Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box 43, folder "1975/03/20 - Mike Duval (2)" of the
James M. Cannon 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 19, 1975
TO:
JEAN McLANE
FROM:
Glenn Glenn Schleede
Here is a copy for Mr. Cannon's
use of the paper we used for the
meeting on catalytic converters
at 2:15. We didn't have a copy
to leave with him.
Attachment
Digitized from Box 43 of the James M. Cannon Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Draft
3/17/75
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM - POSSIBLE ACTION PLAN
Auto Emission-Fuel Economy-Catalytic Converter
I.
ACTION FORCING EVENTS
A. Clean Air Hearings underway in both Houses. There is pressure
to do something. Pressure will grow as June 30 deadline for
auto companies decision on 1977 models approaches.
B. We need to have a new Administration position on both auto emission
and fuel economy.
C. Hearings underway in Senate Commerce Committee - headed toward
mandatory fuel economy standards.
D. OMB undertaking interagency effort to develop new legislative
proposal on auto emissions for 1977-81.
E. FEA, Transportation and ERC are headed toward a new position
on fuel economy standards - includes discussions with auto
companies. Zarb intends to have a position in a few days.
F. It seems clear that the President wants a responsible course of
action and a responsible position laid out quickly:
1. This may or may not be consistent with rushing in with new
fuel economy and emission standards beyond 1977.
2. Laying out a responsible position could put the President
in a clear leadership position on the issue and, probably, head
off mandatory fuel economy standards until there is a better
basis for deciding the right balance between air quality, fuel
economy, auto cost.
G. As public perception grows, there probably will be growing
pressure for somebody to "do something". Not clear anybody
will have credibility, including Congress, auto companies, EPA,
or the Administration (which probably will be accused of merely
trying to save the auto companies).
II. PROBLEMS THE ADMINISTRATION MUST ADDRESS
A. Develop recommended auto emission standards for 1977
model year.
1. Auto companies must know by June 30, 1975.
- 2 -
2. Five possible options, by order of liklihood:
HC
CO
NOX
a. Train decision for 1977 (which is the
least rigorous allowed under current
law)
1.5
15.0
2.0
b. Maintain 75-76 standards, including
NOx at 3. 1 to avoid cost and fuel
economy penalty - law change required.
1.5
15.0
3.1
C. Adopt tighter standards recommended
by the President - law change required.
.9
9.0
3.1
d. Slightly less rigorous standards than
75-76 to open technical options and
assure catalyst not needed (law change) 2.0 20.0
3.1
e. Return to 73-74 standards (law change)
3.0
28.0
3.1
B. Develop recommended position on fuel economy goals for 1980
and auto emission standards for 1978-81 model years -- - which
reflects the right balance.
C. Review the processes of Government which led to the catalytic
converter-sulfate decision to see whether something can be learned
which would prevent similar events in the future.
III. CONSTRAINTS
A. Dearth of good factual information.
B. Lack of agreement on facts.
C. Most information on emissions, relationship of auto emissions
to air quality, etc. in the hands of EPA which will probably
continue to be less than cooperative.
D. Lack of objectivity and credibility on the parts of most players,
including even the National Academy of Science which did a study
of the issue for the Senate Public Works Committee, which study
has been discredited.
E. Time.
IV. POSSIBLE PLAN OF ACTION
A. Instruct ERC (including FEA, DOT and EPA)
1. Not to come to final position on recommended fuel economy
standards,
2. To participate in the interagency effort outlined below.
- 3 -
B. Allow the OMB-led exercise go ahead -- with target of
April 5 -- on developing recommended auto emission standards
for 1977 and compiling facts related to 1978-81 emission standards
and 1980 fuel economy goals to see what kind of decisions are
possible; i. e., see whether the situation is clear enough to
warrant an Administration position on 1978-81 emission standards
and 1980 fuel economy goals.
C. Expand the OMB-led effort (Option A) or set up a new interagency
group (Option B) to develop by April 15 a "Grey Paper" containing
as much as possible of the inf ormation outlined in Tab A -
which could be made public if necessary.
D. Head for target of submission of 1977 emission standards proposal,
if it is different from Train's decision, by April 10.
E. Develop and issue Presidential statement on catalytic converter
decision and what he is going to do about it by April 10. Outline
at Tab B.
F. Appoint an outside Presidentially appointed Commission to
review entire air quality, fuel economy and initial car cost
issue to present:
1. Findings of fact -- a White Paper -- containing the information
outlined in Tab A, to be ready by June 30. (They could use
the Grey paper as one input. )
2. Recommendations as to auto emission standards, fuel
economy goals by July 31.
3. Identification of work that should be done to get in a better
position to make national decisions on these points for years
ahead, also by July 31.
G. Appoint a second group -- either inside Government or outside --
to review the whole catalytic converter decision process to see
what can be learned to head off future similar events. Should
include evaluation of:
Organization.
Regulatory development and review process.
Adequacy of information for decisions.
Inside group may be less able to criticize Congressional role.
Could call for tripartite (Congressional, Executive Branch,
public) membership.
TABS
TAB A - Outline for Presidential Statement
TAB B - Coverage for a White Paper
TAB C - Potential Members for a Commission
TAB D - Cabinet Meeting - Talking Points
TAR F Arenda for OMB Effort which begins March 18
TAB A
TAB A
APPROACH AND TOPICS FOR A WHITE PAPER ON AIR QUALITY,
AUTO EMISSION CONTROLS, FUEL ECONOMY
I.
BASIC APPROACH
A. Lay out facts as they are known.
B. Show range of disagreement where there is a dispute as to
facts.
C. Identify gaps in data.
D. Show arguments justifying particular judgments or interpretations
where there is a disagreement on either fact or opinion.
E. Assume that the Clean Air Act and the regulations implementing
it can be changed, if necessary, to arrive at the requirements
and course of action that is in the nation's best interest.
F. Target should be a clear presentation of the tradeoffs among
air. quality, public health, public welfare, esthetics, safety,
fuel economy, initial car cost, and car maintenance costs,
durability and performance.
II. PRELIMINARY OUTLINE FOR WHITE PAPER
A. Historical Data
1. Brief chronology of the events leading to current and future
statutory auto emission standards, including Executive Branch
and Congressional actions.
2. Describe the automobile and fuel modifications that have been
made thus far (all years, at least since 1968) to control
emissions. Show impact on emissions, air quality (to the
extent possible), fuel economy, initial car cost, maintenance
cost, performance, fuel specifications, etc.
B. Current Ambient Air Quality Situation
1. Describe current ambient air quality situation, showing
trends and frequency and duration of violation of current
standards.
2. Show sources and relative importance of air pollutants of
concern, whether or not there is an existing criteria document
and ambient standard. Show to the extent possible the amounts
and relative importance of natural sources of pollutants. Show
by area to the extent possible.
- 2 -
C. Expected future air quality trends.
1. Show expected trends by area and by source, mobile,
stationary, natural, broken down to the extent possible to
show relative importance of various control alternatives.
2. Show assumptions leading to future projections.
D. Ambient Air Quality Standards
1. Show current and possible future ambient air quality standards,
primary and secondary.
2. Summarize health, welfare and aesthetic effects leading to
conclusions on current or possible future ambient standards.
3. Describe criticisms of existing standards, and arguments
supporting different ones.
E. Costs of Air Pollution and benefits of Reduction:
1. Summarize current information on costs and benefits of
reducing air pollution.
2. Describe confidence limits associated with data.
F. Discuss alternatives and the impacts of various tradeoffs between
control of pollutants from auto VS. stationary sources -- costs,
air quality benefits.
G. For various auto emission standards, show:
1. technological options for achieving, together with --
2. the impact on:
a. auto emissions.
b. ambient air quality by area which has auto related
pollutant problem; health and welfare impacts.
c. initial car cost impact.
d. fuel economy impact.
e. implications for fuel specifications.
f. safety.
g. maintenance impact, durability, and related consumer costs.
h. performance impact.
i. capability of industry to achieve, and the investment
cost, etc. necessary to achieve.
j. time frame for achieving.
H. For projections of ambient air quality impact, describe
assumptions as to population growth, dispersion, number of
cars, vehicle miles traveled, fuel economy, gasoline availability
and use, and other factors that go into or should be considered in
- 3 -
an estimate of future air quality. Indicate disagreements with
approach, if any; modifications required; weaknesses, etc; and
their implications for auto emissions or transportation plan
requirements.
I. Describe the need or absence. of need for no-lead or low-lead
gasoline and the health, air quality and other impacts of various
positions. Also, disagreements on positions, if any.
J. Summarize potential new regulations or other requirements
impacting auto emissions, transportation controls, or indirect
sources which might have an effect on a national decision on
auto emission requirements.
K. The rationale for and implications of the threshold theory of
health damage that underlies the Clean Air Act; the alternatives.
L. Accuracy of ability to measure.
1. Describe the relative accuracy of air quality instrumentation,
monitoring systems, and predictive models for the various
auto related pollutants of concern.
2. Describe the significance of our ability to measure and
predict to our actions to improve air quality and to our
ability to strike a balance between air quality and other
objectives.
M. Special topics for coverage:
1. Present and future of the catalytic converter.
2. Status and outlook for the sulfate problem, covering mobil
and stationary sources of sulfates.
3. The justification for and alternatives to a single national
(49 state) standard for auto emissions.
TAB B
TAB B
PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT* - OUTLINE
I.
Our National Drive to improve the quality of life for all Americans
often leads us to set rigorous goals and objectives and tight deadlines.
II.
Events have shown that our drive to achieve some goals, e.g., air
quality goals, presents a conflict with our drive to achieve other
national goals, public health, safety, energy
III. The series of actions that have led to the initial decision to set
standards requiring catalytic converters - and the subsequent
decision by EPA that catalytic converters may cause a health hazard
even worse than the health problem it sought to minimize -- illustrates:
1. The complexity of the task of improving air quality.
2. The implication of air quality requirements for other national goals.
3. The kind of costs that are imposed on consumers.
4. The implications of proceeding with rigid requirements without:
- full understanding of the impacts.
- full public knowledge of the impacts.
IV. Now faced with the job of finding:
1. The best balance among conflicting objectives.
2. The best set of requirements for the years ahead.
V. Must avoid more precipitious actions -- either in the form of premature
air quality requirements or mandatory fuel economy requirements.
VI. President's plan of action:
1. 1977 auto emission standards.
2. 1978-81 auto emission standards and fuel economy goals - National
Commission.
3. Review of the process of Government that led us through the path
that has cost billions in consumer dollars and may have caused
a serious or potentially serious health problem.
VII. Other points to cover along the way:
1. Issue is not protecting the auto industry, instead it is protecting
citizens, consumers and taxpayers.
2. There is blame to be shared by all - Congress, Exeuctive Branch,
auto industry, environmentalists. But not the consumer and the
citizens who have had to pay the bill.
Use philosopy, tone of Taking Points - Tab D.
TAB C
TAB C
POSSIBLE MEMBERS OF AN OUTSIDE COMMISSION TO STUDY
FUEL ECONOMY, AUTO EMISSIONS ISSUE
A.
Chairman - Should be someone who is able to lead and coordinate
a highly complex cost-risk-benefit analysis. Preferably someone
who is already familiar to some extent with the Clean Air Act and
the actions that have been taken to implement it.
1. Don Rice - President of Rand Corporation, former Associate
Director of OMB (Natural Resources)
2.
- Director of Ames Laboratory of NASA.
B. Member - Having thorough knowledge of the environmental
health issues.
1. Ivan Bennett - Head of the New York University Medical School,
Deputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology until
1969. M.D.
2. Dr. Morton Corn, Department of Occupational Health, University
of Pittsburgh. Regarded widely as a top occupational health and
epidemiology expert.
3. Dr. Brian McMahon, Chairman, Department of Epidemiology,
Harvard School of Public Health.
C. Member - Having thorough knowledge of the automotive technology
issues.
1. Philip Meyers, Professor of Mechnical Engineering, University
of Wisconsin. Past President of Society of Automotive Engineers,
Member of National Academy of Engineering. Did not participate
in NAS-NAE air pollution study.
2. John Heywood, Department of Mechnical Engineering, MIT.
Extensive research and writing experience on motor vehicle
issues but apparently has no direct industry experience.
D. Other potential members or leading advisers
1. William Simmons - Director of the California Air Resources Board,
Knowledgeable about California problems; California's criticisms
of EPA's approach to air quality control; and about the special
problems of natural sources of air pollution which complicate
air quality control problems.
2. Selected members from the committees and panels that prepared
the recent National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of
of Engineering study on air quality and auto emission control
for the Senate Public Works Committee. List attached. Problem
with this is that the summary version of the study has been discredited.
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
(of AIR the QUALITY for Commission STUDIES on Natural Resources)
HERBERT A. SIMON, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa., Chairman
IVAN BENNETT, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York
JAMES D. EBERT, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Baltimore, Md.
EDWARD GINZTON, Varian Associates, Palo Alto, California
BERNARD GREENBERG, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
HERSCHEL E. GRIFFIN, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
GEORGE HIDY, Rockwell International, Thousand Oaks, California
HOWARD JOHNSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
J. ROSS MACDONALD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.
JOHN MEYER, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.
GORDON J. F. MACDONALD, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire (ex officio)
DAVID HOLTZ, Staff Officer
I.
COMMITTEE ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF
EMISSIONS TO AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
GEORGE HIDY, Rockwell International, Thousand Oaks, California, Chairman
ALAN ESCHENROEDER, General Research Corporation, Santa Barbara, California
RICHARD HURN, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bartlesville, Oklahoma
HAROLD JOHNSTON, University of California, Berkeley, California
JAMES MAHONEY, Environmental Research & Technology, Incorporated,
Lexington, Massachusetts
PETER MUELLER, Environmental Research & Technology, Incorporated,
Newport Beach, California
JOHN SEINFELD, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
JOHN TRIJONIS, TRW, Incorporated, Redondo Beach, California
DAVID HOLTZ, Staff Officer
RONALD TIPTON, Staff Officer
II.
COMMITTEE ON THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF AUTOMOBILE EMISSION
CONTROL
John Meyer, National Bureau of Economic Research, and Harvard
University, Cambridge Massachusetts, Chairman
Victor Fuchs, National Bureau of Economic Research, and Stanford
University, Palo Alto, California
John Kain, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
John Krutilla, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Lester Lave, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Lester Lees, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
Herbert vania Simon, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
Jan Stolwijk, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
George Tolley, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Raphael Kasper, Staff Officer
Ronald Tipton, Staff Officer
Gregory Ingram, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Di-
rector of Staff Research
III.
Subcommittee on Health Effects of Air Pollutants
of the
Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants
HERSCHEL E. GRIFFIN, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public
Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Chairman
BERTRAM W. CARNOW, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago,
Illinois
RONALD F. COBURN, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
T. TIMOTHY CROCKER, University of California College of Medicine,
Irvine, California
SHELDON K. FRIEDLANDER, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California
IAN T. T. HIGGINS, University of Michigan School of Public Health,
Ann Arbor, Michigan
JOHN REDMOND, JR., Staff Officer
Panel on Airborne Particles
of the
Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants
Panel on Carbon Monoxide
I. T. T. Higgins, Chairman
of the
R. E. Albert
R. J. Charlson
B. G. Ferris, Jr.
Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants
R. Frank
M. Lippmann
B. Y. H. Liu
Ronald F. Coburn, Chairman
P. E. Morrow
Eric R. Allen
K. T. Whitby
Stephen Ayres
J. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officer
Donald Bartlett, Jr.
Steven M. Horvath
Lewis H. Kuller
and the
Victor G. Laties
Lawrence D. Longo
Panel on Sulfur Oxides
Edward P. Radford, Jr.
of the
James Frazier, Staff Officer
Task Force on Health Effects
Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants
B. W. Carnow, Chairman
of the
Y. Alarie
P. Meier
Panel on Nitrogen Oxides
J. A. Nadel
E. D. Palmes
of the
Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants
J. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officer
E. Goldstein, Chairman
Task Force on Interactions of Pollutants in Producing Health Effects
R. Ehrlich
C. M. Shy
of the
L. F. Wolterink
Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants
E. E. Force and J. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officers
C. M. Shy, Chairman
Panel on Photochemical Oxidants and Ozone
Y. Alarie
D. V. Bates
of the
R. Frank
J. D. Hackney
Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants
S. M. Horvath
J. A. Nadel
E. E. Force and J. Redmond, Jr., Staff Office
S. K. Friedlander, Chairman
B. Altshuler
A. Q. Eschenroeder
J. D. Hackney
Task Force on Effects on Plants
FORD
W. W. Heck
J. R. McCarroll
P. R. Miller
D. C. McCune
P. K. Mueller
W. W. Heck
S. D. Murphy
J. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officer
K. R. Wilson
GERALD
J. A. Frazier, Staff Officer
TAB D
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 11, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CONNOR
THROUGH:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL
SUBJECT:
TALKING POINTS -- CABINET MEETING
The attached is long but the subject is fundamental -- it
is an attempt to establish a philosophical base for our
domestic policy.
If the President decides to use this, I recommend that Nessen
not specifically cover the "Truth in Government" theme in his
briefing. Let the tone leak out from the Cabinet. Let the
President build up to this theme slowly.
DRAFT
M. Duval (3/11/75)
TALKING POINTS - CABINET MEETING DISCUSSION ON THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER
I think that the most important lesson for all of us, from
the experience we have had with the catalytic converter, is
that we should exercise far greater care when we propose
legislation and take regulatory and Executive action. It is
obvious that the American public will pay a very high price
for the decisions made by the Congress and by the Executive
Branch concerning these automobile polution regulations. I
think it is fair to say that if we had known the full cost
which ultimately will flow from these actions prior to making
the regulatory decisions which locked us onto this course,
the specific legislation and regulatory action might have been
very different.
I have a very basic philosophy concerning my approach to these
kinds of regulatory actions and to legislation which sets them
in motion. It can be summed up by the phrase: "Truth in Govern-
ment." By this, I mean that we should level with the American
people and tell them the true price of government actions and
who's going to pay for it. This is the principle that I
followed with my Fiscal 1976 Budget and in my State of the
Union Address and subsequent legislation. I believe in laying
out the true costs of my actions. For example, the price tag
of my energy proposals is right out there for everyone to see.
It's $30 billion a year and this will result in a one-time
2% increase in the CPI. Contrast this clearly-defined price
tag with the Democrats' so-called Pastore-Wright plan. Although
my energy and economic advisers think that the total price tag
of their plan will equal or exceed mine, this will show up in
hidden costs which will ultimately result from quotas and
allocation and further government intrusion into the market-
place. In short, while their proposal is politically attractive
because it doesn't appear that anyone will have to pay the bill,
I don't think government decisions should be made this way. I
think the people should know the true cost of the programs
proposed here in Washington and, importantly, who's going to
pay the bill and when.
