Page images
PDF
EPUB

We did pass over the introduction which has, of course, the declaration of an energy emergency in this particular time frame by the Congress. Just to reiterate Governor Love's position yesterday, he would prefer a broader bill, as would the President, that would allow the President to declare such an emergency at any time in the future. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Returning specifically to section 101, I read that the Justice Department-that the paragraph dealing with interstate and foreign commerce would be of value.

The CHAIRMAN. You have an amendment to 101?

66

Mr. SCHAEFFER. I am talking about where it talks about, . . the most effective use of domestic import sources from abroad would require coordination of interstate commerce. . ." Did I miss that? The CHAIRMAN. Say that again.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. "... the most effective use of domestic import sources from abroad would require coordination of interstate and foreign commerce related to energy, as well as comprehensive national programs and take into account the diversity of needs."

We only have the latter part of it. We left out the interstate and foreign commerce.

Mr. VAN NESS. Mr. Schaeffer, part of our problem is you are reading from the draft bill presented in executive session last week.

As you recall, Senator Jackson and the committee agreed with Governor Love not to reproduce copies of it, nor to release the document.

We had the joint drafting session on Friday of last week to discuss the differences between the two and out of that came committee print No. 1 and out of that, committee print No. 3.

The paragraph you are referencing was dropped out by unconscious decision. I think we are willing to entertain it.

I do have copies of your confidential draft at this time. Would you like that to be distributed to the committee members if you are going to be referring to it?

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Yes. I think it would be beneficial.

Mr. VAN NESS. We will have distributed that document plus the letters and statements from the various agencies that were delivered this morning, some of which proposed amendments.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Because of the timing, Mr. Chairman, we do not have formal amendments at this time on some issues for which we have suggestions. We could have these within a number of hours.

Mr. VAN NESS. Mr. Chairman, maybe it would be more expeditious if I made available to the administration witnesses copies of that confidential draft so that they can review it against the provisions of the bill to decide which sections in there they would like to consider later this morning or early this afternoon and proceed to the committee print with the amendments set forth here and then proceed through the agency letters and recommendations made this morning and then pick up anything that may have been left out of it. Mr. SCHAEFFER. That would be fine with me.

The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we do that. Have these copies made. That is our problem.

Mr. VERKLER. You don't have copies of your proposal?

Mr. SCHAEFFER. We have some but not enough.

The CHAIRMAN. We have 400 copies locked up. Would it be all right if we released it now?

Mr. SCHAEFFER. It would be all right to release it for the use of the Senators and their staffs in this proceeding.

The CHAIRMAN. You know we are in open session.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. It has already been to the press.

The CHAIRMAN. Now that the press has it, we get it. [Laughter.] What we will do now, while we are getting the prints: we will go through committee print No. 3 first, if there is no objection to this procedurewise and then we will come back and go through the various recommendations by the administration which will be available by that time for all members of the committee.

So, this will not be a final section by section. We will just take it by the subject matter that we are going to have to look at.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, the last paragraph (c) under section 101, line 17, I am advised by the Department of Commerce lawyers that the last specific point I mentioned, if you will insert after the word "of" on line 17, "interstate and foreign" to satisfy the requirements the Justice Department lawyers brought

up.

The CHAIRMAN. "Interstate and foreign commerce and constitute a national emergency"; line 17, after the preposition, insert "interstate and..."

Senator MCCLURE. I move we accept that.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Senator HANSEN. I think it should be interstate and foreign.
The CHAIRMAN. That's what I said.

The insertion would be "interstate" and then the conjunction “and," a-n-d.

Senator HANSEN. ". . . and foreign commerce."

The CHAIRMAN. That's right. ". . . and foreign commerce."

Senator CHURCH. In that regard. I would suggest one other change. I have noticed there is some fidelity in this bill. We have used "energy emergency" as a term of art so it is not confused with the larger national emergency that triggers so many other statutes into effect and I think here, just to avoid that possibility, we would do well to strike "national" so we would remain faithful to that term of "energy emergency" and, in the report, we should make clear that, by "energy emergency," we mean to give the President powers in this bill but we don't mean to confuse the energy emergency and the powers given in this bill with the much larger plethora of power that flows to the Presidency upon declaration of the national emergency.

So, in that context, I would suggest the word "national" be stricken on line 17 as unnecessary; line 17 of page 2 and, in that way, we are consistent with the use of the term "energy emergency" which is the term we have used elsewhere in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? I see no objection to it. We are not taking away any authority from the President or not adding to the authority we are giving the President.

Senator Church's suggestion would be confined to the authority given in this bill.

Senator CHURCH. For consistency, I think we should make that change elsewhere in the bill.

Senator HANSEN. Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, may I call attention to page 1 and the name of the act:

"This Act shall be cited as the National Emergency Petroleum Act of 1973." Does that do violence to our title?

Senator CHURCH. I would suggest, consistent with the

Senator FANNIN. I don't want to disagree with the Senator from Idaho but "National Energy Emergency . . ." does not say “National Emergency" so I don't see

The CHAIRMAN. What about "Nationwide Emergency”?
Senator CHURCH. All right. "Nationwide . . ."

I think we should make clear, whether it is in the text of the act or in the report, that our intention here is not to trigger a national emergency which, in turn, will effect 470 different statutes to give power to the President to do anything he wishes in any area he wishes and the report should make that clear.

The CHAIRMAN. Wherever "National" appears, it should be “Nationwide."

Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I think we are nitpicking.

I happen to be on the committee with him to study the need to terminate national emergencies. There have been a number of them. The one under which the President now operates was declared by President Truman. Am I right about that?

Senator CHURCH. We operate under four national emergencies that go back to 1933. We have been in national emergencies for 40 years. Senator HANSEN. In this time of trouble, one more wouldn't hurt, would it?

