Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
6283024
label
Nuclear Policy Review: September 8-27, 1976
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
6283024
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Nuclear Policy Review: September 8-27, 1976
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Issue Decision Papers for the President
subjects
Nuclear energy
Nuclear nonproliferation
Nuclear weapons
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
6283024
coverageEndDate
day
27
logicalDate
1976-09-27
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
3
logicalDate
1976-09-03
month
9
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
70874e672804738e
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 5, folder "Nuclear Policy Review: September 8-
27, 1976" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONF IDENTIAL
ENT OF DEFENSE DEPART FENSE
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20301
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
8 SEP 1976
Dr. Robert W. Fri
Chairman, Nuclear Policy Review Group
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Dr. Fri:
(c) The Department of Defense supports the following recommendations
contained in the draft policy review produced by your group:
- Endorsement of a storage program for excess sensitive material under
IAEA auspices to include strengthening IAEA safeguards and physical
security arrangements.
- A firm policy on restraints upon nuclear exports and sanctions upon
restraint violators.
- Public pronouncements on the seriousness of nuclear agreement viola-
tions and further proliferation.
- Diplomatic consultations seeking a multilateral agreement to suspend
or terminate cooperation with any non-nuclear state acquiring or
testing a nuclear device.
(c) The production of plutonium by any additional nations would definitely
be inimical to our national security interests. Although the U.S. cannot
prevent reprocessing, we should make every effort to attempt to control
national reprocessing. We support both government assistance to domestic
reprocessing and waste management and development of alternative tech-
nologies.
(c) Many nations who view U.S. world power as diminishing may perceive
their own long-term security interests in jeopardy and some appear to be
turning to nuclear weapons acquisition as an alternative security guar-
antee. Provision of assured nuclear assistance and guaranteed reactor
fuel supply, combined with adequate security assistance, will contribute
to allaying these nations' concerns about their own need for reprocessing
and plutonium.
(U) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff concurs with me on this
matter.
Sincerely,
CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL
TOD
Classified by
6/27/85
SUBJECT TO GENERAL DECLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11652. AUTOMATICALLY DOWNGRADED
2606
AT TWO YEAR INTERVALS. DECLASSIFIED ON 31 Dec 82
SEC DEF CONTR No. X-
Digitized from Box 5 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1976
Dick -
Non-Proliferation and Nuclear
Fuel Legislation
Attached arrived at 8:30 P.M. I have no idea
what Jack Marsh, Max Friedersdorf or Jim Connor
recommend.
We are giving you the original to take on the
trip but recommend you hold on to it until we sort
out what other members of the senior staff think
on this issue.
Jim Cavanaugh
decided not to send
at 9:05 Jem Caranaugh
but contenue staffing X
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 24, 1976 (10PM)
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
GLENN JR SCHLEEDE
SUBJECT:
DECISION MEMO ON NUCLEAR
LEGISLATION
We were unable to reach Frank Zarb until a few minutes
ago to get a vote on the nuclear legislation memo.
He asked me to record him -- if it's possible to do
SO at this time -- as favoring going ahead with a
public statement early Saturday on the importance
on non-proliferation legislation and the NFAA and then
taking another look Monday at the situation. At that
time, we could send a signal to Percy that the Fri
clause on uranium enrichment was essential; that is,
approach outlined in Alt. #2.
The President decided earlier today to make a major U.S.
policy statement next week concerning the problem of
nuclear proliferation. He plans to announce a number of
actions to encourage other nations to adopt tough
stnadards -- like those of the U.S. -- to prevent theft
or diversion of nuclear materials for making nuclear
explosives.
He expressed great satisfaction that the Senate today
decided to take up next week the Nuclear Fuel Assurance
maintain
Act which is essential to/the U.S. role as a. major
supplier of nuclear fuel and equipment for peaceful
critical to achieving
perposse purppses -- and thus/to our non-proliferation
objectives
He indicated that his meeting last week with Senate
and House members on non-proliferation had paid off.
Agreement has been reached on compromise language for
the non-proliferation legislation which will clear
the way for Senate action on this bill next week also.