I have taken some steps myself to implement this "Truth in
Government" philosophy. In addition to the State of the Union
and Budget Messages, I have signed an Executive Order requiring
that an Inflation Impact Statement be prepared for every govern-
ment action under my control. If an honest Inflation Impact
Statement had been done when the initial decisions were made
concerning the catalytic converter, I suspect we would not be
faced with the problem confronting us today. Of course, it's
not just the environmental regulations which raise this issue.
There are literally thousands of examples, but I recall speci-
fically the problem we had with the truck brake regulation
issued by the Department of Transportation before you, Bill
(Coleman), came on board. I had to make a decision on
2
New Year's Eve out in Vail to let that regulation go forward
because we were so far down the road that, to hold it up
would have imposed economic hardship on the industries which
had geared up to implement the Federal rule. As a result,
we are increasing the cost of trucks and trailers 5-7% and,
I now understand, this regulation may force many little
companies out of business. I have no doubt that many of
the energy regulations create the same kind of dislocations.
The point here is that each one of you must control the
actions of your departments and agencies to insure that the
full cost of every proposal and regulatory action you take
is laid out clearly. I think it is also important that this
be done in time so that a real choice can be made between
going forward or not. Too often, the economic consequences
of the regulation only come to light so late in the process
that there really isn't any opportunity to pull back. The
pressures to go forward come from the legislation itself,
from law suits which have been brought by proponents on one
side or the other, from industry who will be benefitted or
hurt by the proposed rule and, often from within the agency
itself when the Federal officials in charge of implementation
become advocates for one course of action or another.
As each of you makes the day-to-day regulatory and policy
decisions, I want you to think through very carefully the
impact of those decisions a year from now, five years from
now, ten years from now. Think through what will happen if
those policies and programs are to be implemented by some
future administration which might not be as conscious as we
are of preserving the freedom of individual choice and the
market mechanism. One discipline that should assist you is
to ask three questions each time you face an important govern-
mental decision:
1. What is the problem -- specifically -- that I am being
asked to solve?
2. Does the proposed solution in fact solve the problem?
3. What additional problems will this government "solution"
create? It is this last step that we so very often fail
to take.
Of course, concerning the catalytic converter, we need to
make a decision concerning my proposed legislation which is
now pending before Congress recommending that we adopt a
modified California standard. I submitted this legislation
because it was part of the compromise worked out whereby the
automobile manufacturers could achieve a 40% increase in auto
efficiency by 1979, without a large increase in the cost of
cars and with reasonable environmental standards still intact.
3
It is clear from the decisions and conclusions reached by
Russ Train, that we must reconsider my legislative proposal.
We can't dillydally around on this one because I want the
Congress to move quickly on my entire energy plan, but now
one part of it may no longer be valid. Accordingly, I want
to be able to review my decision on the long-range automobile
polution standards and submit new legislation, if necessary,
prior to the Easter recess. I understand that Frank Zarb
and Russ Train already have studies underway and that they
are coordinating this with the Department of Transportation.
I'd like the Domestic Council to follow up on this so that
I can have the views of all the interested agencies and
departments and final recommendations very quickly.
TAB E
TAB E
AGENDA
3/18/75
I. Explanation of Administrator Train's recommended five-year automobile
emission standards (EPA).
II. Areas of Discussion:
a. the air quality, technological and economic impacts of EPA's
recommended HC and CO standards for 1977-1979 model years. Also
impacts associated with extending these standards through 1981.
b. Air quality, technological and economic impacts of EPA's recommended
NOx standard for model years 1978-1981.
c. Impact of EPA's recommended NOx standard on President's 40 percent
fuel economy improvement goal.
d. Should- NOx standard be set administratively after 1981 (President's
proposal) or should standard be kept indefinitely (EPA's recommendation)
e. Air quality, technological and economic impacts of setting sulfate
standard for 1979 model year. Impacts of setting standard for
1978; for 1980.
III. Next Steps:
a. Time frame for recommending changes, if any, to President's
proposal (OMB).
b. Methods of analysis - task forces, individual agency views, etc.
c. Tasks - with estimated dates of completion.
1. resolve differences between HC and CO standards
(
)
2. resolve differences between NOx standards
(
)
3. resolve setting of NOx level after 1981
(
)
4. sulfate standard
(
)
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
ATTACHMENT
Model Year
HC
CO
NOₓ
1976
EPA Recommended
1.5
15
3.1
President's Proposal
1.5
15
3.1
1977
EPA Recommended
1.5
15
2.0
President's Proposal
.9
9.0
3.1
1978-1979
EPA Recommended
1.5
15
2.0
President's Proposal
.9
9.0
3.1
1980-1981
EPA Recommended
.9
9.0
2.0
President's Proposal
.9
9.0
3.1
1982
EPA Recommended
.4
3.4
2.0
President's Proposal
N/A
N/A
Set
Adminis-
tratively
FORD & LIBRARY
Feb
OIL STORAGE REPORT
by
Edward Teller
Gary Higgins
Tom Palmeiri
Stuart Winter
April 4, 1975
OIL STORAGE REPORT
We have further investigated ways of quickly establishing a large
oil storage capacity within the United States. Some of the numbers we
communicated by phone have turned out to be too conservative. We now find
that existing salt mines and presently available tanker ships could provide
storage for 500 to 800 million barrels. This space would be available start-
ing immediately for the ships and within six months for the mines.
Arab Imports
We now find that we are importing about two millions barrels per day
from Arab countries. One million comes directly as crude oil and another
million is shipped to intermediate countries where it is refined and then
imported into the U. S. as a finished product.
Five hundred million barrels of stored oil, therefore, could completely
replace all our Arab imports for eight months even in case of a totally
effective embargo.
Shut-in productive capacity which could be turned on rapidly in non-
Arab exporting countries (Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc.) exceeds two
million barrels per day.
Additional productive capacity also exists in the United States. Elk
Hills could begin producing 130,000 barrels per day in three to four months,
but availability of this oil appears limited by local pipeline capacity.
Storage
Oil Tankers - The most readily available storage is in empty tanker
ships. According to persons at Global Marine Corporation and the Maritime
Administration, the total idle tanker capacity amounts to 185 million barrels.
As of January 1975, total worldwide orders for new ships would provide ca-
pacity for an additional 1000 million barrels. In the first message this
figure was greatly underestimated. Some of these orders have been cancelled
due to reduced shipping demand but for the near future it appears that the
number of idle ships will continue to grow.
Chartering such space in the present depressed market would cost from
$1.50 to $4.00/barrel/year depending on the availability. The cost would
probably go up as the number of idle ships decreased. To purchase the ships
would cost well over $10.00/barrel.
In addition to being used for storage, a large number of ships will be
required to transport large quantities of oil to other storage sites.
Salt Mines and Wells - The second kind of available storage is in
existing rock-salt mines and solution mined salt wells. People at Fenix
and Scisson (mining and consulting engineers) and at the International
Salt Company have said that space for 750 million barrels could be made
available with little or no disruption of the nation's salt industry.
These mines and wells are in Louisiana and Texas close to existing pipe-
lines. Purchasing and converting them to oil storage use would cost
from $1.00 to $1.50 per barrel. Conversion could be accomplished in two
to six months.
Another storage option that could accomodate 100 million barrels
within six months is the creation of man-made surface storage ponds.
According to individuals in the Army Corps of Engineers such ponds
could be excavated, lined and covered at a cost of $1.00/barrel.
Some environmental problems may exist (for instance, due to dispersal
by extremely strong winds) but such problems appear to be solvable.
Mines, other than salt mines, may provide additional storage space
but the uncertainty about their tightness (ability to retain oil) and
their distance from existing pipelines relegates them to a lower level
of consideration.
Recommendations
We recommend the following actions:
(1) Begin leasing the needed ships.
(2) Make arrangements for the use of salt mines and wells.
(2a) As a contingency, make plans for establishing surface storage.
(3) Obtain the pipeline supplies that will be needed to move the oil
to the storage sites and from Elk Hills to a refinery.
(4) Write an environmental impact statement for each form of storage.
In the case of surface storage, some research may be necessary
to obtain a suitable surface cover. This research should be
initiated immediately.
Conclusions
For approximately one billion dollars and in approximately one-half
year, substantial oil storage can be established in the United States.
Since such storage would give us considerable leverage in any negotiations,
it is recommended that serious consideration be given to the establishment
of such storage.
APPENDIX
I. Mechanism of an Embargo
II. Background Information On Storage Options
III. Circulating Stocks
IV. Acknowledgements
APPENDIX
I. Mechanism of an Embargo
The following total productive capacities and shut-in capacities are
relevant when one considers the possibility of an embargo.
Total Productive Capacity
Amount Shut-In
(millions of barrels per/
(millions of
day)
barrels per/da
Arab countries with low population
21.1
9.8
(Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Emirates)
Arab countries with high population
4.1
0.9
(Iraq, Algeria, Egypt)
Non-Arab exporting countries
14.0
2.2
(Iran, Venequela, Nigeria, Indonesia,
Ecuador)
An embargo exclusively against the U. S. can therefore be replaced by
presently shut-in wells from non-Arab countries. By increasing their shut-in
capacity the Arab countries having low populations could create a worldwide
scarcity which could make an embargo against the U. S. effective. It should
be realized that this can be done only by a further decrease in production
in the countries of low population where the percentage of shut-in capacity
is already quite large.
Having available stored oil under control of the U.S. could decrease
the threat of an embargo.
II. Background Information on Storage Options
We have divided our results into two categories. The first category
includes existing volumes that can be readily converted into storage
facilities. The second category suggests projects to construct new
storage facilties. Because of the need for construction, more uncertainty
is involved, and so these are listed separately.
Briefly our recommendations are:
I. EXISTING VOLUMES
A. Utilize presently available storage space in rock-salt
mines.
Available Volume = 138 MMB
Time = 3 Months
Cost = $1.10/bb1
B. Utilize available space in solution-mined salt wells.
Available Volume = 612 MMB
Time = 2 Months
Cost = $1.30 - $1.50/bbl
C. Utilize available oil tankers for storage.
Available Volume = 100 MMB
Time = 3-6 months
Rental Cost = $1.50-$3.50/bbl/yr
Total Available Volume = 850 MMB
Typical Total Time = 6 months
II. NEW CONSTRUCTION
A. An intensive program of solution mining of salt domes.
Volume = 100 MMB
Time = 6-9 months
Cost = about $3.00/bbl
B. Construction of environmentally acceptable surface
reservoirs.
Volume = 100 MMB
Time = 3 months
Cost = $1.00/bbl
C. For product storage, an intensive program to survey and
obtain space in operating mines.
Volume = several hundred MMB
Time = 6-9 months
Cost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location
D. For product storage, an intensive program to locate,
survey and refurbish shut-down mines and abandoned mines.
Volume = 2-3 times that of operating mines
Time = 9-12 months
Cost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location
FORT WORTH
DALLAS
Grond Soline
MISSISSIPPI
SHREVEPORT
MONROE
,
JACKSON
TYLER
ALABAMA
Winnfield
Olin Matheson
WACO
O
Pittsburg Plate
ALEXANDRIA
Mcintosh
Glass
TEXAS
LOUISIANA
MOBILE
Kaiser
Olin Matheson
Solvay
Exxon
BATON ROUGE
AUSTIN
Storks
Anse to Butte
Boyou Choctow
o
OSulphur Mines
Sorrento,
BEAUMONT
Dorrow
O
Wyandotte Chem.
Hockley
Jefferson Island
Nopoleonville
Spindletop o
OHockberry,West
Allied Chem.
Avery Island
NEW ORLEANS
HOUSTON
Borbers Hill
Weeks Island
Cote Blonche Island
Pierce Junction
SAN ANTONIO
Belle isle
Dow Chem.
Blue Ridge
Diamond Crystal
Hookern Chem.
C
O
Strotton
Bryon Mound
Ridge GULF OF MEX
International
Salt Co.
Cargills
Freeport
Sulpher Co.
Morton Salt Co.1
Dome Tower
N
LEGEND
Salt Co.
Solt dome with solt produced from brine wells
Solt dome with solt produced by room-and-pillar mining
Large Rock Salt
Solt dome with solt produced by both brine wells and
CORPUS CHRISTI
room- and-piller mining
mines close to
coast
Polongono
20
o
20
40
60
80
100
Scole, miles
Location and ownership of all operating
rock salt mines and brine wells in Louisiana
The following is a more detailed explanation of the various options.
I.a. ROCK SALT MINES
Five large salt mines are located in Louisiana on the Gulf Coast.
These are shown on the enclosed map. In these mines there is presently
available 138 MMB of storage capacity with no adverse effect on the salt
industry.
We mention these mines first because they have easy access to oil
trunk lines and to port facilities where the supplies could enter the
country. It would take about six months to install the necessary equip-
ment to convert parts of these mines to storage facilities. Costs would
run about $30 million per mine, or about $1.10/bbl.
In the North, we have specific information on three mines owned by the
International Salt Company. The volumes available are:
Cleveland
48 MMB
Detroit
118 MMB
Retsof, NY 229 MMB
Total
395 MMB (Int'l Salt Co. only)
These mines would have access to the St. Lawrence Seaway but would
require new pipeline construction since they do not lie near major oil
fields.
International Salt Company also has experience in converting their
mines to storage. The have quoted $30 million and six months for conver-
sion for each mine. Thus in the North we have identified 395 MMB of po-
tential storage capacity at a cost of about $0.23/bbl, exclusive of the
pipeline to access the facilties.
I.b. BRINE WELLS
Again the the Gulf states, we have considered solution mined wells in
salt domes. Storage in these wells is a developed technology. As of 1971,
petroleum products in salt domes occupied volumes of 24 MMB in Louisiana,
84 MMB in Texas, and 5 MMB in Missiissippi. See the enclosed map.
Our information is that as of January 1975, there are 262 NMB of
capacity available in Louisiam, and another 350 MMB available in Texas.
Thus a total of 612 MMB could presently be converted to storage.
Brine wells are much smaller than rock-salt caverns, with sizes
typically 4 to 10 MMB. Thus a storage facility could involve about 60
or more wells. The cost to buy these wells would be about $1.30 to
$1.50/bbl. Because the technology of conversion is well established, they
could be ready to accept the oil in about two months.
I.c. TANKERS
There are presently 30 VLCC's (Very Large Crude Carriers) in the
Persian Gulf that are awaiting a charter. The average capacity of these
tankers is about 2 MMB. They are free because of cutback in Arab production.
Another 20 of these tankers are temporarily out of service for various
reasons. All of these tankers could be brought into service in about three
months. The volume available is about 100 MMB.
These ships are under the flags of various countries (Greece, Libya,
Panama, Japan, Scandanavian countries, etc.). They could be bought or
leased, depending on the time they would be held as storage facilities.
The purchase cost of a VLCC comes to about $15.50/bb1. The lease price
is presently about $1.50 to $4.00/bbl/yr.
II.c. OPERATING MINES
These cavities would be useful for product storage in that they are
widely dispersed grographically, and all are served by rail connections.
In 1974, engineers at Fenix and Scisson, Inc. (F&S) did a study for
the EPA to determine the suitability of mines for storage of wastes.
Of the 672 operating mines in the country (excluding coal), F&S identi-
fied 172 that look promising for storage.
Although estimates for total volume are hundreds of MMB, the volumes
of these mines are poorly estimated. For products however, storage in the
range 10 to 100 MB per mine would suffice and all the above mines would
qualify.
Conversion could take about 6 months, at a cost of less than $2.00/bbl.
F&S has recently bought and converted an iron mine in South Africa for
$0.40/bb1. Thus the technology is proven and the ability to realize this
option is assured.
II.d. SHUT-DOWN AND ABANDONED MINES
Shut-down mines are also a possibility. Beneath Kansas City, a lime-
stone mine is used for warehouse storage. Its volume is about 400 MMB.
Two other shut-down mines that we have identified represent 20 MMB in
Illinois and 20 MMB in Ohio.
A program to document and determine the suitability of shut-down mines
could take about 3 months. As with operating mines, conversion could be
accomplished in about 6 months, for a total of 9 months until the facilities
are useful.
The volume of abandoned mines is estimated to be 2 to 3 times that of
operating mines. Although the actual useable volume is not presently known,
it is our understanding that the Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey
are now involved in a study that will determine these volumes. Results
should be available within a few months.
F&S estimate that documentation and surveying could be completed in
about 6 months, with another 6 months to convert the suitable mines. Cost
would again not exceed $2.00/bb1, depending on location.
Finally with all the options and corresponding volume that could be
made available, there is enough flexibility such that other less desirable
options need not be considered. Among these are
Steel tank storage, with its high cost.
Nuclear cavities or craters, with the adverse sentiment it arouses.
Shut in storage or storage in abandoned oil wells, with the
ensuing loss of oil and high economic cost.
III. CIRCULATING STOCKS
Our oil economy consumes approximately 16 million barrels per day.
A little more than 50 days supply is available in this country at a time
in the form of crude oil, intermediate and as products. Only a fraction
of this unit can be counted on as stocks. In fact any significant
decrease of the total that exists (~ 900 million bbls) will cause dis-
turbances requiring actions of various severity. Therefore we have not
counted on this circulating stock in any way as a cushion in case of
an embargo.
IV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The information was assembled by
G. Higgins
x8582
T. Palmieri
x8835
S. Winter
x8582
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
P. O. Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
(415-447-1100)
We have received much assistance from all of the following.
Mr. Paul and Mr. Jacoby
Mr. R. Stone
Minerals & Mines Dept.
Fenix & Scisson
International Salt Co.
5305 East Fifteenth Street
Clark Summit, Penn.
P.O. Box 15609
(717-587-5131, x408)
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115
(918-835-9471)
Mr. D. Richner
Mr. F. Wood
Terraneers Ltd.
The Salt Institute
9234 Mentor Avenue
206 N. Washington
Mentor, Ohio 44060
Alexandria, Va.
(216-255-9113)
(703-549-4648)
R. Curtis Crook, President
Rear Admiral N. Sonenshein, USN (Ret.)
Global. Marine Corporation
5959 West Century Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA
(213-649-1222)
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATO!
P -
ail storage ail storage
April 4, 1975
The Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller
The Vice-President of the United States
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Nelson:
The following is a brief report on oil storage which is to super-
sede the material transmitted to you by telephone on March 28, 1975.
The report was prepared with most active collaboration of my friends
in Livermore. As you will see, substantial and relatively inexpensive
storage for oil can be made available.
In addition to the short report, I am transmitting an appendix
giving some details.
We should be most happy to answer any questions or to go into
further details.
Sincerely,
Tward
EDWARD TELLER
ET:tw
OIL STORAGE REPORT
by
Edward Teller
Gary Higgins
Tom Palmeiri
Stuart Winter
April 4, 1975
OIL STORAGE REPORT
We have further investigated ways of quickly establishing a large
oil storage capacity within the United States. Some of the numbers we
communicated by phone have turned out to be too conservative. We now find
that existing salt mines and presently available tanker ships could provide
storage for 500 to 800 million barrels. This space would be available start-
ing immediately for the ships and within six months for the mines.