Senator CHURCH. I think we want to make sure we are limiting this bill to the energy emergency and we are not declaring another, a fifth national emergency.

The CHAIRMAN. May I make this suggestion.

We are describing, I think accurately, what is indeed a problem and what is indeed a nationwide industry problem. That is point No. 1. It is descriptive of a problem we face. We can agree on that.

Then I would suggest in the language in the report that we make clear that we are not declaring a national emergency that brings into being the authority to take action beyond that which is contained in this proposed statute; nor does it take away, however, any authority that the President does have at this time.

Is that agreeable?

Senator CHURCH. That's right.

The CHAIRMAN. That covers the whole thing.

Without objection, then, the amendment will be agreed to. We will substitute "nationwide" wherever "national" exists but there will be the explicit language in the report along the lines suggested by the Chair.

Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, then, as I understand it, the first correction would appear on line 4 right under the bold type, "A Bill," so as to make this read.

This Act shall be cited as the Nationwide Emergency Act of 1973 to Declare by Congressional Action a Nationwide Energy Emergency to Authorize the President to immediately undertake specific actions to conserve scarce fuels and increase supply and to initiate the development of local, state, national and international contingency plans.

You said wherever the word "national" appears

The CHAIRMAN. Wherever, as appropriate. I think the "national" would remain because that is descriptive.

Senator FANNIN. Mr. Chairman, saying it is "nationwide" in our foreign obligations-it is really a "national" energy emergency. I don't see it is "nationwide." I don't think we should quarrel about that.

It is more "nationwide."

The CHAIRMAN. It is international, but we don't have any jurisdiction, yet.

Senator FANNIN. We do have jurisdiction over what we do with our own equipment, as far as maritime is concerned and things of that nature.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's turn to page 5, now. Bear in mind, we have to come back with these other amendments.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Mr. Chairman, did I hear you state we are on page 5 now?

The CHAIRMAN. Page 5.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. I'm afraid I'm not quite with you, then. Can we return to page 4 for a minute

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. --to ask a question about the procedure?

If you have before you a piece of paper with clear language, do you now want to discuss those possible amendments?

The CHAIRMAN. Let's go through our print here because we have a problem, and you have one, too; that is, you don't know what all of the other agencies are suggesting or I take it you don't. Do you have them already?

Mr. SCHAEFFER. We do in a great number of instances. I have a specific condition we would like to suggest in a comment on paragraph (f).

The CHAIRMAN. What is the wish of the committee?

We had better take them all, section by section, because otherwise we are going to be on a merry-go-round.

Mr. VERKLER. 102(f)?

Mr. SCHAEFFER. The administration supports the concept of providing plans. We do believe that setting 10 and 25 percentage as goals may be a bit unrealistic but that is no reason why we should not strive for it.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a goal, though.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Yes, sir.

We would like to insure we have the flexibility not just to implement two sets of plans; your 10-percent plan or a 25-percent plan. This gets to language later on in the bill as far as flexibility.

The CHAIRMAN. We concur on that but this is just a goal, trying to put some push behind it.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. I am not proposing an amendment on that one. What I am proposing is the addition of language that essentially talks about meeting our environmental goals and that is contained in the letter to you from the Acting Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. It is also contained in the exact same format in the administration's proposal.

Mr. VERKLER. Another section?

Mr. SCHAEFFER. A new subparagraph.

Insure that measures taken to meet existing emergencies are consistent, as nearly as possible, with existing national commitments to protect and improve the environment in which we live.

Senator McClure had asked before that we read it, please.
Senator MCCLURE. Will you read that again, please.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. It is on page 4 of the administration's draft bill which, I believe, was handed out, lines 3 through 6:

Insure that measures taken to meet existing emergencies are consistent, as nearly as possible, with existing national commitments to protect and improve the environment in which we live.

Mr. VAN NESs. That is on page 2 of the handout, gentlemen. It is the second full paragraph.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be a new sentence after the end of the paragraph on (f).

Senator CHURCH. That should be another subsection.

The CHAIRMAN. I see no objection to it. Do you want a new section? Mr. SCHAEFFER. A new subsection.

The CHAIRMAN. Subsection (g).

Mr. SCHAEFFER. That would be fine.

Senator MCCLURE. Are we going to be given a copy of the administration's confidential draft bill which has been published but has not been made available to the members of the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. Pass these out.

Senator MCCLURE. I have a member of my staff here who doesn't have top secret clearance. Can I let him have one of those, too? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, Senator Fannin moves that the proposed amendment be adopted.

Without objection, the amendment will be agreed to; the amendment as read by Mr. Schaeffer and as it is on page 2 of the memo that is before you.

Senator MCCLURE. Is that section 102 (c) of the draft proposal? That appears on page 4.

The CHAIRMAN. Page 2 of this memo from Mr. Busterud.
Mr. VERKLER. It will be subsection (d).

The CHAIRMAN. Let me read it again so there won't be any dispute. This will be subsection (g) on page 4 of your Committee Print and will read as follows: "Insure that measures taken to meet existing emergencies are consistent, as nearly as possible, with existing national commitments to protect and improve the environment in which we live."

Without objection, the amendment will be agreed to.

Now we are on page 5.

Senator HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, could I raise a question? This relates to the proposed amendment by Senator Kennedy, section 202, but really what I am serious about is the interpretation of 203 and there we say, "The President shall promulgate and implement a national emergency rationing and conservation program then we go on to say that it "*** shall include ***"

* * *

; and

Mr. Chairman, my question to staff is, are we saying in 203 that the President "shall" do this or are we saying he is authorized. My preference would be to say he "shall" because we have had problems be

24-846-74- -3

« PreviousContinue »