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
September 24, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Jim Cavanaugh
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Quick Turnaround Pls
Time:
SUBJECT:
Memo from Jim Cannon, Jim Lynn and
Brent Scowcroft
re: Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Fuel
Legislation
FORD agu LIBRAR iso
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
The original of this was given to the P
Dick Cheney with the promise that we would
obtain staff recommendations - therefore -
the request for a quick response. Thank you.
zarb- go alead w/public statement (sseattached)
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
Jim Connor
delay in submitting the required material, please
For the President
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
FOR COMMCENTER USE ONLY
IMMEDIATE
VCLAS
(
PRECEDENCE
CLASSIFICATION
DEX
FROM: JAMES E. CONNOR
DAC 014
GPS
LDX
PAGES S
TO:
DICK CHENEY
TTY
CITE
TERRY O'DONNELL
INFO:
DTG: 2714022 SEP 76
RELEASEDABY of
TOR: 271425Z
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
(CRE)
'76 STD 27 All 13.29 13. 29
1976 SEP 27 14 02
WHCA FORM 8, 22 FEB 74
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 27, 1976
DICK CHENEY
TERRY O'DONNELL
Non-Proliferation and Nuclear
Fuel Legislation
Attached decision paper for your review.
Jim Cavanaugh
DECISION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON
JIM LYNN
BRENT SCOWCROFT
SUBJECT:
NON-PROLIFERATION AND NUCLEAR
FUEL LEGISLATION
When you met with Senator Percy and others on September 17,
you stated that you would urge Senator Baker to remove his
hold from the Senate non-proliferation bill if (a) the
NFAA was scheduled for Senate action under a time agreement,
and (b) an acceptable non-proliferation bill was negotiated.
NON-PROLIFERATION
Bob Fri believes he has reached agreement with Percy on
a reasonable bill. Detailed language must be worked out
and Senator Percy must sell the compromise to his colleagues.
Senator Baker is maintaining his hold, but indicates he
will be guided by your wishes. Senator Percy may attempt
to bring up his compromise next week. Even if it passes
the Senate, it is unlikely to pass the House.
Anderson and Price have introduced their non-proliferation
bill (H. R. 15419) -- which ERDA and State believe is
acceptable -- but there is no chance that it will be taken
up by the House.
NUCLEAR FUEL ASSURANCE ACT
Senate Outlook. Today, the NFAA was put on the Senate
calendar for next week but the opponents probably will
try to table it again. Estimate of those opposed now
ranges from three to six (Proxmire, Clark, Durkin,
McGovern, Abourezk and Glenn). Senator Percy insists
that it is not possible to move the NFAA. Industry
and labor supporters of the bill are focusing their
attention on 27 democratic Senators who are known to
-2-
support the bill -- with the objective of getting
Senator Byrd to debate the bill even though there
is opposition. Industry and labor supporters are
contending that Glenn, Abourezk, and McGovern have
or will remove their "holds.' "
Percy Compromise. Senator Percy has proposed a
compromise approach to uranium enrichment:
1) Dropping the NFAA as it passed the llouse;
2) Add to his non-proliferation bill, language to:
- Authorize the Portsmouth plant;
- Authorize you to submit a detailed plan for
encouraging the private uranium enrichment
industry, "including a discussion of specific
terms" of proposed cooperative agreements with
private firms. The plan would be referred to
the JCAE and that Committee would have 60 days
to give its views and recommendations to each
House of Congress together with legislation to
implement their recommendations. (Bob Fri
believes this would permit proposing contracts
and authorizing legislation at the same time as
the plan.)
Fri has proposed, but Percy has not accepted, a further
clause that requires an up or down vote on the JCAE
recommendations within 30 legislative days. Fri believes
Percy would push for this clause if you insisted it is
necessary.
Except for the disputed clause, the compromise provides
no new authority. Specifically, authority for Portsmouth
will be provided in the ERDA Authorization Bill even
without the NFAA and you can submit reports, plans,
proposed contracts and draft legislation anytime.
ALTERNATIVES
There are three principal alternatives available for your
consideration:
Alt #1. Hold to the proposal you presented to Senator
Percy and others on September 17, that you would
urge Senator Baker to remove his hold if (a) the
NFAA was scheduled for Senate floor action under
a time agreement, and (b) non-proliferation legis-
lation acceptable to you was negotiated with
Senator Percy and others.