Arab Imports
We now find that we are importing about two millions barrels per day
from Arab countries. One million comes directly as crude oil and another
million is shipped to intermediate countries where it is refined and then
imported into the U. S. as a finished product.
Five hundred million barrels of stored oil, therefore, could completely
replace all our Arab imports for eight months even in case of a totally
effective embargo.
Shut-in productive capacity which could be turned on rapidly in non-
Arab exporting countries (Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc.) exceeds two
million barrels per day.
Additional productive capacity also exists in the United States. Elk
Hills could begin producing 130,000 barrels per day in three to four months,
but availability of this oil appears limited by local pipeline capacity.
Storage
Oil Tankers - The most readily available storage is in empty tanker
ships. According to persons at Global Marine Corporation and the Maritime
Administration, the total idle tanker capacity amounts to 185 million barrels.
As of January 1975, total worldwide orders for new ships would provide ca-
pacity for an additional 1000 million barrels. In the first message this
figure was greatly underestimated. Some of these orders have been cancelled
due to reduced shipping demand but for the near future it appears that the
number of idle ships will continue to grow.
Chartering such space in the present depressed market would cost from
$1.50 to $4.00/barrel/year depending on the availability. The cost would
probably go up as the number of idle ships decreased. To purchase the ships
would cost well over $10.00/barrel.
In addition to being used for storage, a large number of ships will be
required to transport large quantities of oil to other storage sites.
Salt Mines and Wells - The second kind of available storage is in
existing rock-salt mines and solution mined salt wells. People at Fenix
and Scisson (mining and consulting engineers) and at the International
Salt Company have said that space for 750 million barrels could be made
available with little or no disruption of the nation's salt industry.
These mines and wells are in Louisiana and Texas close to existing pipe-
lines. Purchasing and converting them to oil storage use would cost
from $1.00 to $1.50 per barrel. Conversion could be accomplished in two
to six months.
Another storage option that could accomodate 100 million barrels
within six months is the creation of man-made surface storage ponds.
According to individuals in the Army Corps of Engineers such ponds
could be excavated, lined and covered at a cost of $1.00/barrel.
Some environmental problems may exist (for instance, due to dispersal
by extremely strong winds) but such problems appear to be solvable.
Mines, other than salt mines, may provide additional storage space
but the uncertainty about their tightness (ability to retain oil) and
their distance from existing pipelines relegates them to a lower level
of consideration.
Recommendations
We recommend the following actions:
(1) Begin leasing the needed ships.
(2) Make arrangements for the use of salt mines and wells.
(2a) As a contingency, make plans for establishing surface storage.
(3) Obtain the pipeline supplies that will be needed to move the oil
to the storage sites and from Elk Hills to a refinery.
(4) Write an environmental impact statement for each form of storage.
In the case of surface storage, some. research may be necessary
to obtain a suitable surface cover. This research should be
initiated immediately.
Conclusions
For approximately one billion dollars and in approximately one-half
year, substantial oil storage can be established in the United States.
Since such storage would give us considerable leverage in any negotiations,
it is recommended that serious consideration be given to the establishment
of such storage.
APPENDIX
I. Mechanism of an Embargo
II. Background Information On Storage Options
III. Circulating Stocks
IV. Acknowledgements
APPENDIX
I. Mechanism of an Embargo
The following total productive capacities and shut-in capacities are
relevant when one considers the possibility of an embargo.
Total Productive Capacity
Amount Shut-
(millions of barrels per/
(millions of
day)
barrels per/
Arab countries with low population
21.1
9.8
(Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Emirates)
Arab countries with high population
4.1
0.9
(Iraq, Algeria, Egypt)
Non-Arab exporting countries
14.0
2.2
(Iran, Venequela, Nigeria, Indonesia,
Ecuador)
An embargo exclusively against the U. S. can therefore be replaced by
presently shut-in wells from non-Arab countries. By increasing their shut-in
capacity the Arab countries having low populations could create a worldwide
scarcity which could make an embargo against the U. S. effective. It should
be realized that this can be done only by a further decrease in production
in the countries of low population where the percentage of shut-in capacity
is already quite large.
Having available stored oil under control of the U.S. could decrease
the threat of an embargo.
II. Background Information on Storage Options
We have divided our results into two categories. The first category
includes existing volumes that can be readily converted into storage
facilities. The second category suggests projects to construct new
storage facilties. Because of the need for construction, more uncertainty
is involved, and so these are listed separately.
Briefly our recommendations are:
I. EXISTING VOLUMES
A. Utilize presently available storage space in rock-salt
mines.
Available Volume = 138 MMB
Time = 3 Months
Cost = $1.10/bb1
B. Utilize available space in solution-mined salt wells.
Available Volume = 612 MMB
Time = 2 Months
Cost = $1.30 - $1.50/bbl
C. Utilize available oil tankers for storage.
Available Volume = 100 MMB
Time = 3-6 months
Rental Cost = $1.50-$3.50/bbl/yr
Total Available Volume = 850 MMB
Typical Total Time = 6 months
II. NEW CONSTRUCTION
A. An intensive program of solution mining of salt domes.
Volume = 100 MMB
Time = 6-9 months
Cost = about $3.00/bbl
B. Construction of environmentally acceptable surface
reservoirs.
Volume = 100 MMB
Time = 3 months
Cost = $1.00/bbl
C. For product storage, an intensive program to survey and
obtain space in operating mines.
Volume = several hundred MMB
Time = 6-9 months
Cost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location
D. For product storage, an intensive program to locate,
survey and refurbish shut-down mines and abandoned mines.
Volume = 2-3 times that of operating mines
Time = 9-12 months
Cost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location
FORT WORTH
DALLAS
MISSISSIPPI
Grand Soline
SHREVEPORT
MONROE
JACKSON
TYLER
IALABAMA
Winnfield
Olin Matheson
WACO
O
ALEXANDRIA
Mcintosh
Pittsburg Plate
Glass
TEXAS
MOBILE
LOUISIANA
Kaiser
Olin Matheson
Solvay
Exxon
BATON ROUGE
Anse to Butte
Boyou Choctow
AUSTIN
Storks
O
o
Sorrento
OSulphur Mines
BEAUMONT
DorrowO
Wyandotte Chem.
Jefferson Island
Hockley
Napoleonville
Allied Chem.
Spindletop o
OMackberry. West
Avery Island
NEW ORLEANS
HOUSTON
Borbers Hill
Weeks Island
Cote Blanche Island
Pierce Junction
o
Dow Chem.
Belle isle
SAN ANTONIO
Blue Ridge
Diamond Crystal
Hookern Chem.
C
0
Stratton Ridge
M
E
X
Internationa
Bryon Mound
OF
Salt Co.
Cargills
GULF
Freeport
Sulpher Co.
Morton Salt Co.
Dome Tower
N
LEGEND
Salt Co.
Solt dome with solt produced from brine wells
Solt dome with solt produced by room-and-pillar mining
Large Rock Salt
Solt dome with solt produced by both brine wells and
mines close to
room-and-pillor mining
CORPUS CHRISTI
coast
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Polangone
Scale, miles
Location and ownership of all operating
rock salt mines and brine wells in Louisiana
The following is a more detailed explanation of the various options.
I.a. ROCK SALT MINES
Five large salt mines are located in Louisiana on the Gulf Coast.
These are shown on the enclosed map. In these mines there is presently
available 138 MMB of storage capacity with no adverse effect on the salt
industry.
We mention these mines first because they have easy access to oil
trunk lines and to port facilities where the supplies could enter the
country. It would take about six months to install the necessary equip-
ment to convert parts of these mines to storage facilities. Costs would
run about $30 million per mine, or about $1.10/bbl.
In the North, we have specific information on three mines owned by the
International Salt Company. The volumes available are:
Cleveland
48 MMB
Detroit
118 MMB
Retsof, NY 229 MMB
Total
395 MMB (Int'l Salt Co. only)
These mines would have access to the St. Lawrence Seaway but would
require new pipeline construction since they do not lie near major oil
fields.
International Salt Company also has experience in converting their
mines to storage. The have quoted $30 million and six months for conver-
sion for each mine. Thus in the North we have identified 395 MMB of po-
tential storage capacity at a cost of about $0.23/bbl, exclusive of the
pipeline to access the facilties.
I.b. BRINE WELLS
Again the the Gulf states, we have considered solution mined wells in
salt domes. Storage in these wells is a developed technology. As of 1971,
petroleum products in salt domes occupied volumes of 24 MMB in Louisiana,
84 MMB in Texas, and 5 MMB in Missiissippi. See the enclosed map.
Our information is that as of January 1975, there are 262 NMB of
capacity available in Louisiam, and another 350 MMB available in Texas.
Thus a total of 612 MMB could presently be converted to storage.
Brine wells are much smaller than rock-salt caverns, with sizes
typically 4 to 10 MMB. Thus a storage facility could involve about 60
or more wells. The cost to buy these wells would be about $1.30 to
$1.50/bbl. Because the technology of conversion is well established, they
could be ready to accept the oil in about two months.
I.c. TANKERS
There are presently 30 VLCC's (Very Large Crude Carriers) in the
Persian Gulf that are awaiting a charter. The average capacity of these
tankers is about 2 MMB. They are free because of cutback in Arab production.
Another 20 of these tankers are temporarily out of service for various
reasons. All of these tankers could be brought into service in about three
months. The volume available is about 100 MMB.
These ships are under the flags of various countries (Greece, Libya,
Panama, Japan, Scandanavian countries, etc.). They could be bought or
leased, depending on the time they would be held as storage facilities.
The purchase cost of a VLCC comes to about $15.50/bbl. The lease price
is presently about $1.50 to $4.00/bbl/yr.
II.c. OPERATING MINES
These cavities would be useful for product storage in that they are
widely dispersed grographically, and all are served by rail connections.
In 1974, engineers at Fenix and Scisson, Inc. (F&S) did a study for
the EPA to determine the suitability of mines for storage of wastes.
Of the 672 operating mines in the country (excluding coal), F&S identi-
fied 172 that look promising for storage.
Although estimates for total volume are hundreds of MMB, the volumes
of these mines are poorly estimated. For products however, storage in the
range 10 to 100 MB per mine would suffice and all the above mines would
qualify.
Conversion could take about 6 months, at a cost of less than $2.00/bbl.
F&S has recently bought and converted an iron mine in South Africa for
$0.40/bbl. Thus the technology is proven and the ability to realize this
option is assured.
II.d. SHUT-DOWN AND ABANDONED MINES
Shut-down mines are also a possibility. Beneath Kansas City, a lime-
stone mine is used for warehouse storage. Its volume is about 400 MMB.
Two other shut-down mines that we have identified represent 20 MMB in
Illinois and 20 MMB in Ohio.
A program to document and determine the suitability of shut-down mines
could take about 3 months. As with operating mines, conversion could be
accomplished in about 6 months, for a total of 9 months until the facilities
are useful.
The volume of abandoned mines is estimated to be 2 to 3 times that of
operating mines. Although the actual useable volume is not presently known,
it is our understanding that the Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey
are now involved in a study that will determine these volumes. Results
should be available within a few months.
F&S estimate that documentation and surveying could be completed in
about 6 months, with another 6 months to convert the suitable mines. Cost
would again not exceed $2.00/bbl, depending on location.
Finally with all the options and corresponding volume that could be
made available, there is enough flexibility such that other less desirable
options need not be considered. Among these are
Steel tank storage, with its high cost.
Nuclear cavities or craters, with the adverse sentiment it arouses.
Shut in storage or storage in abandoned oil wells, with the
ensuing loss of oil and high economic cost.
III. CIRCULATING STOCKS
Our oil economy consumes approximately 16 million barrels per day.
A little more than 50 days supply is available in this country at a time
in the form of crude oil, intermediate and as products. Only a fraction
of this unit can be counted on as stocks. In fact any significant
decrease of the total that exists (2 900 million bbls) will cause dis-
turbances requiring actions of various severity. Therefore we have not
counted on this circulating stock in any way as a cushion in case of
an embargo.
IV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The information was assembled by
G. Higgins
x8582
T. Palmieri
x8835
S. Winter
x8582
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
P. 0. Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
(415-447-1100)
We have received much assistance from all of the following.
Mr. Paul and Mr. Jacoby
Mr. R. Stone
Minerals & Mines Dept.
Fenix & Scisson
International Salt Co.
5305 East Fifteenth Street
Clark Summit, Penn.
P.O. Box 15609
(717-587-5131, x408)
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74115
(918-835-9471)
Mr. D. Richner
Mr. F. Wood
Terraneers Ltd.
The Salt Institute
9234 Mentor Avenue
206 N. Washington
Mentor, Ohio 44060
Alexandria, Va.
(216-255-9113)
(703-549-4648)
R. Curtis Crook, President
Rear Admiral N. Sonenshein, USN (Ret.)
Global. Marine Corporation
5959 West Century Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA
(213-649-1222)
THE WHITE HOUSE FYI
WASHINGTON
JMC:
Copies routed to
Dick Parsons
Mike Duval
p issues
note m
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 10, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF m.G.
Jim, this material was presented to me during a visit by
Carl Wallace, a former top aide to Mel Laird and a very close
friend of the President. I know that you will be interested
in his position on these two issues.
April 10, 1975
Dear Carl:
It was a pleasure seeing you again yesterday and I appreciate
your taking the time to stop by and give me your views regarding
H.R. 3211, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975,
and H.R. 5055, the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.
I certainly appreciate having the benefit of your thinking on
these two matters and will advise other members of the President's
staff of your views.
Please let me know whenever I can be of further assistance.
with cordial regard,
Sincerely yours,
Max L. Friedersderf
Assistant to the President
Mr. Carl S. Wallace
Corporate Vice President
Purolator, Inc.
1800 K Street, N.W.
Suite 614
Washington, D.C. 20006
MLF:jg
CC: Jim Cannon w/inc.
FORD & 03RALD LIBRARY
Purolator, Inc.
1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 614
Washington, D.C. 20006
202 659-2750
Carl S. Wallace
Corporate Vice President
Max-
Enclosed is a copy of a letter &
have sent to Bacher Conable and sereral
committee. other members of the Ways & means
the President is to cut back on the
Streems tome that the intent of
consumption of gasoline, primarily
by private individuals
Companies such as Purolator
regulated by the d. C. C. and any
Couniel and Purolator Security are
essential coutes. products over established
It would seem logical to me that
be exempt from any gasoline tax.
regulated motor carriers should
Carl
Address GERALD R.FORD
Purolator, Inc.
1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 614
Washington, D. C. 20006
202 659-2750
Carl S. Wallace
Corporate Vice President
April 3, 1975
Dear Barber:
It is my understanding that the markup of H.R. 5005,
The Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975, will
begin shortly after Congress returns on April 7th.
Purolator Services, Inc., courier and armored car
services, uses approximately 16 million gallons of gasoline
a year, and you can readily see that a 5¢ per gallon gaso-
line tax would have a great effect on our business.
Purolator Security provides armored car service for
the transportation of coin, currency, securities, food
stamps, bullion, precious metals and other valuables. Purolator
Courier provides expedited ground and air courier services
throughout the United States and transports a wide variety of
time-critical commodities, including cardio-vascular instru-
ments, radioactive isotopes, blood, surgical arterial grafts,
checks in the process of collection to and from Federal
Reserve Centers and clearinghouses, and other urgent accounting
data for banks. These companies carry essential products
over established routes and are regulated by the I.C.C. and
the Public Service Commissions in the various states.
We believe that all regulated motor carriers should
be exempt from the proposed increased tax on gasoline. If the
regulated motor carriers are not granted an exemption, we will
have to request appropriate rate increases from the respective
state Public Utility Commissions to offset the tax. It appears
to me that this would be inflationary in nature, and I feel sure
that this is not the intent of the bill.
I realize the complexity of dealing with inflation,
recession, and the energy crisis but feel that the exemption of
regulated motor carriers from the tax increase would be in the
best interests of all the people in the United States.
I urge your support of this position as you consider this
very important energy bill before the Ways and Means Committee.
Sincerely,
Carl S. Wallace
The Honorable Barber B. Conable, Jr.
The House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
CHAIRMAN
J. Kevin Murphy
PHONE 202 833 1973
President
Purolator Services, Inc.
Carl Wallace
Executive Director
HON. CHAIRMEN
Charles R. Barr
bipartisan
President
Public Affairs Analysts, Inc.
ncommittee
Clement M. Brown, Jr.
Olin Corporation
FOR ABSENTEE VOTING
George Bush
Chairman
Republican National Committee
IBOOK STREET N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
Richard H. Moore
Cleary, Gottlieb. Steen &
Hamilton
AMBASSADORS' COMMITTEE
Hon. Sargent Shriver
Chairman
April 3, 1975
Hon. William Attwood
Hon. William McC. Blair
Hon. Chester Bowles
Hon. Andrew V. Corry
Hon. Arthur J. Goldberg
EUROPEAN CHAIRMEN
Hon. W. Averell Harriman
Alfred E. Davidson
Hon. James Loeb
Harvey S. Gerry
Hon. Gerard C. Smith
EUROPEAN CO-ORDINATOR
MEMBERS*
Kent Fry
Dear John:
Purolator Services, Inc.
Kathleen Bennett
Washington Representative
COUNTRY COMMITTEES
Public Affairs Analysts, Inc.
BELGIUM
Anthony van Zwaren De
David E. Birenbaum,
Fried, Frank, Harris,
On January 15, 19$5, The Overseas Citizens Voting
Zwarenstein
Unifast S.A.
Shriver & Kampelman
Rights Act of 1975, was introduced in the Senate by
1-3 Rue de Bas-Fosses
7490 Brain-Le-Comte, Belgium
James M. Carrillo
President
Senator Mathias (for himself, and Senators Pell, Goldwater
CANAL ZONE
The American Club of Madrid
Nan Dietz, Vice Chairman
Bayh, Brock and Roth). An almost identical bill was
Canal Zone Democratic Party
Clifford R. Dammers,
Post Office Box 699
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen &
Balboa, Canal Zone
Hamilton
passed by the Senate unanimously in the 93rd Congress.
FRANCE
Huskel Ekaireb
Alfred E. Davidson &
President
Harvey S. Gerry
Merck Sharp & Dome
On February 19, 1975, H.R. 3211 was introduced in
Bipartisan Committee on
International Division
Absentee Voting
20 Place Vendome
Dr. R. H. Edwin Espy
General Secretary
the House of Representatives by Congressman Dent (for
75 Paris ler, France
National Council of the
GERMANY
Churches of Christ
himself and Congressman Hays), and separate bills were in-
Robert V. Daly, )r.
O'Haire, Connor & Jones
W.P. FitzGerald
troduced by Congressmen Frenzel and Gude. H.R. 3211 is
Friedrich-Ebert-Anlage : 3
Esso Eastern, Inc.
