Page images

We have no later than 15 days after the date of enactment of this act; That is "not later than ***" and I think he needs that discretion. To say you do it on the day you sign it

Senator FANNIN. Mr. Chairman, you just don't realize the abilities of the President.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, I suggest we leave the language as is because we give them not later than 15 days to do it. You cannot do it the very day.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. We have a number of additional points on section 203 if you are there now?

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

I think, Mr. Schaeffer-may I suggest this.

What we are trying to do now is to take the ones that are in the print and then we will go back and take all of the departmental amendments because some of these positions, I don't think, have been cleared with the administration. If they have, you can so advise us, or Mr. Niemela representing OMB can.

Would it not be wiser to try to take the departmental amendments up after we have gone through the committee print here?

What is the wish of the committee here?

Otherwise, we are going to get into a mass of confusion.

Senator HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree 100 percent; however, could committee members who have not had a chance to have their amendments put in the print bring them up and then go through it? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Committee members, as we go through

Senator BARTLETT. I have a small correction for page 5, line 19; add the words "shall assure as far as practicable”. “* * * this program shall assure, so far as practicable * * *”

The CHAIRMAN. Any objection to that?

Without objection, that amendment will be agreed to.

Senator FANNIN. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that since some of the Senators have not had an opportunity to review the printed amendment, we consider the printed amendments first. Perhaps it would cover some of the amendments they might contemplate. The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are doing.

On page 6

Senator HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, before we go to page 6, I would like to propose, on line 24 of page 5, the word "program" be substituted for the word "plan." That is to make it clear, from the way I read it, that we are talking about a program which is a reality, something that goes into existence, as opposed to a plan which might not be implemented.

Senator MCCLURE. Would the Senator from Colorado yield?
Senator HASKELL. Yes.

Senator MCCLURE. I have a little difficulty understanding exactly how far we expect the administration or any other person to move in 15 days or 16 days.

Subsection (a) says not later than 15 days. Subsection (b), subsection (1) says an established system and program and we look at the next page and it is talking about distributors and consumers.

Does the Senator from Colorado really believe that we can have

ration books and ration stamps out in the hands of 200 million Americans 16 days after the passage of this act?

Senator HASKELL. The Senator from Idaho would like to propose an amendment. All I am trying to do is assure that we have a program for rationing scarce fuels and have it implemented as soon as possible and that we don't just plan to have a plan.

Senator MCCLURE. If the Senator would yield

I don't disagree with what he is saying. I am just trying to find out how far people think we can move and how rapidly because, if you have a program and you are required to implement that program and you are required to do it within 15 days, and if that requires rationing, then it would seem to me that we may be saying, in effect, you have those ration books out and the coupons in the hands of the consumers 16 days from the passage of the bill.

Senator HASKELL. The Senator makes a good point.

If he would like to say, "a program in effect as speedily as possible” or using Senator Bartlett's words, that would satisfy me; but my point is that we just have a plan sitting on a shelf.

If the Senator would be satisfied with that type of amendment, I would go along with it.

Senator MCCLURE. I do not wish to belabor the point. I think I agree with what the Senator from Colorado is seeking to attain, but we cannot expect miracles. I think there is some timelag involved, and I understand what he suggested by the change in language and I agree wholeheartedly.

Senator HASKELL. If the committee would concur with my thought as amended by the Senator from Idaho, the staff has worked up appropriate language. It may be meant that way in the proposed statute, but I think there is an ambiguity in the use of the work "plan" in that particular section.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you could put there, after "plan," "and a program to be established without delay" or "a program to be implemented without delay." What is wrong with that?

Senator HASKELL. Mr. Chairman, nothing at all.

The CHAIRMAN. So, it would read, "An established priority system and plan, including a program to be implemented without delay ***" and then go on "*** for rationing of scarce fuels, quantitatively and qualitatively *" and so on. What is wrong with



Senator HASKELL. Nothing at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be agreed to.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. Just a procedural matter.

If we have an objection, do I advise you?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we will entertain something from the other branch of the Government.

Mr. SCHAEFFER. My problem with the section is that it is stated to be a "Plans" section and, as I read it originally and worked with your staff, I thought it was intended originally to be a "Plans" section.

There are two words, "implement" in it. The main thrust is talking about Federal, State, and local plans within certain periods of time. We would recommend deleting all forms of implementation in programs throughout the section and set the requirements clearly in this section as to what the plans should be.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, when we go this fast, we leave in a certain element of redundancy. It is sort of built in.

We will scrub it up on the floor and in conference and so on, but I do not see any damage to this, really. I think it provides a sense of urgency that we need and we want in there. I think you can survive on that.

Without objection, the amendment will be agreed to.

May I say, I have just received a message from Senator Mansfield that he does want to take up this bill early next week. He means Tuesday, I would think, or Wednesday.

We have permission to file our reports at 12 midnight tomorrow. The staff has worked all night, and Cliff Hansen was the anchor man here until 8:30, burning unnecessary light, but we obtained some enlightenment.

I just want to make this announcement. The staff will have until 12 midnight to take that up, but we are taking it up now.

I will say to my colleagues, I just got word, I checked with Speaker Albert; the House will take up, the first thing on Monday, the Alaska pipeline bill. We anticipate it will be over on the Senate floor by 2:30, and we will take up the conference report then on the Alaska pipeline on Monday.

That will be followed, depending on any delays, by the so-called allocations bill which we completed in conference, and then we will be on this bill, so it looks like we have three energy bills so far scheduled. I would hope, likewise, we made such good progress on the R. & D. bill, that we will have that bill out this coming week.

