Conley, chairman, eventually decided that such a tribute would be fitting, and the official stamp of approval was given.

Cadoret's work did not end there. It ree.lly just began. Since then hC:J has been busy arranging for the use of Harris Hall, meeting with the mayor and other members of the organization committee, inviting guests, and keeping in touch with the Bicentennial Commission.

Most of those connected with tonight's ceremony have been taking it in stride, but Cadoret has been worrying about every little detail. Perhaps that's why he scouted so well for so long with the St. Louis Cardinals.

So tonight Rene Cadoret's dream will come true. No longer will he have to patiently explain that Woonsocket was the home of two Hall of Famers to prove that Woonsocket has a wonderful baseball history. No longer will he have to check off the list of men who have played in the major leagues, minor leagues or top semi-pro leagues when they were strong and popular.

After Dr. Conley reads Gov. Philip W. Noel's proclamation and presents it to Mayor Bouley, Rene Cadoret simply will have to direct any doubters to the spot where the proclamation will hang and tell them to read it for proof of the city's superior athletic heritage.

The players-Lajoie, Hartnett, Labine, to name a very few-gave Woonsocket its name. Cadoret is making sure that name wlll be remembered.

If you should see Rene Cadoret on the street someday, thank him for what he has done because if it were not for his interest, dedication and hard work, tonight's ceremony and the honor for Woonsocket would still be a dream.

Mayor Bouley is only slightly less proud than Cadoret about this honor.

"I think this is a plus for Woonsocket if Woonsocket ever had a plus," said the onetime athlete.

"We've had a lot of good athletes come out of this city and not only in baseball. They were in football, basketball and hockey, too. For a city this size, that's good ... "

Bouley said the honor makes him personally proud because he is an ex-athlete (sandlot and semi-pro football star and hockey and baseball player) who had a ha.nd In building the city's aithletic reputation.

HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES-Tuesday, July 12, 1977 The House met at 12 o'clock noon. The Chaplain, Rev. Edward G. Latch,

D.D., offered the following prayer: Strengthen the weak hands and make

firm the feeble knees, say to those who are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear, not: behold, your God will come and save you.-Isaiah 35: 3, 4.

Eternal Father, strong to save and eager to help, amid the clamor of constant cares we would use the quiet of this moment to draw near to Thee.

"Mid all the traffic of the waysTurmoils without, within

Make in my heart a quiet place, and come and dwell therein."

We pray for spirits strong enough, for hearts courageous enough, and for hands willing enough to truly serve this age in which we live.

We pray for our divided world and for ourselves in the midst of it, that we may not add to the divisions by our pride and prejudice but by our faith, hope, and love

senate-tuesday, july 12, 1977 - govinfo.gov

Documents