Frankfurt-Main, Germany
American Chamber of
Commerce in Korea
identical to S. 95. The Frenzel and Gude bills are
HONG KONG
Bernard Blair
Thomas Flanagan
Vice President
virtually identical. Hearings have been held by the
President
Carmack Trading &
Pan American
Bernie Goodrich
Subcommittee on Elections, and this bill is expected to
Investment Co., Hong Kong
James W. Sweitzer
Assistant Manager
Public Affairs Dept.
ITT
be referred to the House Administration Committee immedi-
Manufacturers Hanover
ASIA, Ltd., Hong Kong
Ben Holt
Fourcade & Holt
ately following the Easter Recess.
c/o American Chamber of
Commerce in Hong Kong
322 Edinburgh House, Hong Kon
Steve Hopkins
ITALY-MILAN
Vice President
First National City Bank
As Executive Director of the Bipartisan Committee
Herman H. Burdick, General
Secretary
American Chamber of
Pat Hutar
Chicago, Illinois
on Absentee Voting, I strongly urge your support of this
Commerce in Italy
12, via Agmello-20121 Milan
James B. Kennedy
bill. There are some 750,000 American civilians residing
Phone: 80 79 55/6-87 35
Partner
ITALY-ROME
Asesores de Pensiones, S.A.
abroad who are barred from participating in Presidential
Donald Malone
Procter & Gamble
Dr. Peter Laussig
President
or Congressional elections. Members of the military and
Box 10075
Via Chopin, Rome
Tita Chemical-Taiwan
federal employees overseas can vote in these elections,
KOREA
Franklin 1. Lunding, Jr.
H.E. O'Neill
Roan & Grossman
and I believe these private citizens should have the same
c/o American Chamber of
Commerce in Korea
Clark MacGregor
Vice President
rights. These private citizens are vitally affected by
529 Bando Building
Seoul, Korea
United Aircraft Corp.
David T. McGovern,
actions which the President and the Congress take, and
the ylian Fromer
Shearman & Sterling
P.O. Box 346
J. Eugene Marans
deserve to be represented in the Congress of the United
Port Lewis, Mauritius
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
States.
MEXICO
& Hamilton
Carl D. Ross, President
Inversiones Alba, S.A.
Joe Miller
Reforma 336
Ass't. Executive Vice President
Mexico, D.F.
American Medical Association
In the course of their stay overseas, Americans
John E. Smith, Jr.
Mrs. Charles Mincbere
Partner
President pro tem
meet many more of the average citizens than our official
Mariceting Mix de Mexico, S.A.
Association of Americans
Rio Mixcoac 20-2
Resident Overseas
representatives, both civilian and military, possibly can
Mexico, D.F.
Robert A. Newman
NETHERLANDS
TRW
and certainly should be our best ambassadors. However,
G. Russell Pipe
Frans van Mieristraat 10
Brother Thomas More Page,
C.F.X.
this becomes extremely difficult when they are confronted
Amsterdam, Holland
Home Phone: 020-79-74-53
Executive Director of
Office Phone: 020-79-50-85
the Catholic Mission
with a question such as, "If your country is so great, why
SPAIN
Robert T. Snure
Public Affairs Department
aren't you allowed to vote?"
Brigham Day
Secretary General
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
American Chamber of
Commerce in Spain
Dick Stuart
Avda, Generalisimo Franco, 477
Vice President
Barcelona 11, Spain
Government Affairs
American Express Co.
THAILAND
W. Clement Stone
Ralph C. Lambert &
Martin McClintock
Combined Insurance Cos.
c/o American Chamber of
of America
Commerce in Thailand
James Trowbridge
140 Wireless Road
The Ford Foundation
P.O. Box 703
Representative for Peru
Bangkok, Thailand
UNITED KINGDOM
Bishop Paul A. Washburn
President
Anthony'Hyde, Chairman
Board of Global Ministries
Democratic Nat'l. Comm.
The United Methodist Church
Overseas in England
and
Walter Whitmyre
V.W. Warren Pearl, Chairman
IBM-Taiwan
Republican Committee
20 Chester Square
James E. Wood, Jr.
London S.W. 1., England
Executive Director
Baptist Joint Committee
of Public Affairs
During the last Congress some of the Republican
members of the House Subcommittee on Elections objected
to the postcard registration feature and the payment of
postage for overseas voters. These two objectionable
features have been removed from the bills as introduced in
the Senate and House.
I hope you will give this bill your wholehearted
support when it reaches the House floor.
Sincerely,
Carl S. Wallace
Executive Director
The Honorable John J. Rhodes
The House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Ham Committee to uport their
much. will in Bull Buttu & Wiggini
may office
4014
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
March 17, 1975
fication in either the threatened or endan-
sures cannot be relieved in any other way,
represents the "extraordinary case where
gered classes.
there would appear to be no basis for legally
population pressures cannot be other-
It might also be possible to amend the
valid regulations on regulated taking. Also,
wise relieved."
Act, giving a qualified but protected status
the principal language establishes the goal
Again, we are aware of the deep commit-
to the species under study. This qualified
of other regulations, to be promulgated, as
ment with which the personnel in the De-
status could be limited to a reasonably ade-
the restoration of species to a non-threatened
partment of the Interior have approached the
quate study period, (such as, two years). or
or non-endangered status.
preservation of endangered and threatened
might protect the studied species on Fed-
In this regard, the regulations promul-
species. Implementation of this law will un-
eral lands, or on certain classes of Federal
gated regarding the three species of kangaroo
doubtedly aid in protecting both endangered
lands only. This alternative however, also
are not consistent with the letter or the
species and environmental quality through-
raises the controversial issue of competing
spirit of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
out the U.S. and the world. In that regard,
State and Federal powers over the manage-
The regulations purport to allow importa-
we hope our comments are helpful in further
ment of wild animals, an issue which Mr.
tion of taken kangaroos when (1) a sus-
administration of the law and in achieving
Widman of this office has discussed with
tained yield program is established that (2)
its objectives.
your staff. It would appear desirable to have
is not detrimental to the survival of the
Sincerely,
any potential legislative solution to this
species. Neither the "sustained yield pro-
RUSSELL W. PETERSON,
controversy developed before introducing an
gram" nor the "not detrimental" test meet
Chairman.
amendment to extend the coverage of the
the statutory criterion, showing that
Act.
population pressures cannot be otherwise
In regard to the specific problem of the
relieved. Thus, we believe that the regula-
REBUTTAL TO CRITICS OF OVER-
grizzly bear, we have checked the matter with
tions should be revised or interpreted so as
SEAS VOTING LEGISLATION
the Department of the Interior. As you know,
to be in keeping with the mandate of the
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, it
during the court proceeding that Department
Act.
has been brought to my attention that
agreed to initiate an independent study of the
The rules submitted with the proposed
grizzly bear's status. We are advised that the
listing of the grizzly bear are also trouble-
some questions were raised recently at
final report of that study has now been sub-
some. One portion of the proposal indicates
hearings by the House Subcommittee on
mitted to Interior. and that Interior is plan-
that de facto regulations will be promulgated
Elections with respect to the constitu-
ning to take appropriate action on the grizzly
which allow the taking (mostly by sport
tionality of legislation strengthening the
bear in the immediate future.
hunting) of up to 25 bears per year in the
voting rights of overseas citizens.
While the Council has no immediate sug-
Bob Marshall Ecosystem. Again, in our
PRECEDENT OF 1970 LAW SUPPORTS TURTHER
gestions for resolving all these issues, we
view, the Secretary must first fulfill the
ACTION BY CONGRESS
would be happy to review any proposal
statutory burden by showing that the pro-
which you might develop.
posed taking by hunting will be the "extra-
Frankly, I cannot see any doubt at all
Sincerely,
ordinary case" which follows substantial
about the constitutionality of the pro-
RUSSELL W. PETERSON,
attempts to relieve population pressures by
posed law. It is a logical extension of a
Chairman.
other means. In our view, this test, again,
law on the same subject which I authored
has not been met and we believe that the
in 1970 and which was upheld as a valid
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
regulations and proposal for final action
exercise of Congress powers by the U.S.
Washington, D.C., February 3, 1975.
should be revised accordingly.
Supreme Court 6 months later.
Hon. ROGERS C. B. MORTON,
One other portion of the proposed regula-
Secretary of the Interior,
tions concerning grizzly bears is also of spe-
This law is section 202 of the Voting
Washington, D.C.
cial concern to us. The regulations pertain-
Rights Act Amendments of 1970, which
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On December 30, 1974,
ing to listing of grizzlies in the Yellowstone
extended absentee registration and bal-
notice of rule making appeared in the Fed-
ecosystem state that depredating bears may
loting rights to American citizens who
eral Register regarding the threatened kan-
be taken. Similarly, the de facto regulations
were denied the right to vote because they
garoos. Similarly, on January 2, 1975, notice
for the Bob Marshall Ecosystem state that
were away from home on election day
of proposed rule making appeared in the
nuisance (including depredating) bears may
and were not allowed to register absentee
Register regarding the grizzly bear. This
be taken.
or obtain absentee ballots. One of the
letter represents the Council's comments on
We feel that the regulations in both cases
those two actions.
should clearly differentiate between bears
stated purposes of the law, spelled out
We commend the Department of the In-
causing depredations on public and on
during Senate floor action on it, is the
terior for taking these two actions. We real-
private lands. On public lands, no threatened
intent to facilitate the vote in Presiden-
ize that both have been highly controversial
grizzly bears should be taken except for
tial elections for Americans outside the
and there have been numerous delays and
clear reasons of human safety.
United States.
false starts. With these two actions, the
Grizzly bears, and in fact all endangered
The law also struck down the dura-
Department is taking its first steps in public
and threatened species, are valued highly by
tional waiting periods preventing Ameri-
implementation of the Endangered Species
the people of this nation. Public lands are
Act of 1973, which was an important com-
cans from voting for President and Vice
lands held in trust for all Americans, not
ponent of the Administration's Environmen-
President solely because they had made
just one or another special interest group.
tal Program. As a consequence, these two
a change of households before the elec-
Certain uses of these lands require spe-
actions take on considerable significance as
cific regulation and are a privilege, not a
tion. Section 202, in which these provi-
potential precedents.
right. Grazing and ranching are such uses.
sions were set forth, was upheld in
In that regard, elements of the actions
Thus, in determining which of such dis-
Oregon V. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).
concern us greatly, particularly in light of
cretionary uses may be allowed or may have
In overhauling State residence and ab-
the intent and substantive provisions of the
priority, the public land manager must con-
sentee regulations in Presidential elec-
Act.
sider the impact of the proposed use on other
tions, Congress had relied upon at least
Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species
public uses or values of those lands. Where
four district grounds for the exercise of
Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
there are public values, particularly wild-
to promulgate "such regulations as he deems
congressional authority. In the case of
life such as the threatened grizzly on public
necessary and advisable to provide for the
lands, it may be logically argued that if
Oregon, the Supreme Court seized upon
conservation of such (threatened) species."
livestock owner wishes the privilege of graz-
each of these justifications in holding for
(Emphasis added). Conservation is defined,
ing domestic livestock on the same area, he
the validity of the statute.
inter
alia,
as
to
use
all
methods
must accept some losses from the wildlife
First, section 202 rests upon Congress
and procedures which are necessary to bring
as part of the cost of doing his business on
power to secure the rights inherent in
any endangered species or threatened species
that public land. In such a case the restora-
national citizenship, which include the
to the point at which the measures provided
tion of the threatened species should be rec-
right to vote for Federal officers. Since
pursuant to this chapter (the Act) are no
ognized as having a greater public value than
these rights adhere to U.S. citizenship.
longer necessary. Such methods and proce-
the economic return to the affected rancher.
dures included
research, census, law
Considering this, we-believe that taking of a
rather than citizenship of a State, we
enforcement, habitat acquisition
and,
threatened species committing depredations,
acted to protect the rights under the nec-
in the extraordinary case where population
or otherwise being a "nuisance," on public
essary and proper clause of article I of
pressures within a given ecosystem cannot
lands should be prohibited in any case not
the Constitution.
be otherwise relieved, may include regulated
involving direct threats to human safety. In
A related basis for congressional power
taking" (16 U.S.C. 1532) (Emphasis added).
fact, we suggest that the intent of Section 7
was our design to protect the funda-
This language clearly restricts the use of
(16 U.S.C. 1536) of the Act, inter alia, to
mental, national right of travel by a
regulated taking to the "extraordinary case"
prohibit taking (killing) of endangered or
citizen.
where population pressures cannot be other-
threatened species on lands belonging to
wise relieved. In the absence of facts which
all of the American people, in any situation
A third basis of Congress authority
clearly establish that the population pres-
where it cannot be shown that such taking
that was asserted is our power to enforce
March 17, 1975
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
4015
the privileges and immunities guaranteed
acts with a purpose of protecting these
been expressly necognized as a right dl-
to citizens of all the States. Here we were
rights or privileges in a narrowly drawn
rectly secured to citizens by the Consti-
mindful of correcting the maze of con-
manner, rather than with the purpose
tution.
flicting State and local requirements ap-
of passing general legislation over a
Contrary to the blanket statement by
plicable to Presidential elections which
State-reserved field, Congress possesses
opponents of overseas voting legislation
created a serious inequality of treat-
power to establish specific regulations at-
that no Supreme Court opinions indicate
ment among citizens of one State as com-
tacking a particular problem in that
the existence of any inherent constitu-
pared with citizens of the other States.
field.
tional right to vote in Federal elections,
Fourth, we viewed section 202 as an
POWER OF CONGRESS RESTS ON WELL-SETTLED
other than the lone opinion of Justice
exercise of power under the 14th amend-
CASE LAW
Black in Oregon, there are at least five
ment. In this context, we were protecting
Applying the above rules to the pend-
Supreme Court decisions in which such
against a discriminatory classification in
ing legislation on behalf of overseas citi-
a right has been specifically mentioned:
voting made between citizens who were
zens, I am confident Congress is on firm
United States V. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314,
able to be physically present at the time
ground in proposing to expand the 1970
315 (1941) Twining V. New Jersey, 211
of registration or voting and those who
vote law to cover congressional as well
U.S. 78, 97 (1908) Wiley V. Sinkler, 179
could not be present in person. Also, we
as Presidential elections. The case law
U.S. 58, 62 (1900); In Te Quarles, 158
considered the unfair classification made
may be summarized as follows:
U.S. 532, 538 (1895) and Ex parte Yar-
between citizens who were new residents
First. In the past 10 years there have
borough, 110 U.S. 651, 663 (1884). (Also
and those who were longtime residents
been, at least eight Supreme Court de-
see the opinion of Justice Frankfurter in
of a State or locality.
cisions upsetting State and local elec-
United States V. Williams, 341 U.S. 70, at
In light of similar laws in many of the
tion practices founded upon the principle
79 (1951).
States which indicated that States could
of a strict judicial scrutiny under
In Twining, the Supreme Court plainly
satisfy their legitimate interests by the
the 14th amendment of the State or
announced that:
rules legislated in section 202, we in Con-
local governmental objectives and meth-
Among the rights and privileges of Na-
gress could not find any compelling rea-
ods. Bullock V. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 144
tional citizenship recognized by this court
son why a State should condition the
(1972) Dunn V. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330,
[is] the
right to vote for National of-
right to vote for President on the dura-
337 (1972) Evans V. Cornman, 398 U.S.
ficers." 211 U.S., at 97.
tion of resident's physical presence or
419, 424, 426 (1970) Phoenix V. Kolod-
Fourth. Opponents of overseas voting
absence at the polls.
ziejski, 399 U.S. 204, 205 (1970) Cipri-
legislation argue that elections for Presi-
Eight members of the Supreme Court
ano V. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704
dential electors may be State rather than
upheld Congress' power to adopt the uni-
(1969) ; Kramer V. Union School District,
Federal elections for constitutional pur-
form regulations of section 202. Justice
395 U.S. 621, 628 (1969) Harper V. Va.
poses. This argument ignores the deci-
Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall
Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 670
sion of In re Quarles, where the Supreme
and White, rested his opinion squarely
(1966) and Carrington V. Rash, 380 U.S.
Court expressly stated that:
upon the "compelling interest" doctrine
89 (1965).
Among the rights secured to citizens di-
and Congress' power to enforce the 14th
Second. In at least three of the above
rectly by the Constitution is "the right to
amendment by "eliminating an unneces-
cases, the Supreme Court has overturned
vote for presidential electors or members of
sary burden on the right of interstate
State rules which were purported to be
Congress." 158 U.S., at 535. (Emphasis
migration" (400 U.S., at 239)
bona fide residence requirements.
added.)
Justice Douglas also upheld section 202
In Carrington V. Rash, 380 U.S. 89
These same critics mistakenly cite
as a 14th amendment matter, but tied
(1965), the Court overturned the use by
Burroughs V. United States, 290 U.S. 534
his opinion to section 1 of that amend-
Texas of an irrebuttable statutory pre-
(1934), in support of their position. Bur-
ment, the privileges and immunities
sumption that excluded servicemen from
roughs specifically considers and rejects
clause.
the vote by classifying them as nonresi-
the very suggestion raised by the critics,
Justice Stewart, jointed by Chief Jus-
dents.
holding that Presidential electors, "exer-
tice Burger and Justice Blackmun, sus-
In Evans V. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419
cise Federal functions under, and dis-
tained section 202 on the ground of Con-
(1970), the Court struck down a Mary-
charge duties in virtue of authority con-
gress' authority to protect and facilitate
land statute which created a presump-
ferred by, the Constitution of the United
the exercise of privileges of U.S. citizen-
tion that persons living on a Federal en-
States." Id. at 545. Thus Burroughs actu-
ship under the Necessary and Proper
clave within the State did not fulfill the
ally can be cited as additional support for
Clause of Article I. He stated that the
residence requirement for voting in
the power of Congress to legislate with
privilege of free travel, without loss of
Maryland.
respect to Presidential elections.
the right to vote, "finds its protection
In Dunn V. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330
Fifth. Critics of overseas voting legis-
in the Federal Government and is na-
(1970), the Court held unconstitutional
lation assert that the liberty to travel
tional in character" (400 U.S., at 287).
the 1-year durational waiting period
abroad is seemingly not as absolute as
Justice Black based his opinion sus-
Tennessee had used as a precondition
the right of interstate travel. Again, the
taining section 202 on the final authority
to voting in that State.
critics ignore the clear message of the
of Congress to make laws governing Fed-
Ironically, Dunn, which overturned a
Supreme Court.
eral elections and Congress' general
State residence rule, is cited by opponents
In Kent V. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126
powers under the Necessary and Proper
of the overseas voting bill for the propo-
(1958), the Supreme Court plainly
Clause of Article I.
sition that such rules are immune from
equated the right of interstate travel
Only Justice Harlan believed section
the reach of Congress. To the contrary,
with the right to travel abroad.