I just wanted to make that announcement.

Mr. VAN NESS. Mr. Chairman, the next amendment appears on page 6, and it is an amendment proposed by the members of the Sierra Club and other members of the environmental organizations who testified last evening.

The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that low-sulfur fuels will be distributed on a priority basis and only for necessary uses to avoid the need for variances to the air quality laws.

Senator HANSEN. May I speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman?

Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure no one disagrees with the objective that the Sierra Club has in mind in offering this amendment, but it occurs to me that one of the problems that we face is with the fuel that is consumed in transporting other sources of energy around the country. Obviously, it might make sense, as I suggested yesterday, to burn Illinois coal in Chicago, rather than to consume, just for the plant there alone, the 750,000 barrels of oil annually to transport it.

This bill should lay down broad guidelines that will serve effectively to guide the President in implementing those actions, plans, and programs that best will accomplish the purpose of this particular bill.

This amendment would not be conducive toward an all-out effort that I think must be undertaken to see, not only that we do everything to protect the health of the people everywhere-obviously we want to do that-but I would say, first of all, it would be even more important to consider how to distribute fuel to the air standards heating homes. I hope the amendment might be rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hansen, might I make an observation? It seems to me the thrust is sensible and maybe, preceded by some language which would provide: It shall be a condition precedent for the administration to make a finding that there is not available lowsulfur coal in a given area to take care of a given population problem.

I believe one of the main challenges we face in trying to deal with the air quality problem, and it can be serious, I don't think there is any question about it, in a very heavily populated area, a large metropolitan area where they would be utilizing high-sulfur oil or coal, whereas they could use high-sulfur coal or oil in areas of less population.

To me this is not an environmental problem so much as it is a health problem. To people with bronchial troubles and those prone to pneumonia and so on, I think it does present a serious problem, and I would just like to see the administration of the air quality standards done in such a way so that every effort is made to bring in the low sulfur energy fuels as a condition precedent to utilizing other fuels.

That is all.

The Senator for Wyoming is completely right. They are bringing low sulfur fuels, coal, from the West and bringing them into the Midwest and elsewhere. But there is, indeed, a health problem as I see it, and it is in that context that something of this kind, I think, makes a lot of sense to me.

We will defer to Senator Fannin, first; then the representative of EPA.

Senator FANNIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree. The first impact on health is important. Also, the time element making the product available is important a factory out of fuel would be one thing, but a hospital or homes out of fuel is another.

I commend the goal of this amendment, but such a provision may disrupt the operations sufficiently to create problems, rather than solve them.

I think this can be in the report language, but to include it in the legislation as a requirement would be a big mistake.

Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could make one further observation. I believe the committee already has agreed to the inclusion, in section 102, of the following language which was submitted by the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality: that addition being, "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."

It seems to me that language is sufficiently broad to alert the President to the overall objectives. I am still inclined to believe the proposed language would not be helpful at this time. I think the broad guideline already referred to is sufficient. I would hope we would reject the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. May I call on Mr. Baum who is here representing EPA.

Mr. BAUM. EPA agrees, of course, with the purpose stated in this section.

I think, for the committee's consideration, that the language might be changed just to add in there, perhaps, after the words, "not be limited to," something to the effect of to the extent practicable or feasible;

we think that the allocation should certainly take into consideration the problems that you have just been discussing but we realize that, particularly with the time limits and in view of the nature of the situation, it may not always-the fuel may not always be in the best possible place and we would not want the way this is worded-“to insure" this would mean, if it did not happen that way, I am afraid there would be legal action which could preclude the allocation and we don't want to do that.

But, we do feel it should specifically say, "to the extent practicable” that these things be considered in the allocation program.

The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we start that sentence, then, "To the extent practicable, such priority and rationing programs shall include..."

Senator BARTLETT. It could come right after "insure"; "To insure, as far as practicable and feasible, ..." That is the crucial word, the word "insure" which is the concern of Mr. Baum.

Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, an observation made by Mr. Baum caught my attention.

Did I understand you to imply, without this amendment, as offered by the Sierra Club, being included or something similar to it being included at this point, that this whole act or any actions of the President which he might propose to take might be subject to legal action and delay in the courts? Was that what you are saying?

Mr. BAUM. No. I did not say "without this."
Senator HANSEN. What did you say?

Mr. BAUM. With this, the way it is worded that says the action must insure, without any qualifiers, if there was some, for example, oil allocated and it could be proven that it was not the best use of that oil, that that action might be invalidated.

All I am saying is that, if you add "to the extent as far as practicable" in this, it would take away that possibility.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you want the language? At the beginning of the sentence?

Mr. BAUM. Any place.

I think the suggestion, perhaps, after "insure" is a good one; "To insure to the extent practicable and/or feasible . . ." or language to that effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Any objection?

"To the extent practicable..."

Senator HANSEN. One further question. There are going to be a lot of changes, Mr. Chairman, and reading the rest of the amendment here, "Will be distributed on a priority basis to those areas of the country designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as requiring low-sulfur fuel." I would like to know whether EPA will keep an updated list of those areas? I just have an idea that this list may change rather markedly because the President's purpose, as I understand it, in calling for this legislation and the bill before us, is to permit him or to grant him the authority to move fuels and to designate that the areas that may have had the benefit of clean fuels under their powerplants and so forth would have to use dirtier fuels.

« PreviousContinue »