-3-
- Principal arguments for this approach are that:
(a) it is a logical position in that U.S. ability
to get other nations to accept our non-proliferation
goals depends upon our reliability as a supplier
of uranium enrichment services; and (b) it is
consistent with the position you presented to
Senator Percy and others.
- Principal argument against this approach is that
you will be open to the charge of obstructing
non-proliferation legislation and you may not get
the NFAA anyway.
Alt. #2. Endorse the Percy compromise approach which
adds some kind of uranium enrichment provisions
to the non-proliferation bill.
- Principal arguments for this approach are that:
(a) you would be postured in favor of non-
proliferation legislation and willing to
compromise or give in on uranium enrichment,
(b) it ties non-proliferation and at least
some reference to private uranium enrichment
together, and (c) it may be the only chance
of getting any Senate legislation referring
to uranium enrichment this session.
- Principal arguments against this approach are
that: (a) it would remove all possibility of
getting a vote next week on NFAA, and (b) depending
upon the language on uranium enrichment that is
added to the non-proliferation bill, the result
may be less acceptable than merely accepting
defeat of the NFAA for this session and submitting
a new proposal in January.
Alt. #3. Accept the non-proliferation legislation
without any provision for uranium enrichment,
urge Senator Baker to remove his hold, and let
the NFAA live or die this session separately
from non-proliferation.
- Principal arguments for this approach are that
it (a) postures you in favor of non-proliferation
legislation, (b) leaves options open on uranium
enrichment for next session, and (c) puts the
Senate, at least, on record as to appropriate
nuclear export criteria -- a move that may head
off NRC promulgation of less acceptable criteria.
- Principal arguments against this approach are
that it (a) is a reversal of the position you
have taken with the Senators with respect to
the NFAA, and (b) it foreyoes whatever gains
-4-
might be achieved if Percy is able to sell
the vote forcing clause on uranium enrichment
that Bob Fri has proposed.
It may be possible to mitigate the negative effects of
holding fast to Alt. #1 by (1) sending a strong letter
on non-proliferation to the Senate, and/or (2) proceeding
promptly with a major statement on non-proliferation.
The critical importance to non-proliferation of expanded
uranium enrichment capacity should be emphasized.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alt. #1. Maintain hold on non-proliferation
OMB*
legislation unless NFAA is taken up.
Alt. #2. Accept Percy compromise.
ERDA, NSC**
State**
Alt. #3. Sever relationship between NFAA
Domestic Council
and non-proliferation legislation
*
OMB favors Alt. #1 with the mitigating step outlined
above. OMB notes that the Fri clause on uranium
enrichment provides very little unless it permits
ERDA to sign contracts if Congress fails to act.
** Alt. #3 is a fully acceptable alternative to NSC
and State.
DECISION
THE WHITE HOUSE
[00/127/76]
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JIM CANNON JIM LYNN
BRENT SCOWCROFT
SUBJECT:
NON-PROLIFERATION AND NUCLEAR
FUEL LEGISLATION
When you met with Senator Percy and others on September 17,
you stated that you would urge Senator Baker to remove his
hold from the Senate non-proliferation bill if (a) the
NFAA was scheduled for Senate action under a time agreement,
and (b) an acceptable non-proliferation bill was negotiated.
NON-PROLIFERATION
Bob Fri believes he has reached agreement with Percy on
a reasonable bill. Detailed language must be worked out
and Senator Percy must sell the compromise to his colleagues.
Senator Baker is maintaining his hold, but indicates he
will be guided by your wishes. Senator Percy may attempt
to bring up his compromise next week. Even if it passes
the Senate, it is unlikely to pass the House.
Anderson and Price have introduced their non-proliferation
bill (H.R. 15419) -- which ERDA and State believe is
acceptable -- but there is no chance that it will be taken
up by the House.
NUCLEAR FUEL ASSURANCE ACT
Senate Outlook. Today, the NFAA was put on the Senate
calendar for next week but the opponents probably will
try to table it again. Estimate of those opposed now
ranges from three to six (Proxmire, Clark, Durkin,
McGovern, Abourezk and Glenn). Senator Percy insists
that it is not possible to move the NFAA. Industry
and labor supporters of the bill are focusing their
attention on 27 democratic Senators who are known to
-2-
support the bill -- with the objective of getting
Senator Byrd to debate the bill even though there
is opposition. Industry and labor supporters are
contending that Glenn, Abourezk, and McGovern have
or will remove their "holds."