202 was invalid on any ground.
the Supreme Court observed in Dunn
The Court stated:
The fact that the Court divided in
that:
"Freedom of movement across frontiers in
choosing alternative grounds for uphold-
If it was not clear then [referring to 1965],
either direction, and inside frontiers as well,
ing section 202 is argued by some as de-
it is certainly clear now that a more exact-
was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like
priving the case of precedential weight.
ing test is required for any statute that
travel within the country, may be necessary
But what this restricted view overlooks
"places a condition on the exercise of the
for a livelihood. It may be as close to the
is the fact that eight Members of the
right to vote." 405 U.S., at 337.
heart of the individual as the choice of what
Court actually did unite on the prin-
Thus, the Supreme Court has made it
he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of move-
ment is basic in our scheme of values." 357
ciple that the jurisdiction of the States
clear that the States may not use a bona
U.S. at 126.
over matters normally considered as be-
fide residence rule in such a way that it
Far from taking a narrower view of
ing within their primary domain is sub-
could sweep an entire group of otherwise
Congress power to secure the vote to
ject to the superior power of Congress to
qualified U.S. citizens off the voting rolls,
travelers abroad, than of its comparable
vindicate personal rights or privileges of
unless the restriction is proven necessary
power with respect to interstate travelers.
citizenship which the Court has deter-
to promote a compelling State interest.
the Supreme Court has given a broad
mined to be secured by the Constitution.
Third. The right to vote for national
protection to foreign travel. In Aptheker
Moreover, Oregon clearly stands for
elective officers, including Members of
against Secretary of State, the Court con-
the proposition that so long as Congress
Congress and Presidential electors, has
sidered freedom of movement abroad to
S 4016
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE
March 17, 1975
be of such great importance that the
in making statements pertinent to the
While an exhaustive search of historical
Court held this personal liberty para-
application, such as a claim to being last
records has not been undertaken, the fol-
mount to a substantial governmental in-
domiciled in such State prior to depar-
lowing chronology and facts are clear.
terest in restricting travel based on
ture from the United States.
1. The construction of a suitable building
grounds of national security, 378 U.S.
Thus, Congress can act, consistent with
to house the Nation's air and space col-
lections has been a long-awaited event. The
500, 505, 508 (1964).
the highest standards of our constitu-
act of August 12, 1946, establishing the Na-
LEGISLATION IS CONSISTENT WITH BASIC SCHEME
tional system, to establish uniform, na-
tional Air Museum, included provisions for
OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
tional practices securing the right of
a method of selecting a site for a National
In summary, it is clear the proposed
Americans abroad to participate in the
Air Museum to be located in the Nation's
overseas voting legislation is constitu-
choice of Federal officers whose decisions
Capital. The act of September 6, 1958, desig-
tional. Its object is to protect and fa-
and programs affect them directly and
nated the site for a building to be on the
cilitate the right of almost 1 million
substantially.
Mall from Fourth to Seventh Streets, In-
dependence Avenue to Jefferson Drive, S.W.
U.S. citizens to vote in Federal elections.
2. During the period of the late 1950's and
These citizens have a direct and substan-
NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM
early 1960's, the Smithsonian Institution
tial interest in decisions and policies
engaged in preplanning studies for this new
acted upon by the public officials chosen
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, having re-
museum building. During this period it was
in Federal elections, the President and
cently been appointed to be a member of
concluded, as part of the planning process,
Vice President and Members of Congress.
the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian
that the costs of such a building should not
Institution, I was disturbed to read an
exceed $40,000,000, which the Institution
Action by Congress is required if over-
believed would produce an outstanding
seas citizens are to be brought within the
article on February 28 in the Washington
building to commemorate American attain-
basic system of representative govern-
Post indicating that the construction of
ments.
ment. No single State can guarantee the
the National Air and Space Museum is
3. A "Schedule of Building Projects" was
franchise to all or most of these persons.
experiencing a cost overrun.
included by the Smithsonian in both its FY
In order to establish a uniform process
Michael Collins, the Director of the
1962 and FY 1963 budget submissions to the
by which all or most overseas citizens can
museum, has set the matter straight in
Congress. The Schedule in the FY 1962 sub-
enjoy an equal opportunity to vote in
a letter to the editor of the Post published
mission (page 32) projected the FY 1963
request for a planning appropriation of
Federal elections, it is necessary for Con-
on March 10.
$1,820,000 and an FY 1965 construction ap-
gress to enact appropriate implementing
I ask unanimous consent that Mr.
propriation of $37,680,000 for the NASM
legislation.
Collins' letter be printed in the RECORD.
building. These two amounts total $39,500,-
The specific procedures which Con-
There being no objection, the letter
000. The Schedule in the FY 1963 document
gress uses in the pending overseas vot-
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
(page 57) maintained the two amounts but
ing bill are, in general, derived from sec-
as follows:
slipped the Schedule to FY 1964 and FY
tion 202 of the Voting Rights Act Amend-
[Letter to the editor, Washington Post,
1966. This Schedule, dated January 2, 1962,
would appear to be the source of the 1962
ments of 1970, which in turn were drawn
Mar. 10, 1975]
"original estimate" cited in the GAO re-
from the proven practice of the States
MUSEUM'S CosT
port.
themselves. In section 202 we made a
Your February 26 front page story con-
4. In 1963, the Smithsonian revised its
finding that these practices were applied
cerning construction cost overruns states
cost estimate to $41,920,000, including a
by many States with respect to some of
that the National Air and Space Museum will
total of $1,875,000 for planning. Actual plan-
have a 6% overrun. While it may seem a
ning appropriations in the amounts of $511,-
their residents without significant fraud
small point, those of us working on this
000 and $1,364,000, for a total of $1,875,000
or administrative difficulty in their own
project are proud of the fact that there will
were made available to the Institution by
elections, and in the overseas voting bill
be no overrun, in terms of either time or
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropri-
we again make the same finding.
money. The building will be ready for its
ation Acts for the fiscal years 1964 and 1965,
If some of the States can use these
public opening in July 1976, as originally
respectively. This planning was completed
practices successfully for purposes of
planned, and it will cost no more than its
and the project approved by the Commission
voting, and determining residence for
original $41.9-minion price tag.
of Fine Arts and the National Capital Plan-
MICHAEL COBLINS,
ning Commission. The cost of the building,
voting, by certain citizens from such
Director,
built to those plans and specifications, was
State, such as absentee servicemen and
National Air and Space Museum.
estimated to be $40,000,000 in 1965.
women and their accompanying depend-
Washington.
5. In 1966, the Congress enacted legislation
ents, then surely we in Congress may
authorizing the construction of the NASM
properly find that there is no compelling
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, at my re-
but deferred appropriations for construc-
reason why all States should not use the
quest, Mike Collins has provided me with
tion until expenditures for the Vietnam war
same practices for protecting the vote of
background information on the status of
had shown a substantial reduction.
citizens with at least an equal nexus with
the National Air and Space Museum con-
6. By the early 1970's, when it appeared
the particular State. Whatever the inter-
struction. So that the record may be com-
this project might be allowed to proceed, it
pletely clear in this regard, I ask unani-
was obvious that as a result of rising costs of
est of the States in more narrowly defin-
mous consent that the background state-
labor and materials over the intervening
ing residence for purposes of purely
years, the 1965 plans would now cost be-
State, county, and municipal offices, there
ment be printed in the RECORD.
tween $60 and $70 million to implement
is no compelling need for using a stricter
This major and important construc-
Consequently, in its FY 1972 budget, the
test in Federal elections than the one
tion project, even though delayed for
Smithsonian requested an appropriation of
set forth in the pending legislation.
many years, is not overrunning.
$1,900,000 for planning and redesign of the
I would remind critics of the proposal
There being no objection, the state-
museum building with the goal of using the
ment was ordered to be printed in the
latest design and construction techniques
that the bill is not open ended. It only
to lower the cost of the building to $40,000,-
applies to Federal elections. It only cov-
RECORD, as follows:
000-the estimate of ten years earlier. Those
ers U.S. citizens who have a past nexus, a
STATEMENT ON PURPORTED CosT OVERRUN ON
new planning funds were appropriated and
domicile, in the particular State where
THE NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM
the redesign-completed and approved by the
they are seeking to vote in Federal elec-
CONSTRUCTION
Commission of Fine Arts and the National
tions.
GAO's report to the Congress of February
Capital Planning Commission.
24, 1975, entitled "Financial Status of Major
7. For FY 1973 the Institution requested a
Moreover, the absentee citizen must
Civil Acquisitions, December 31, 1973" cites
construction appropriation of $40,000,000.
comply with all applicable qualifications
on page 27 that the National Air and Space
The Interior and Related Agencies Appro-
and valid procedural requirements of a
Museum's current cost estimate of $41,900,-
priation Act for that year provided an ap-
State. Each State will retain full power to
000 exceeds by $2,400,000 (6 percent) the
propriation of $13,000,000 and contract au-
test whether an applicant for absentee
1962 estimate of $39,500,000. While both of
thority for an additional $27,000,000. Ap-
registration or voting first, is of legal age;
these amounts do pertain to this building,
propriations to liquidate the contract su-
second, is incapacitated by reason of in-
their comparison over this extended period
thority were provided in FY 1974 ($17,000.-
sanity; third, is disqualified as a con-
is completely misleading. This comparison,
000) and FY 1975 ($7,000,000) and are re-
however, since it is now a matter of record,
quested for FY 1976 ($3,000,000, the balance
victed felon; fourth, meets the prescribed
deserves to be explained. There 18 no cost
of the approved amount).
time and manner for making applica-
overrun against the funds actually appropri-
8. The construction of the new museum
tion; and fifth, is accurate or truthful
ated for this project.
building started in the fall 1972, and is DCW
FEDERAL
HEROY
FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20461
ADMINIST DEPORTMENT
April 28, 1975
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Energy Options for May 1
FROM:
Frank G. Zarb
THRU:
Rogers C. B. Morton
STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Since our meeting last week, we have vigorously pursued our
negotiations with Congressmen Ullman and Dingell in an effort
to reach agreement on basic differences. Both chairmen have
been receptive to our concerns and the May 1 deadline and are
proceeding in some favorable directions. At the same time,
neither chairman seems to have complete control over his
committee, overall progress is slow, and significant differences
in approach still persist. The situation in each committee is
briefly summarized in the following:
Ways and Means
The committee is moving towards a bill that will rely
primarily on price effects and market forces to achieve
our conservation goals. It is likely that the price
effects will be approximately equal to the $2.00 tax
fee in our program, but applied in a selective manner
and phased in over a longer period of time. Specific
provisions include:
$1.00 per barrel import fee or 10% of the value of
imported crude oil, whichever is higher.
A lower fee for imported products (1/2 the crude oil
rate for two years) Although we have argued for a
higher fee for imported products to protect and
stimulate domestic refining capacity, the committee's
approach is a concession to the Northeast.
- 2 -
An ad valorem tax on new autos, starting in 1976,
based on auto fuel efficiency. The tax, which
would be between 2-10% in 1977 and rise to 16%
in 1980, has strong support in the committee and
is viewed by the chairman as being popular through-
out the House.
A gasoline tax of an as yet undetermined amount.
The tax is likely to start low in 1976 and rise to
the 20¢ level in 1980.
An industrial fuels tax that rises to $1.00 per
barrel over a several year period.
In addition to these market mechanisms, the committee
strongly favors the establishment of an import quota
system to assure that domestic conservation savings
result in reductions in imports and a standby Federal
petroleum import purchasing authority. Although our
efforts to delete these provisions to date have not
been successful, primarily because the chairmen believe
that these provisions will have to be included in any
legislation that is to be successful in the House, we
have been successful in convincing the committee to
render the provisions essentially harmless.
Commerce Committee
Progress in the Commerce Committee is much slower and
the conceptual directions much less favorable than in
Ways and Means. Several important issues have been
put off until next week or later, including decontrol
of old oil, emergency storage and coal conversion.
Although there is a general commitment to decontrol,
any decontrol provision from this committee is likely
to be phased in over a several year period (e.g. 3-5)
and there are disturbing amendments that would roll
back the price of new oil as part of any phased decontrol
scheme. To date, the Committee has agreed on the
following provisions:
Establishment of a fixed level of consumption of
gasoline at 98 percent of comparable months in 1973-
1974. Although some Presidential discretion is
allowed, this allocation approach could be large
enough to result in noticeable physical shortages:-
- 3 -
Standby emergency authorities that require sub-
mission of contingency plans to the Congress for
approval prior to their implementation.
Action in the Senate remains slow and is tending towards
multi-tier crude oil pricing systems and reductions in new
oil prices. Active consideration is also being given towards
price ceilings on all new natural gas, including the intra-
state market which is now unregulated. Unrealistic, mandatory
conservation programs are also being considered.
OPTIONS FOR MAY 1 ACTION
of the basic options regarding the May 1st deadline for the
60 days you provided Congress to develop an energy package,
three appear to merit primary consideration:
impose the second dollar on the import fee,
take steps towards decontrol, or
do both.
OPTION 1: Impose the second dollar of the import fee.
Unless the national security proclamation is further
amended before May 1, the import fee will rise to $2.00
per barrel on crude oil and $.60 per barrel on products.
This action will result in an immediate attempt to
override your veto of legislation prohibiting any increase
in fees after January 15, 1975. If the veto is not
sustained, you will not be able to increase import fees
for 90 days, the $1.00 already in existence will be
rescinded, and our strength for the rest of the program
could be eroded.
If, on the other hand, the veto is sustained, it would
be a clear sign of strength and a ratification, however
narrow, of the market approach to our energy problems.
It is our judgment that the veto could be sustained
by a slim margin if an all-out effort is launched, but
it could go either way.
Imposition of the second dollar will place additional
pressure on Ullman and possibly give the impression that
the Administration is not happy with his progress to date
or the direction of the Committee's bill, even though
the Committee:
is farther along than any other in the Congress,
- 4 -
has agreed to let us keep the $1.00 now in effect,
is moving toward other price mechanisms that would
be comparable to your program in both magnitude
and philosophy if not in specific application, and
is likely to produce legislation that has perhaps
the highest degree of probability of being acceptable
to both the House and the Administration.
In spite of this signal, however, Ullman would be in a
position to push his bill as a response to your action,
arguing that his bill would effectively roll-back the
second dollar while enacting other positive provisions.
He might see this as a better response than a negative
action to simply negate the second dollar by pushing for
an override of the vetoed bill that would suspend your
tariff authority for 90 days.
A decision not to impose the second dollar would express
general satisfaction with Ullman's efforts, give him
additional time to produce a bill, and avoid strong
moves/pressures from the New England delegation. At the
same time, the viability of one of our major action-forcing
levers would be seriously undermined. Failure to impose
the second dollar now in the face of a poor performance
by the Congress might be an indication of the fact that
we do not intend to use it in the future.
OPTION 2: Initiate decontrol procedures.
Under this option, the second dollar would be held in
abeyance for an unspecified period of time (an always
present threat if the Congress doesn't move) and a
phased decontrol plan would be submitted to the Congress
within 15 days (to allow for 10 days of public hearings)
for its 5 day period to approve or disapprove such a plan.
The phased plan, which would be a two year program designed
to remove 1/4 of old oil from control every six months,
would be comparable in approach if slightly faster in
speed, than the approaches that have some support in the
Commerce Committee.
Although this action could result in punitive legislation,
it is a further compromise from your original proposal of
immediate decontrol, it places us on a firm decontrol
schedule if successful, and has considerable chances of
being viewed as an acceptable solution by the Congress,
particularly since it can be construed as an action by
- 5 -
the President. As one of the most critical pieces of
your entire legislative program, a move on decontrol
while holding the second dollar might enhance the
chances for the decontrol plan to be approved. The
New England delegation, at least, would not actively
oppose the plan.
n
OPTION 3: Impose the second dollar and initiate
decontrol proceedings.
This action which combines the basic advantages and
disadvantages, opportunities and pitfalls, of options
1 and 2, would be a strong move by the Administration
to re-energize the entire Congress on energy legislation.
The basic arguments for this option are two-fold:
Although Ullman is making some progress, his legislation
faces many steps and obstacles before final Congressional
action. The likelihood of action on his bill and
others by the Congress is remote over the next several
months, and the chances of legislation highly objection-
able to the Administration are good if we do not main-
tain a show of strength.
If successful, this option would represent 90% of the
economic components of your energy program, even
though achieved in a less efficient manner. All that
would essentially be lacking is a windfall profits tax.
The basic problems with this action center in its magnitude
and force. Prospects for negative legislation, parti-
cularly on the tariff, are higher for this option than
options 1 or 2.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the lack of progress by the Congress to date, the need
for maximum pressure to keep the Congress from trying to avoid
the tough decisions required by the nation's energy situation,
and the problems being generated by continued controls on old
oil, the ERC recommends that the following actions proceed on
May 1:
Announce the imposition of the second dollar if we
are reasonably certain of being able to sustain
your veto;
Initiate decontrol proceedings.
- 6 -
If we cannot sustain the veto, then the ERC would recommend
the second option - decontrol with an indefinite hold on
the second dollar.
The ERC further recommends the following sequence of events
leading up to the announcement of your decision:
1. Monday afternoon - President meets with advisers;
no final decisions are made, and public statements
indicate only that the President has met with his
advisers to review the options.
2. Wednesday morning - President meets first with
Republican leadership to inform them of his decision,
and then with Ullman and Dingell, separately if
option 3, together if option 2.
3. Wednesday afternoon - Public announcement of
decision.
4. Thursday - Press briefing by President or by Zarb.
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- e75df49a729c7456
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 18514778
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "18514778",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18514778",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "1975/03/20 - Mike Duval (2)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18514778",
"collections": [
"James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
"James Cannon's Meetings Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Automobile emissions",
"National Petroleum Reserve (Alaska)",
"Energy policy",
"Roads",
"Petroleum",
"Aeronautics, Commercial",
"Regulatory reform",
"Legislation"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/18514778.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/18514778.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/18514778.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "18514778",
"label": "1975/03/20 - Mike Duval (2)",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18514778"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "18514778",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18514778",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "1975/03/20 - Mike Duval (2)",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18514778",
"collections": [
"James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
"James Cannon's Meetings Files"
],
"subjects": [
"Automobile emissions",
"National Petroleum Reserve (Alaska)",
"Energy policy",
"Roads",
"Petroleum",
"Aeronautics, Commercial",
"Regulatory reform",
"Legislation"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/18514778.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/18514778.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/18514778.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18514778",
"naId": 18514778,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-04-01",
"month": 4,
"year": 1975
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-03-01",
"month": 3,
"year": 1975
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/18514778.pdf",
"mediaId": "e75df49a729c7456",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 43, folder \"1975/03/20 - Mike Duval (2)\" of the\nJames M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 19, 1975\nTO:\nJEAN McLANE\nFROM:\nGlenn Glenn Schleede\nHere is a copy for Mr. Cannon's\nuse of the paper we used for the\nmeeting on catalytic converters\nat 2:15. We didn't have a copy\nto leave with him.\nAttachment\nDigitized from Box 43 of the James M. Cannon Files\nat the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nDraft\n3/17/75\nSTATEMENT OF PROBLEM - POSSIBLE ACTION PLAN\nAuto Emission-Fuel Economy-Catalytic Converter\nI.\nACTION FORCING EVENTS\nA. Clean Air Hearings underway in both Houses. There is pressure\nto do something. Pressure will grow as June 30 deadline for\nauto companies decision on 1977 models approaches.\nB. We need to have a new Administration position on both auto emission\nand fuel economy.\nC. Hearings underway in Senate Commerce Committee - headed toward\nmandatory fuel economy standards.\nD. OMB undertaking interagency effort to develop new legislative\nproposal on auto emissions for 1977-81.\nE. FEA, Transportation and ERC are headed toward a new position\non fuel economy standards - includes discussions with auto\ncompanies. Zarb intends to have a position in a few days.\nF. It seems clear that the President wants a responsible course of\naction and a responsible position laid out quickly:\n1. This may or may not be consistent with rushing in with new\nfuel economy and emission standards beyond 1977.\n2. Laying out a responsible position could put the President\nin a clear leadership position on the issue and, probably, head\noff mandatory fuel economy standards until there is a better\nbasis for deciding the right balance between air quality, fuel\neconomy, auto cost.\nG. As public perception grows, there probably will be growing\npressure for somebody to \"do something\". Not clear anybody\nwill have credibility, including Congress, auto companies, EPA,\nor the Administration (which probably will be accused of merely\ntrying to save the auto companies).\nII. PROBLEMS THE ADMINISTRATION MUST ADDRESS\nA. Develop recommended auto emission standards for 1977\nmodel year.\n1. Auto companies must know by June 30, 1975.\n- 2 -\n2. Five possible options, by order of liklihood:\nHC\nCO\nNOX\na. Train decision for 1977 (which is the\nleast rigorous allowed under current\nlaw)\n1.5\n15.0\n2.0\nb. Maintain 75-76 standards, including\nNOx at 3. 1 to avoid cost and fuel\neconomy penalty - law change required.\n1.5\n15.0\n3.1\nC. Adopt tighter standards recommended\nby the President - law change required.\n.9\n9.0\n3.1\nd. Slightly less rigorous standards than\n75-76 to open technical options and\nassure catalyst not needed (law change) 2.0 20.0\n3.1\ne. Return to 73-74 standards (law change)\n3.0\n28.0\n3.1\nB. Develop recommended position on fuel economy goals for 1980\nand auto emission standards for 1978-81 model years -- - which\nreflects the right balance.\nC. Review the processes of Government which led to the catalytic\nconverter-sulfate decision to see whether something can be learned\nwhich would prevent similar events in the future.\nIII. CONSTRAINTS\nA. Dearth of good factual information.\nB. Lack of agreement on facts.\nC. Most information on emissions, relationship of auto emissions\nto air quality, etc. in the hands of EPA which will probably\ncontinue to be less than cooperative.\nD. Lack of objectivity and credibility on the parts of most players,\nincluding even the National Academy of Science which did a study\nof the issue for the Senate Public Works Committee, which study\nhas been discredited.\nE. Time.\nIV. POSSIBLE PLAN OF ACTION\nA. Instruct ERC (including FEA, DOT and EPA)\n1. Not to come to final position on recommended fuel economy\nstandards,\n2. To participate in the interagency effort outlined below.\n- 3 -\nB. Allow the OMB-led exercise go ahead -- with target of\nApril 5 -- on developing recommended auto emission standards\nfor 1977 and compiling facts related to 1978-81 emission standards\nand 1980 fuel economy goals to see what kind of decisions are\npossible; i. e., see whether the situation is clear enough to\nwarrant an Administration position on 1978-81 emission standards\nand 1980 fuel economy goals.\nC. Expand the OMB-led effort (Option A) or set up a new interagency\ngroup (Option B) to develop by April 15 a \"Grey Paper\" containing\nas much as possible of the inf ormation outlined in Tab A -\nwhich could be made public if necessary.\nD. Head for target of submission of 1977 emission standards proposal,\nif it is different from Train's decision, by April 10.\nE. Develop and issue Presidential statement on catalytic converter\ndecision and what he is going to do about it by April 10. Outline\nat Tab B.\nF. Appoint an outside Presidentially appointed Commission to\nreview entire air quality, fuel economy and initial car cost\nissue to present:\n1. Findings of fact -- a White Paper -- containing the information\noutlined in Tab A, to be ready by June 30. (They could use\nthe Grey paper as one input. )\n2. Recommendations as to auto emission standards, fuel\neconomy goals by July 31.\n3. Identification of work that should be done to get in a better\nposition to make national decisions on these points for years\nahead, also by July 31.\nG. Appoint a second group -- either inside Government or outside --\nto review the whole catalytic converter decision process to see\nwhat can be learned to head off future similar events. Should\ninclude evaluation of:\nOrganization.\nRegulatory development and review process.\nAdequacy of information for decisions.\nInside group may be less able to criticize Congressional role.\nCould call for tripartite (Congressional, Executive Branch,\npublic) membership.\nTABS\nTAB A - Outline for Presidential Statement\nTAB B - Coverage for a White Paper\nTAB C - Potential Members for a Commission\nTAB D - Cabinet Meeting - Talking Points\nTAR F Arenda for OMB Effort which begins March 18\nTAB A\nTAB A\nAPPROACH AND TOPICS FOR A WHITE PAPER ON AIR QUALITY,\nAUTO EMISSION CONTROLS, FUEL ECONOMY\nI.\nBASIC APPROACH\nA. Lay out facts as they are known.\nB. Show range of disagreement where there is a dispute as to\nfacts.\nC. Identify gaps in data.\nD. Show arguments justifying particular judgments or interpretations\nwhere there is a disagreement on either fact or opinion.\nE. Assume that the Clean Air Act and the regulations implementing\nit can be changed, if necessary, to arrive at the requirements\nand course of action that is in the nation's best interest.\nF. Target should be a clear presentation of the tradeoffs among\nair. quality, public health, public welfare, esthetics, safety,\nfuel economy, initial car cost, and car maintenance costs,\ndurability and performance.\nII. PRELIMINARY OUTLINE FOR WHITE PAPER\nA. Historical Data\n1. Brief chronology of the events leading to current and future\nstatutory auto emission standards, including Executive Branch\nand Congressional actions.\n2. Describe the automobile and fuel modifications that have been\nmade thus far (all years, at least since 1968) to control\nemissions. Show impact on emissions, air quality (to the\nextent possible), fuel economy, initial car cost, maintenance\ncost, performance, fuel specifications, etc.\nB. Current Ambient Air Quality Situation\n1. Describe current ambient air quality situation, showing\ntrends and frequency and duration of violation of current\nstandards.\n2. Show sources and relative importance of air pollutants of\nconcern, whether or not there is an existing criteria document\nand ambient standard. Show to the extent possible the amounts\nand relative importance of natural sources of pollutants. Show\nby area to the extent possible.\n- 2 -\nC. Expected future air quality trends.\n1. Show expected trends by area and by source, mobile,\nstationary, natural, broken down to the extent possible to\nshow relative importance of various control alternatives.\n2. Show assumptions leading to future projections.\nD. Ambient Air Quality Standards\n1. Show current and possible future ambient air quality standards,\nprimary and secondary.\n2. Summarize health, welfare and aesthetic effects leading to\nconclusions on current or possible future ambient standards.\n3. Describe criticisms of existing standards, and arguments\nsupporting different ones.\nE. Costs of Air Pollution and benefits of Reduction:\n1. Summarize current information on costs and benefits of\nreducing air pollution.\n2. Describe confidence limits associated with data.\nF. Discuss alternatives and the impacts of various tradeoffs between\ncontrol of pollutants from auto VS. stationary sources -- costs,\nair quality benefits.\nG. For various auto emission standards, show:\n1. technological options for achieving, together with --\n2. the impact on:\na. auto emissions.\nb. ambient air quality by area which has auto related\npollutant problem; health and welfare impacts.\nc. initial car cost impact.\nd. fuel economy impact.\ne. implications for fuel specifications.\nf. safety.\ng. maintenance impact, durability, and related consumer costs.\nh. performance impact.\ni. capability of industry to achieve, and the investment\ncost, etc. necessary to achieve.\nj. time frame for achieving.\nH. For projections of ambient air quality impact, describe\nassumptions as to population growth, dispersion, number of\ncars, vehicle miles traveled, fuel economy, gasoline availability\nand use, and other factors that go into or should be considered in\n- 3 -\nan estimate of future air quality. Indicate disagreements with\napproach, if any; modifications required; weaknesses, etc; and\ntheir implications for auto emissions or transportation plan\nrequirements.\nI. Describe the need or absence. of need for no-lead or low-lead\ngasoline and the health, air quality and other impacts of various\npositions. Also, disagreements on positions, if any.\nJ. Summarize potential new regulations or other requirements\nimpacting auto emissions, transportation controls, or indirect\nsources which might have an effect on a national decision on\nauto emission requirements.\nK. The rationale for and implications of the threshold theory of\nhealth damage that underlies the Clean Air Act; the alternatives.\nL. Accuracy of ability to measure.\n1. Describe the relative accuracy of air quality instrumentation,\nmonitoring systems, and predictive models for the various\nauto related pollutants of concern.\n2. Describe the significance of our ability to measure and\npredict to our actions to improve air quality and to our\nability to strike a balance between air quality and other\nobjectives.\nM. Special topics for coverage:\n1. Present and future of the catalytic converter.\n2. Status and outlook for the sulfate problem, covering mobil\nand stationary sources of sulfates.\n3. The justification for and alternatives to a single national\n(49 state) standard for auto emissions.\nTAB B\nTAB B\nPRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT* - OUTLINE\nI.\nOur National Drive to improve the quality of life for all Americans\noften leads us to set rigorous goals and objectives and tight deadlines.\nII.\nEvents have shown that our drive to achieve some goals, e.g., air\nquality goals, presents a conflict with our drive to achieve other\nnational goals, public health, safety, energy\nIII. The series of actions that have led to the initial decision to set\nstandards requiring catalytic converters - and the subsequent\ndecision by EPA that catalytic converters may cause a health hazard\neven worse than the health problem it sought to minimize -- illustrates:\n1. The complexity of the task of improving air quality.\n2. The implication of air quality requirements for other national goals.\n3. The kind of costs that are imposed on consumers.\n4. The implications of proceeding with rigid requirements without:\n- full understanding of the impacts.\n- full public knowledge of the impacts.\nIV. Now faced with the job of finding:\n1. The best balance among conflicting objectives.\n2. The best set of requirements for the years ahead.\nV. Must avoid more precipitious actions -- either in the form of premature\nair quality requirements or mandatory fuel economy requirements.\nVI. President's plan of action:\n1. 1977 auto emission standards.\n2. 1978-81 auto emission standards and fuel economy goals - National\nCommission.\n3. Review of the process of Government that led us through the path\nthat has cost billions in consumer dollars and may have caused\na serious or potentially serious health problem.\nVII. Other points to cover along the way:\n1. Issue is not protecting the auto industry, instead it is protecting\ncitizens, consumers and taxpayers.\n2. There is blame to be shared by all - Congress, Exeuctive Branch,\nauto industry, environmentalists. But not the consumer and the\ncitizens who have had to pay the bill.\nUse philosopy, tone of Taking Points - Tab D.\nTAB C\nTAB C\nPOSSIBLE MEMBERS OF AN OUTSIDE COMMISSION TO STUDY\nFUEL ECONOMY, AUTO EMISSIONS ISSUE\nA.\nChairman - Should be someone who is able to lead and coordinate\na highly complex cost-risk-benefit analysis. Preferably someone\nwho is already familiar to some extent with the Clean Air Act and\nthe actions that have been taken to implement it.\n1. Don Rice - President of Rand Corporation, former Associate\nDirector of OMB (Natural Resources)\n2.\n- Director of Ames Laboratory of NASA.\nB. Member - Having thorough knowledge of the environmental\nhealth issues.\n1. Ivan Bennett - Head of the New York University Medical School,\nDeputy Director of the Office of Science and Technology until\n1969. M.D.\n2. Dr. Morton Corn, Department of Occupational Health, University\nof Pittsburgh. Regarded widely as a top occupational health and\nepidemiology expert.\n3. Dr. Brian McMahon, Chairman, Department of Epidemiology,\nHarvard School of Public Health.\nC. Member - Having thorough knowledge of the automotive technology\nissues.\n1. Philip Meyers, Professor of Mechnical Engineering, University\nof Wisconsin. Past President of Society of Automotive Engineers,\nMember of National Academy of Engineering. Did not participate\nin NAS-NAE air pollution study.\n2. John Heywood, Department of Mechnical Engineering, MIT.\nExtensive research and writing experience on motor vehicle\nissues but apparently has no direct industry experience.\nD. Other potential members or leading advisers\n1. William Simmons - Director of the California Air Resources Board,\nKnowledgeable about California problems; California's criticisms\nof EPA's approach to air quality control; and about the special\nproblems of natural sources of air pollution which complicate\nair quality control problems.\n2. Selected members from the committees and panels that prepared\nthe recent National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of\nof Engineering study on air quality and auto emission control\nfor the Senate Public Works Committee. List attached. Problem\nwith this is that the summary version of the study has been discredited.\nCOORDINATING COMMITTEE\n(of AIR the QUALITY for Commission STUDIES on Natural Resources)\nHERBERT A. SIMON, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pa., Chairman\nIVAN BENNETT, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York\nJAMES D. EBERT, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Baltimore, Md.\nEDWARD GINZTON, Varian Associates, Palo Alto, California\nBERNARD GREENBERG, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.\nHERSCHEL E. GRIFFIN, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.\nGEORGE HIDY, Rockwell International, Thousand Oaks, California\nHOWARD JOHNSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.\nJ. ROSS MACDONALD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.\nJOHN MEYER, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass.\nGORDON J. F. MACDONALD, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire (ex officio)\nDAVID HOLTZ, Staff Officer\nI.\nCOMMITTEE ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF\nEMISSIONS TO AMBIENT AIR QUALITY\nGEORGE HIDY, Rockwell International, Thousand Oaks, California, Chairman\nALAN ESCHENROEDER, General Research Corporation, Santa Barbara, California\nRICHARD HURN, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bartlesville, Oklahoma\nHAROLD JOHNSTON, University of California, Berkeley, California\nJAMES MAHONEY, Environmental Research & Technology, Incorporated,\nLexington, Massachusetts\nPETER MUELLER, Environmental Research & Technology, Incorporated,\nNewport Beach, California\nJOHN SEINFELD, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California\nJOHN TRIJONIS, TRW, Incorporated, Redondo Beach, California\nDAVID HOLTZ, Staff Officer\nRONALD TIPTON, Staff Officer\nII.\nCOMMITTEE ON THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF AUTOMOBILE EMISSION\nCONTROL\nJohn Meyer, National Bureau of Economic Research, and Harvard\nUniversity, Cambridge Massachusetts, Chairman\nVictor Fuchs, National Bureau of Economic Research, and Stanford\nUniversity, Palo Alto, California\nJohn Kain, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts\nJohn Krutilla, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.\nLester Lave, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania\nLester Lees, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California\nHerbert vania Simon, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-\nJan Stolwijk, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut\nGeorge Tolley, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois\nRaphael Kasper, Staff Officer\nRonald Tipton, Staff Officer\nGregory Ingram, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Di-\nrector of Staff Research\nIII.\nSubcommittee on Health Effects of Air Pollutants\nof the\nCommittee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants\nHERSCHEL E. GRIFFIN, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public\nHealth, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Chairman\nBERTRAM W. CARNOW, University of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago,\nIllinois\nRONALD F. COBURN, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania\nT. TIMOTHY CROCKER, University of California College of Medicine,\nIrvine, California\nSHELDON K. FRIEDLANDER, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,\nCalifornia\nIAN T. T. HIGGINS, University of Michigan School of Public Health,\nAnn Arbor, Michigan\nJOHN REDMOND, JR., Staff Officer\nPanel on Airborne Particles\nof the\nCommittee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants\nPanel on Carbon Monoxide\nI. T. T. Higgins, Chairman\nof the\nR. E. Albert\nR. J. Charlson\nB. G. Ferris, Jr.\nCommittee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants\nR. Frank\nM. Lippmann\nB. Y. H. Liu\nRonald F. Coburn, Chairman\nP. E. Morrow\nEric R. Allen\nK. T. Whitby\nStephen Ayres\nJ. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officer\nDonald Bartlett, Jr.\nSteven M. Horvath\nLewis H. Kuller\nand the\nVictor G. Laties\nLawrence D. Longo\nPanel on Sulfur Oxides\nEdward P. Radford, Jr.