Percy Compromise. Senator Percy has proposed a
compromise approach to uranium enrichment:
FOCD
1) Dropping the NFAA as it passed the House;
2) Add to his non-proliferation bill, language to:
- Authorize the Portsmouth plant;
- Authorize you to submit a detailed plan for
encouraging the private uranium enrichment
industry, "including a discussion of specific
terms" of proposed cooperative agreements with
private firms. The plan would be referred to
the JCAE and that Committee would have 60 days
to give its views and recommendations to each
House of Congress together with legislation to
implement their recommendations. (Bob Fri
believes this would permit proposing contracts
and authorizing legislation at the same time as
the plan.)
Fri has proposed, but Percy has not accepted, a further
clause that requires an up or down vote on the JCAE
recommendations within 30 legislative days. Fri believes
Percy would push for this clause if you insisted it is
necessary.
Except for the disputed clause, the compromise provides
no new authority. Specifically, authority for Portsmouth
will be provided in the ERDA Authorization Bill even
without the NFAA and you can submit reports, plans,
proposed contracts and draft legislation anytime.
ALTERNATIVES
There are three principal alternatives available for your
consideration:
Alt #1. Hold to the proposal you presented to Senator
Percy and others on September 17, that you would
urge Senator Baker to remove his hold if (a) the
NFAA was scheduled for Senate floor action under
a time agreement, and (b) non-proliferation legis-
lation acceptable to you was negotiated with
Senator Percy and others.
-3-
- Principal arguments for this approach are that:
(a) it is a logical position in that U.S. ability
to get other nations to accept our non-proliferation
goals depends upon our reliability as a supplier
of uranium enrichment services; and (b) it is
consistent with the position you presented to
Senator Percy and others.
- Principal argument against this approach is that
you will be open to the charge of obstructing
non-proliferation legislation and you may not get
the NFAA anyway.
Alt. #2. Endorse the Percy compromise approach which
adds some kind of uranium enrichment provisions
to the non-proliferation bill.
- Principal arguments for this approach are that:
(a) you would be postured in favor of non-
proliferation legislation and willing to
compromise or give in on uranium enrichment,
(b) it ties non-proliferation and at least
some reference to private uranium enrichment
together, and (c) it may be the only chance
of getting any Senate legislation referring
to uranium enrichment this session.
- Principal arguments against this approach are
that: (a) it would remove all possibility of
getting a vote next week on NFAA, and (b) depending
upon the language on uranium enrichment that is
added to the non-proliferation bill, the result
may be less acceptable than merely accepting
defeat of the NFAA for this session and submitting
a new proposal in January.
Alt. #3. Accept the non-proliferation legislation
without any provision for uranium enrichment,
urge Senator Baker to remove his hold, and let
the NFAA live or die this session separately
from non-proliferation.
- Principal arguments for this approach are that
it (a) postures you in favor of non-proliferation
legislation, (b) leaves options open on uranium
enrichment for next session, and (c) puts the
Senate, at least, on record as to appropriate
nuclear export criteria -- a move that may head
off NRC promulgation of less acceptable criteria.
- Principal arguments against this approach are
that it (a) is a reversal of the position you
have taken with the Senators with respect to
the NFAA, and (b) it foregoes whatever gains
-4-
might be achieved if Percy is able to sell
the vote forcing clause on uranium enrichment
that Bob Fri has proposed.
It may be possible to mitigate the negative effects of
holding fast to Alt. #1 by (1) sending a strong letter
on non-proliferation to the Senate, and/or (2) proceeding
promptly with a major statement on non-proliferation.
The critical importance to non-proliferation of expanded
uranium enrichment capacity should be emphasized.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Alt. #1. Maintain hold on non-proliferation
OMB*
legislation unless NFAA is taken up.
Alt. #2. Accept Percy compromise.
ERDA, NSC**,
State**
Alt. #3. Sever relationship between NFAA
Domestic Council
and non-proliferation legislation
* OMB favors Alt. #1 with the mitigating step outlined
above. OMB notes that the Fri clause on uranium
enrichment provides very little unless it permits
ERDA to sign contracts if Congress fails to act.
** Alt. #3 is a fully acceptable alternative to NSC
and State.