\nof the\nJames Frazier, Staff Officer\nTask Force on Health Effects\nCommittee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants\nB. W. Carnow, Chairman\nof the\nY. Alarie\nP. Meier\nPanel on Nitrogen Oxides\nJ. A. Nadel\nE. D. Palmes\nof the\nCommittee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants\nJ. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officer\nE. Goldstein, Chairman\nTask Force on Interactions of Pollutants in Producing Health Effects\nR. Ehrlich\nC. M. Shy\nof the\nL. F. Wolterink\nCommittee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants\nE. E. Force and J. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officers\nC. M. Shy, Chairman\nPanel on Photochemical Oxidants and Ozone\nY. Alarie\nD. V. Bates\nof the\nR. Frank\nJ. D. Hackney\nCommittee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants\nS. M. Horvath\nJ. A. Nadel\nE. E. Force and J. Redmond, Jr., Staff Office\nS. K. Friedlander, Chairman\nB. Altshuler\nA. Q. Eschenroeder\nJ. D. Hackney\nTask Force on Effects on Plants\nFORD\nW. W. Heck\nJ. R. McCarroll\nP. R. Miller\nD. C. McCune\nP. K. Mueller\nW. W. Heck\nS. D. Murphy\nJ. Redmond, Jr., Staff Officer\nK. R. Wilson\nGERALD\nJ. A. Frazier, Staff Officer\nTAB D\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 11, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nJIM CONNOR\nTHROUGH:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nMIKE DUVAL\nSUBJECT:\nTALKING POINTS -- CABINET MEETING\nThe attached is long but the subject is fundamental -- it\nis an attempt to establish a philosophical base for our\ndomestic policy.\nIf the President decides to use this, I recommend that Nessen\nnot specifically cover the \"Truth in Government\" theme in his\nbriefing. Let the tone leak out from the Cabinet. Let the\nPresident build up to this theme slowly.\nDRAFT\nM. Duval (3/11/75)\nTALKING POINTS - CABINET MEETING DISCUSSION ON THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER\nI think that the most important lesson for all of us, from\nthe experience we have had with the catalytic converter, is\nthat we should exercise far greater care when we propose\nlegislation and take regulatory and Executive action. It is\nobvious that the American public will pay a very high price\nfor the decisions made by the Congress and by the Executive\nBranch concerning these automobile polution regulations. I\nthink it is fair to say that if we had known the full cost\nwhich ultimately will flow from these actions prior to making\nthe regulatory decisions which locked us onto this course,\nthe specific legislation and regulatory action might have been\nvery different.\nI have a very basic philosophy concerning my approach to these\nkinds of regulatory actions and to legislation which sets them\nin motion. It can be summed up by the phrase: \"Truth in Govern-\nment.\" By this, I mean that we should level with the American\npeople and tell them the true price of government actions and\nwho's going to pay for it. This is the principle that I\nfollowed with my Fiscal 1976 Budget and in my State of the\nUnion Address and subsequent legislation. I believe in laying\nout the true costs of my actions. For example, the price tag\nof my energy proposals is right out there for everyone to see.\nIt's $30 billion a year and this will result in a one-time\n2% increase in the CPI. Contrast this clearly-defined price\ntag with the Democrats' so-called Pastore-Wright plan. Although\nmy energy and economic advisers think that the total price tag\nof their plan will equal or exceed mine, this will show up in\nhidden costs which will ultimately result from quotas and\nallocation and further government intrusion into the market-\nplace. In short, while their proposal is politically attractive\nbecause it doesn't appear that anyone will have to pay the bill,\nI don't think government decisions should be made this way. I\nthink the people should know the true cost of the programs\nproposed here in Washington and, importantly, who's going to\npay the bill and when.\nI have taken some steps myself to implement this \"Truth in\nGovernment\" philosophy. In addition to the State of the Union\nand Budget Messages, I have signed an Executive Order requiring\nthat an Inflation Impact Statement be prepared for every govern-\nment action under my control. If an honest Inflation Impact\nStatement had been done when the initial decisions were made\nconcerning the catalytic converter, I suspect we would not be\nfaced with the problem confronting us today. Of course, it's\nnot just the environmental regulations which raise this issue.\nThere are literally thousands of examples, but I recall speci-\nfically the problem we had with the truck brake regulation\nissued by the Department of Transportation before you, Bill\n(Coleman), came on board. I had to make a decision on\n2\nNew Year's Eve out in Vail to let that regulation go forward\nbecause we were so far down the road that, to hold it up\nwould have imposed economic hardship on the industries which\nhad geared up to implement the Federal rule. As a result,\nwe are increasing the cost of trucks and trailers 5-7% and,\nI now understand, this regulation may force many little\ncompanies out of business. I have no doubt that many of\nthe energy regulations create the same kind of dislocations.\nThe point here is that each one of you must control the\nactions of your departments and agencies to insure that the\nfull cost of every proposal and regulatory action you take\nis laid out clearly. I think it is also important that this\nbe done in time so that a real choice can be made between\ngoing forward or not. Too often, the economic consequences\nof the regulation only come to light so late in the process\nthat there really isn't any opportunity to pull back. The\npressures to go forward come from the legislation itself,\nfrom law suits which have been brought by proponents on one\nside or the other, from industry who will be benefitted or\nhurt by the proposed rule and, often from within the agency\nitself when the Federal officials in charge of implementation\nbecome advocates for one course of action or another.\nAs each of you makes the day-to-day regulatory and policy\ndecisions, I want you to think through very carefully the\nimpact of those decisions a year from now, five years from\nnow, ten years from now. Think through what will happen if\nthose policies and programs are to be implemented by some\nfuture administration which might not be as conscious as we\nare of preserving the freedom of individual choice and the\nmarket mechanism. One discipline that should assist you is\nto ask three questions each time you face an important govern-\nmental decision:\n1. What is the problem -- specifically -- that I am being\nasked to solve?\n2. Does the proposed solution in fact solve the problem?\n3. What additional problems will this government \"solution\"\ncreate? It is this last step that we so very often fail\nto take.\nOf course, concerning the catalytic converter, we need to\nmake a decision concerning my proposed legislation which is\nnow pending before Congress recommending that we adopt a\nmodified California standard. I submitted this legislation\nbecause it was part of the compromise worked out whereby the\nautomobile manufacturers could achieve a 40% increase in auto\nefficiency by 1979, without a large increase in the cost of\ncars and with reasonable environmental standards still intact.\n3\nIt is clear from the decisions and conclusions reached by\nRuss Train, that we must reconsider my legislative proposal.\nWe can't dillydally around on this one because I want the\nCongress to move quickly on my entire energy plan, but now\none part of it may no longer be valid. Accordingly, I want\nto be able to review my decision on the long-range automobile\npolution standards and submit new legislation, if necessary,\nprior to the Easter recess. I understand that Frank Zarb\nand Russ Train already have studies underway and that they\nare coordinating this with the Department of Transportation.\nI'd like the Domestic Council to follow up on this so that\nI can have the views of all the interested agencies and\ndepartments and final recommendations very quickly.\nTAB E\nTAB E\nAGENDA\n3/18/75\nI. Explanation of Administrator Train's recommended five-year automobile\nemission standards (EPA).\nII. Areas of Discussion:\na. the air quality, technological and economic impacts of EPA's\nrecommended HC and CO standards for 1977-1979 model years. Also\nimpacts associated with extending these standards through 1981.\nb. Air quality, technological and economic impacts of EPA's recommended\nNOx standard for model years 1978-1981.\nc. Impact of EPA's recommended NOx standard on President's 40 percent\nfuel economy improvement goal.\nd. Should- NOx standard be set administratively after 1981 (President's\nproposal) or should standard be kept indefinitely (EPA's recommendation)\ne. Air quality, technological and economic impacts of setting sulfate\nstandard for 1979 model year. Impacts of setting standard for\n1978; for 1980.\nIII. Next Steps:\na. Time frame for recommending changes, if any, to President's\nproposal (OMB).\nb. Methods of analysis - task forces, individual agency views, etc.\nc. Tasks - with estimated dates of completion.\n1. resolve differences between HC and CO standards\n(\n)\n2. resolve differences between NOx standards\n(\n)\n3. resolve setting of NOx level after 1981\n(\n)\n4. sulfate standard\n(\n)\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nATTACHMENT\nModel Year\nHC\nCO\nNOₓ\n1976\nEPA Recommended\n1.5\n15\n3.1\nPresident's Proposal\n1.5\n15\n3.1\n1977\nEPA Recommended\n1.5\n15\n2.0\nPresident's Proposal\n.9\n9.0\n3.1\n1978-1979\nEPA Recommended\n1.5\n15\n2.0\nPresident's Proposal\n.9\n9.0\n3.1\n1980-1981\nEPA Recommended\n.9\n9.0\n2.0\nPresident's Proposal\n.9\n9.0\n3.1\n1982\nEPA Recommended\n.4\n3.4\n2.0\nPresident's Proposal\nN/A\nN/A\nSet\nAdminis-\ntratively\nFORD & LIBRARY\nFeb\nOIL STORAGE REPORT\nby\nEdward Teller\nGary Higgins\nTom Palmeiri\nStuart Winter\nApril 4, 1975\nOIL STORAGE REPORT\nWe have further investigated ways of quickly establishing a large\noil storage capacity within the United States. Some of the numbers we\ncommunicated by phone have turned out to be too conservative. We now find\nthat existing salt mines and presently available tanker ships could provide\nstorage for 500 to 800 million barrels. This space would be available start-\ning immediately for the ships and within six months for the mines.\nArab Imports\nWe now find that we are importing about two millions barrels per day\nfrom Arab countries. One million comes directly as crude oil and another\nmillion is shipped to intermediate countries where it is refined and then\nimported into the U. S. as a finished product.\nFive hundred million barrels of stored oil, therefore, could completely\nreplace all our Arab imports for eight months even in case of a totally\neffective embargo.\nShut-in productive capacity which could be turned on rapidly in non-\nArab exporting countries (Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc.) exceeds two\nmillion barrels per day.\nAdditional productive capacity also exists in the United States. Elk\nHills could begin producing 130,000 barrels per day in three to four months,\nbut availability of this oil appears limited by local pipeline capacity.\nStorage\nOil Tankers - The most readily available storage is in empty tanker\nships. According to persons at Global Marine Corporation and the Maritime\nAdministration, the total idle tanker capacity amounts to 185 million barrels.\nAs of January 1975, total worldwide orders for new ships would provide ca-\npacity for an additional 1000 million barrels. In the first message this\nfigure was greatly underestimated. Some of these orders have been cancelled\ndue to reduced shipping demand but for the near future it appears that the\nnumber of idle ships will continue to grow.\nChartering such space in the present depressed market would cost from\n$1.50 to $4.00/barrel/year depending on the availability. The cost would\nprobably go up as the number of idle ships decreased. To purchase the ships\nwould cost well over $10.00/barrel.\nIn addition to being used for storage, a large number of ships will be\nrequired to transport large quantities of oil to other storage sites.\nSalt Mines and Wells - The second kind of available storage is in\nexisting rock-salt mines and solution mined salt wells. People at Fenix\nand Scisson (mining and consulting engineers) and at the International\nSalt Company have said that space for 750 million barrels could be made\navailable with little or no disruption of the nation's salt industry.\nThese mines and wells are in Louisiana and Texas close to existing pipe-\nlines. Purchasing and converting them to oil storage use would cost\nfrom $1.00 to $1.50 per barrel. Conversion could be accomplished in two\nto six months.\nAnother storage option that could accomodate 100 million barrels\nwithin six months is the creation of man-made surface storage ponds.\nAccording to individuals in the Army Corps of Engineers such ponds\ncould be excavated, lined and covered at a cost of $1.00/barrel.\nSome environmental problems may exist (for instance, due to dispersal\nby extremely strong winds) but such problems appear to be solvable.\nMines, other than salt mines, may provide additional storage space\nbut the uncertainty about their tightness (ability to retain oil) and\ntheir distance from existing pipelines relegates them to a lower level\nof consideration.\nRecommendations\nWe recommend the following actions:\n(1) Begin leasing the needed ships.\n(2) Make arrangements for the use of salt mines and wells.\n(2a) As a contingency, make plans for establishing surface storage.\n(3) Obtain the pipeline supplies that will be needed to move the oil\nto the storage sites and from Elk Hills to a refinery.\n(4) Write an environmental impact statement for each form of storage.\nIn the case of surface storage, some research may be necessary\nto obtain a suitable surface cover. This research should be\ninitiated immediately.\nConclusions\nFor approximately one billion dollars and in approximately one-half\nyear, substantial oil storage can be established in the United States.\nSince such storage would give us considerable leverage in any negotiations,\nit is recommended that serious consideration be given to the establishment\nof such storage.\nAPPENDIX\nI. Mechanism of an Embargo\nII. Background Information On Storage Options\nIII. Circulating Stocks\nIV. Acknowledgements\nAPPENDIX\nI. Mechanism of an Embargo\nThe following total productive capacities and shut-in capacities are\nrelevant when one considers the possibility of an embargo.\nTotal Productive Capacity\nAmount Shut-In\n(millions of barrels per/\n(millions of\nday)\nbarrels per/da\nArab countries with low population\n21.1\n9.8\n(Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Emirates)\nArab countries with high population\n4.1\n0.9\n(Iraq, Algeria, Egypt)\nNon-Arab exporting countries\n14.0\n2.2\n(Iran, Venequela, Nigeria, Indonesia,\nEcuador)\nAn embargo exclusively against the U. S. can therefore be replaced by\npresently shut-in wells from non-Arab countries. By increasing their shut-in\ncapacity the Arab countries having low populations could create a worldwide\nscarcity which could make an embargo against the U. S. effective. It should\nbe realized that this can be done only by a further decrease in production\nin the countries of low population where the percentage of shut-in capacity\nis already quite large.\nHaving available stored oil under control of the U.S. could decrease\nthe threat of an embargo.\nII. Background Information on Storage Options\nWe have divided our results into two categories. The first category\nincludes existing volumes that can be readily converted into storage\nfacilities. The second category suggests projects to construct new\nstorage facilties. Because of the need for construction, more uncertainty\nis involved, and so these are listed separately.\nBriefly our recommendations are:\nI. EXISTING VOLUMES\nA. Utilize presently available storage space in rock-salt\nmines.\nAvailable Volume = 138 MMB\nTime = 3 Months\nCost = $1.10/bb1\nB. Utilize available space in solution-mined salt wells.\nAvailable Volume = 612 MMB\nTime = 2 Months\nCost = $1.30 - $1.50/bbl\nC. Utilize available oil tankers for storage.\nAvailable Volume = 100 MMB\nTime = 3-6 months\nRental Cost = $1.50-$3.50/bbl/yr\nTotal Available Volume = 850 MMB\nTypical Total Time = 6 months\nII. NEW CONSTRUCTION\nA. An intensive program of solution mining of salt domes.\nVolume = 100 MMB\nTime = 6-9 months\nCost = about $3.00/bbl\nB. Construction of environmentally acceptable surface\nreservoirs.\nVolume = 100 MMB\nTime = 3 months\nCost = $1.00/bbl\nC. For product storage, an intensive program to survey and\nobtain space in operating mines.\nVolume = several hundred MMB\nTime = 6-9 months\nCost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location\nD. For product storage, an intensive program to locate,\nsurvey and refurbish shut-down mines and abandoned mines.\nVolume = 2-3 times that of operating mines\nTime = 9-12 months\nCost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location\nFORT WORTH\nDALLAS\nGrond Soline\nMISSISSIPPI\nSHREVEPORT\nMONROE\n,\nJACKSON\nTYLER\nALABAMA\nWinnfield\nOlin Matheson\nWACO\nO\nPittsburg Plate\nALEXANDRIA\nMcintosh\nGlass\nTEXAS\nLOUISIANA\nMOBILE\nKaiser\nOlin Matheson\nSolvay\nExxon\nBATON ROUGE\nAUSTIN\nStorks\nAnse to Butte\nBoyou Choctow\no\nOSulphur Mines\nSorrento,\nBEAUMONT\nDorrow\nO\nWyandotte Chem.\nHockley\nJefferson Island\nNopoleonville\nSpindletop o\nOHockberry,West\nAllied Chem.\nAvery Island\nNEW ORLEANS\nHOUSTON\nBorbers Hill\nWeeks Island\nCote Blonche Island\nPierce Junction\nSAN ANTONIO\nBelle isle\nDow Chem.\nBlue Ridge\nDiamond Crystal\nHookern Chem.\nC\nO\nStrotton\nBryon Mound\nRidge GULF OF MEX\nInternational\nSalt Co.\nCargills\nFreeport\nSulpher Co.\nMorton Salt Co.1\nDome Tower\nN\nLEGEND\nSalt Co.\nSolt dome with solt produced from brine wells\nSolt dome with solt produced by room-and-pillar mining\nLarge Rock Salt\nSolt dome with solt produced by both brine wells and\nCORPUS CHRISTI\nroom- and-piller mining\nmines close to\ncoast\nPolongono\n20\no\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\nScole, miles\nLocation and ownership of all operating\nrock salt mines and brine wells in Louisiana\nThe following is a more detailed explanation of the various options.\nI.a. ROCK SALT MINES\nFive large salt mines are located in Louisiana on the Gulf Coast.\nThese are shown on the enclosed map. In these mines there is presently\navailable 138 MMB of storage capacity with no adverse effect on the salt\nindustry.\nWe mention these mines first because they have easy access to oil\ntrunk lines and to port facilities where the supplies could enter the\ncountry. It would take about six months to install the necessary equip-\nment to convert parts of these mines to storage facilities. Costs would\nrun about $30 million per mine, or about $1.10/bbl.\nIn the North, we have specific information on three mines owned by the\nInternational Salt Company. The volumes available are:\nCleveland\n48 MMB\nDetroit\n118 MMB\nRetsof, NY 229 MMB\nTotal\n395 MMB (Int'l Salt Co. only)\nThese mines would have access to the St. Lawrence Seaway but would\nrequire new pipeline construction since they do not lie near major oil\nfields.\nInternational Salt Company also has experience in converting their\nmines to storage. The have quoted $30 million and six months for conver-\nsion for each mine. Thus in the North we have identified 395 MMB of po-\ntential storage capacity at a cost of about $0.23/bbl, exclusive of the\npipeline to access the facilties.\nI.b. BRINE WELLS\nAgain the the Gulf states, we have considered solution mined wells in\nsalt domes. Storage in these wells is a developed technology. As of 1971,\npetroleum products in salt domes occupied volumes of 24 MMB in Louisiana,\n84 MMB in Texas, and 5 MMB in Missiissippi. See the enclosed map.\nOur information is that as of January 1975, there are 262 NMB of\ncapacity available in Louisiam, and another 350 MMB available in Texas.\nThus a total of 612 MMB could presently be converted to storage.\nBrine wells are much smaller than rock-salt caverns, with sizes\ntypically 4 to 10 MMB. Thus a storage facility could involve about 60\nor more wells. The cost to buy these wells would be about $1.30 to\n$1.50/bbl. Because the technology of conversion is well established, they\ncould be ready to accept the oil in about two months.\nI.c. TANKERS\nThere are presently 30 VLCC's (Very Large Crude Carriers) in the\nPersian Gulf that are awaiting a charter. The average capacity of these\ntankers is about 2 MMB. They are free because of cutback in Arab production.\nAnother 20 of these tankers are temporarily out of service for various\nreasons. All of these tankers could be brought into service in about three\nmonths. The volume available is about 100 MMB.\nThese ships are under the flags of various countries (Greece, Libya,\nPanama, Japan, Scandanavian countries, etc.). They could be bought or\nleased, depending on the time they would be held as storage facilities.\nThe purchase cost of a VLCC comes to about $15.50/bb1. The lease price\nis presently about $1.50 to $4.00/bbl/yr.\nII.c. OPERATING MINES\nThese cavities would be useful for product storage in that they are\nwidely dispersed grographically, and all are served by rail connections.\nIn 1974, engineers at Fenix and Scisson, Inc. (F&S) did a study for\nthe EPA to determine the suitability of mines for storage of wastes.\nOf the 672 operating mines in the country (excluding coal), F&S identi-\nfied 172 that look promising for storage.\nAlthough estimates for total volume are hundreds of MMB, the volumes\nof these mines are poorly estimated. For products however, storage in the\nrange 10 to 100 MB per mine would suffice and all the above mines would\nqualify.\nConversion could take about 6 months, at a cost of less than $2.00/bbl.\nF&S has recently bought and converted an iron mine in South Africa for\n$0.40/bb1. Thus the technology is proven and the ability to realize this\noption is assured.\nII.d. SHUT-DOWN AND ABANDONED MINES\nShut-down mines are also a possibility. Beneath Kansas City, a lime-\nstone mine is used for warehouse storage. Its volume is about 400 MMB.\nTwo other shut-down mines that we have identified represent 20 MMB in\nIllinois and 20 MMB in Ohio.\nA program to document and determine the suitability of shut-down mines\ncould take about 3 months. As with operating mines, conversion could be\naccomplished in about 6 months, for a total of 9 months until the facilities\nare useful.\nThe volume of abandoned mines is estimated to be 2 to 3 times that of\noperating mines. Although the actual useable volume is not presently known,\nit is our understanding that the Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey\nare now involved in a study that will determine these volumes. Results\nshould be available within a few months.\nF&S estimate that documentation and surveying could be completed in\nabout 6 months, with another 6 months to convert the suitable mines. Cost\nwould again not exceed $2.00/bb1, depending on location.\nFinally with all the options and corresponding volume that could be\nmade available, there is enough flexibility such that other less desirable\noptions need not be considered. Among these are\nSteel tank storage, with its high cost.\nNuclear cavities or craters, with the adverse sentiment it arouses.\nShut in storage or storage in abandoned oil wells, with the\nensuing loss of oil and high economic cost.\nIII. CIRCULATING STOCKS\nOur oil economy consumes approximately 16 million barrels per day.\nA little more than 50 days supply is available in this country at a time\nin the form of crude oil, intermediate and as products. Only a fraction\nof this unit can be counted on as stocks. In fact any significant\ndecrease of the total that exists (~ 900 million bbls) will cause dis-\nturbances requiring actions of various severity. Therefore we have not\ncounted on this circulating stock in any way as a cushion in case of\nan embargo.\nIV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\nThe information was assembled by\nG. Higgins\nx8582\nT. Palmieri\nx8835\nS. Winter\nx8582\nLawrence Livermore Laboratory\nP. O. Box 808\nLivermore, CA 94550\n(415-447-1100)\nWe have received much assistance from all of the following.\nMr. Paul and Mr. Jacoby\nMr. R. Stone\nMinerals & Mines Dept.\nFenix & Scisson\nInternational Salt Co.\n5305 East Fifteenth Street\nClark Summit, Penn.\nP.O. Box 15609\n(717-587-5131, x408)\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74115\n(918-835-9471)\nMr. D. Richner\nMr. F. Wood\nTerraneers Ltd.\nThe Salt Institute\n9234 Mentor Avenue\n206 N. Washington\nMentor, Ohio 44060\nAlexandria, Va.\n(216-255-9113)\n(703-549-4648)\nR. Curtis Crook, President\nRear Admiral N. Sonenshein, USN (Ret.)\nGlobal. Marine Corporation\n5959 West Century Blvd.\nLos Angeles, CA\n(213-649-1222)\nLAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATO!\nP -\nail storage ail storage\nApril 4, 1975\nThe Honorable Nelson A. Rockefeller\nThe Vice-President of the United States\nWashington, D. C. 20500\nDear Nelson:\nThe following is a brief report on oil storage which is to super-\nsede the material transmitted to you by telephone on March 28, 1975.\nThe report was prepared with most active collaboration of my friends\nin Livermore. As you will see, substantial and relatively inexpensive\nstorage for oil can be made available.\nIn addition to the short report, I am transmitting an appendix\ngiving some details.\nWe should be most happy to answer any questions or to go into\nfurther details.\nSincerely,\nTward\nEDWARD TELLER\nET:tw\nOIL STORAGE REPORT\nby\nEdward Teller\nGary Higgins\nTom Palmeiri\nStuart Winter\nApril 4, 1975\nOIL STORAGE REPORT\nWe have further investigated ways of quickly establishing a large\noil storage capacity within the United States. Some of the numbers we\ncommunicated by phone have turned out to be too conservative. We now find\nthat existing salt mines and presently available tanker ships could provide\nstorage for 500 to 800 million barrels. This space would be available start-\ning immediately for the ships and within six months for the mines.\nArab Imports\nWe now find that we are importing about two millions barrels per day\nfrom Arab countries. One million comes directly as crude oil and another\nmillion is shipped to intermediate countries where it is refined and then\nimported into the U. S. as a finished product.\nFive hundred million barrels of stored oil, therefore, could completely\nreplace all our Arab imports for eight months even in case of a totally\neffective embargo.\nShut-in productive capacity which could be turned on rapidly in non-\nArab exporting countries (Venezuela, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc.) exceeds two\nmillion barrels per day.\nAdditional productive capacity also exists in the United States. Elk\nHills could begin producing 130,000 barrels per day in three to four months,\nbut availability of this oil appears limited by local pipeline capacity.\nStorage\nOil Tankers - The most readily available storage is in empty tanker\nships. According to persons at Global Marine Corporation and the Maritime\nAdministration, the total idle tanker capacity amounts to 185 million barrels.\nAs of January 1975, total worldwide orders for new ships would provide ca-\npacity for an additional 1000 million barrels. In the first message this\nfigure was greatly underestimated. Some of these orders have been cancelled\ndue to reduced shipping demand but for the near future it appears that the\nnumber of idle ships will continue to grow.\nChartering such space in the present depressed market would cost from\n$1.50 to $4.00/barrel/year depending on the availability. The cost would\nprobably go up as the number of idle ships decreased. To purchase the ships\nwould cost well over $10.00/barrel.\nIn addition to being used for storage, a large number of ships will be\nrequired to transport large quantities of oil to other storage sites.\nSalt Mines and Wells - The second kind of available storage is in\nexisting rock-salt mines and solution mined salt wells. People at Fenix\nand Scisson (mining and consulting engineers) and at the International\nSalt Company have said that space for 750 million barrels could be made\navailable with little or no disruption of the nation's salt industry.\nThese mines and wells are in Louisiana and Texas close to existing pipe-\nlines. Purchasing and converting them to oil storage use would cost\nfrom $1.00 to $1.50 per barrel. Conversion could be accomplished in two\nto six months.\nAnother storage option that could accomodate 100 million barrels\nwithin six months is the creation of man-made surface storage ponds.\nAccording to individuals in the Army Corps of Engineers such ponds\ncould be excavated, lined and covered at a cost of $1.00/barrel.\nSome environmental problems may exist (for instance, due to dispersal\nby extremely strong winds) but such problems appear to be solvable.\nMines, other than salt mines, may provide additional storage space\nbut the uncertainty about their tightness (ability to retain oil) and\ntheir distance from existing pipelines relegates them to a lower level\nof consideration.\nRecommendations\nWe recommend the following actions:\n(1) Begin leasing the needed ships.\n(2) Make arrangements for the use of salt mines and wells.\n(2a) As a contingency, make plans for establishing surface storage.\n(3) Obtain the pipeline supplies that will be needed to move the oil\nto the storage sites and from Elk Hills to a refinery.\n(4) Write an environmental impact statement for each form of storage.\nIn the case of surface storage, some. research may be necessary\nto obtain a suitable surface cover. This research should be\ninitiated immediately.\nConclusions\nFor approximately one billion dollars and in approximately one-half\nyear, substantial oil storage can be established in the United States.\nSince such storage would give us considerable leverage in any negotiations,\nit is recommended that serious consideration be given to the establishment\nof such storage.\nAPPENDIX\nI. Mechanism of an Embargo\nII. Background Information On Storage Options\nIII. Circulating Stocks\nIV. Acknowledgements\nAPPENDIX\nI. Mechanism of an Embargo\nThe following total productive capacities and shut-in capacities are\nrelevant when one considers the possibility of an embargo.\nTotal Productive Capacity\nAmount Shut-\n(millions of barrels per/\n(millions of\nday)\nbarrels per/\nArab countries with low population\n21.1\n9.8\n(Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Emirates)\nArab countries with high population\n4.1\n0.9\n(Iraq, Algeria, Egypt)\nNon-Arab exporting countries\n14.0\n2.2\n(Iran, Venequela, Nigeria, Indonesia,\nEcuador)\nAn embargo exclusively against the U. S. can therefore be replaced by\npresently shut-in wells from non-Arab countries. By increasing their shut-in\ncapacity the Arab countries having low populations could create a worldwide\nscarcity which could make an embargo against the U. S. effective. It should\nbe realized that this can be done only by a further decrease in production\nin the countries of low population where the percentage of shut-in capacity\nis already quite large.\nHaving available stored oil under control of the U.S. could decrease\nthe threat of an embargo.\nII. Background Information on Storage Options\nWe have divided our results into two categories. The first category\nincludes existing volumes that can be readily converted into storage\nfacilities. The second category suggests projects to construct new\nstorage facilties. Because of the need for construction, more uncertainty\nis involved, and so these are listed separately.\nBriefly our recommendations are:\nI. EXISTING VOLUMES\nA. Utilize presently available storage space in rock-salt\nmines.\nAvailable Volume = 138 MMB\nTime = 3 Months\nCost = $1.10/bb1\nB. Utilize available space in solution-mined salt wells.\nAvailable Volume = 612 MMB\nTime = 2 Months\nCost = $1.30 - $1.50/bbl\nC. Utilize available oil tankers for storage.\nAvailable Volume = 100 MMB\nTime = 3-6 months\nRental Cost = $1.50-$3.50/bbl/yr\nTotal Available Volume = 850 MMB\nTypical Total Time = 6 months\nII. NEW CONSTRUCTION\nA. An intensive program of solution mining of salt domes.\nVolume = 100 MMB\nTime = 6-9 months\nCost = about $3.00/bbl\nB. Construction of environmentally acceptable surface\nreservoirs.\nVolume = 100 MMB\nTime = 3 months\nCost = $1.00/bbl\nC. For product storage, an intensive program to survey and\nobtain space in operating mines.\nVolume = several hundred MMB\nTime = 6-9 months\nCost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location\nD. For product storage, an intensive program to locate,\nsurvey and refurbish shut-down mines and abandoned mines.\nVolume = 2-3 times that of operating mines\nTime = 9-12 months\nCost = less than $2.00/bbl depending on location\nFORT WORTH\nDALLAS\nMISSISSIPPI\nGrand Soline\nSHREVEPORT\nMONROE\nJACKSON\nTYLER\nIALABAMA\nWinnfield\nOlin Matheson\nWACO\nO\nALEXANDRIA\nMcintosh\nPittsburg Plate\nGlass\nTEXAS\nMOBILE\nLOUISIANA\nKaiser\nOlin Matheson\nSolvay\nExxon\nBATON ROUGE\nAnse to Butte\nBoyou Choctow\nAUSTIN\nStorks\nO\no\nSorrento\nOSulphur Mines\nBEAUMONT\nDorrowO\nWyandotte Chem.\nJefferson Island\nHockley\nNapoleonville\nAllied Chem.\nSpindletop o\nOMackberry. West\nAvery Island\nNEW ORLEANS\nHOUSTON\nBorbers Hill\nWeeks Island\nCote Blanche Island\nPierce Junction\no\nDow Chem.\nBelle isle\nSAN ANTONIO\nBlue Ridge\nDiamond Crystal\nHookern Chem.\nC\n0\nStratton Ridge\nM\nE\nX\nInternationa\nBryon Mound\nOF\nSalt Co.\nCargills\nGULF\nFreeport\nSulpher Co.\nMorton Salt Co.\nDome Tower\nN\nLEGEND\nSalt Co.\nSolt dome with solt produced from brine wells\nSolt dome with solt produced by room-and-pillar mining\nLarge Rock Salt\nSolt dome with solt produced by both brine wells and\nmines close to\nroom-and-pillor mining\nCORPUS CHRISTI\ncoast\n20\n0\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\nPolangone\nScale, miles\nLocation and ownership of all operating\nrock salt mines and brine wells in Louisiana\nThe following is a more detailed explanation of the various options.\nI.a. ROCK SALT MINES\nFive large salt mines are located in Louisiana on the Gulf Coast.\nThese are shown on the enclosed map. In these mines there is presently\navailable 138 MMB of storage capacity with no adverse effect on the salt\nindustry.\nWe mention these mines first because they have easy access to oil\ntrunk lines and to port facilities where the supplies could enter the\ncountry. It would take about six months to install the necessary equip-\nment to convert parts of these mines to storage facilities. Costs would\nrun about $30 million per mine, or about $1.10/bbl.\nIn the North, we have specific information on three mines owned by the\nInternational Salt Company. The volumes available are:\nCleveland\n48 MMB\nDetroit\n118 MMB\nRetsof, NY 229 MMB\nTotal\n395 MMB (Int'l Salt Co. only)\nThese mines would have access to the St. Lawrence Seaway but would\nrequire new pipeline construction since they do not lie near major oil\nfields.\nInternational Salt Company also has experience in converting their\nmines to storage. The have quoted $30 million and six months for conver-\nsion for each mine. Thus in the North we have identified 395 MMB of po-\ntential storage capacity at a cost of about $0.23/bbl, exclusive of the\npipeline to access the facilties.\nI.b. BRINE WELLS\nAgain the the Gulf states, we have considered solution mined wells in\nsalt domes. Storage in these wells is a developed technology. As of 1971,\npetroleum products in salt domes occupied volumes of 24 MMB in Louisiana,\n84 MMB in Texas, and 5 MMB in Missiissippi. See the enclosed map.\nOur information is that as of January 1975, there are 262 NMB of\ncapacity available in Louisiam, and another 350 MMB available in Texas.\nThus a total of 612 MMB could presently be converted to storage.\nBrine wells are much smaller than rock-salt caverns, with sizes\ntypically 4 to 10 MMB. Thus a storage facility could involve about 60\nor more wells. The cost to buy these wells would be about $1.30 to\n$1.50/bbl. Because the technology of conversion is well established, they\ncould be ready to accept the oil in about two months.\nI.c. TANKERS\nThere are presently 30 VLCC's (Very Large Crude Carriers) in the\nPersian Gulf that are awaiting a charter. The average capacity of these\ntankers is about 2 MMB. They are free because of cutback in Arab production.\nAnother 20 of these tankers are temporarily out of service for various\nreasons. All of these tankers could be brought into service in about three\nmonths. The volume available is about 100 MMB.\nThese ships are under the flags of various countries (Greece, Libya,\nPanama, Japan, Scandanavian countries, etc.). They could be bought or\nleased, depending on the time they would be held as storage facilities.\nThe purchase cost of a VLCC comes to about $15.50/bbl. The lease price\nis presently about $1.50 to $4.00/bbl/yr.\nII.c. OPERATING MINES\nThese cavities would be useful for product storage in that they are\nwidely dispersed grographically, and all are served by rail connections.\nIn 1974, engineers at Fenix and Scisson, Inc. (F&S) did a study for\nthe EPA to determine the suitability of mines for storage of wastes.\nOf the 672 operating mines in the country (excluding coal), F&S identi-\nfied 172 that look promising for storage.\nAlthough estimates for total volume are hundreds of MMB, the volumes\nof these mines are poorly estimated. For products however, storage in the\nrange 10 to 100 MB per mine would suffice and all the above mines would\nqualify.\nConversion could take about 6 months, at a cost of less than $2.00/bbl.\nF&S has recently bought and converted an iron mine in South Africa for\n$0.40/bbl. Thus the technology is proven and the ability to realize this\noption is assured.\nII.d. SHUT-DOWN AND ABANDONED MINES\nShut-down mines are also a possibility. Beneath Kansas City, a lime-\nstone mine is used for warehouse storage. Its volume is about 400 MMB.\nTwo other shut-down mines that we have identified represent 20 MMB in\nIllinois and 20 MMB in Ohio.\nA program to document and determine the suitability of shut-down mines\ncould take about 3 months. As with operating mines, conversion could be\naccomplished in about 6 months, for a total of 9 months until the facilities\nare useful.\nThe volume of abandoned mines is estimated to be 2 to 3 times that of\noperating mines. Although the actual useable volume is not presently known,\nit is our understanding that the Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey\nare now involved in a study that will determine these volumes. Results\nshould be available within a few months.\nF&S estimate that documentation and surveying could be completed in\nabout 6 months, with another 6 months to convert the suitable mines. Cost\nwould again not exceed $2.00/bbl, depending on location.\nFinally with all the options and corresponding volume that could be\nmade available, there is enough flexibility such that other less desirable\noptions need not be considered. Among these are\nSteel tank storage, with its high cost.\nNuclear cavities or craters, with the adverse sentiment it arouses.\nShut in storage or storage in abandoned oil wells, with the\nensuing loss of oil and high economic cost.\nIII. CIRCULATING STOCKS\nOur oil economy consumes approximately 16 million barrels per day.\nA little more than 50 days supply is available in this country at a time\nin the form of crude oil, intermediate and as products. Only a fraction\nof this unit can be counted on as stocks. In fact any significant\ndecrease of the total that exists (2 900 million bbls) will cause dis-\nturbances requiring actions of various severity. Therefore we have not\ncounted on this circulating stock in any way as a cushion in case of\nan embargo.\nIV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\nThe information was assembled by\nG. Higgins\nx8582\nT. Palmieri\nx8835\nS. Winter\nx8582\nLawrence Livermore Laboratory\nP. 0. Box 808\nLivermore, CA 94550\n(415-447-1100)\nWe have received much assistance from all of the following.\nMr. Paul and Mr. Jacoby\nMr. R. Stone\nMinerals & Mines Dept.\nFenix & Scisson\nInternational Salt Co.\n5305 East Fifteenth Street\nClark Summit, Penn.\nP.O. Box 15609\n(717-587-5131, x408)\nTulsa, Oklahoma 74115\n(918-835-9471)\nMr. D. Richner\nMr. F. Wood\nTerraneers Ltd.\nThe Salt Institute\n9234 Mentor Avenue\n206 N. Washington\nMentor, Ohio 44060\nAlexandria, Va.\n(216-255-9113)\n(703-549-4648)\nR. Curtis Crook, President\nRear Admiral N. Sonenshein, USN (Ret.)\nGlobal. Marine Corporation\n5959 West Century Blvd.\nLos Angeles, CA\n(213-649-1222)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE FYI\nWASHINGTON\nJMC:\nCopies routed to\nDick Parsons\nMike Duval\np issues\nnote m\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 10, 1975\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF m.G.\nJim, this material was presented to me during a visit by\nCarl Wallace, a former top aide to Mel Laird and a very close\nfriend of the President. I know that you will be interested\nin his position on these two issues.\nApril 10, 1975\nDear Carl:\nIt was a pleasure seeing you again yesterday and I appreciate\nyour taking the time to stop by and give me your views regarding\nH.R. 3211, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975,\nand H.R. 5055, the Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975.\nI certainly appreciate having the benefit of your thinking on\nthese two matters and will advise other members of the President's\nstaff of your views.\nPlease let me know whenever I can be of further assistance.\nwith cordial regard,\nSincerely yours,\nMax L. Friedersderf\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Carl S. Wallace\nCorporate Vice President\nPurolator, Inc.\n1800 K Street, N.W.\nSuite 614\nWashington, D.C. 20006\nMLF:jg\nCC: Jim Cannon w/inc.\nFORD & 03RALD LIBRARY\nPurolator, Inc.\n1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 614\nWashington, D.C. 20006\n202 659-2750\nCarl S. Wallace\nCorporate Vice President\nMax-\nEnclosed is a copy of a letter &\nhave sent to Bacher Conable and sereral\ncommittee. other members of the Ways & means\nthe President is to cut back on the\nStreems tome that the intent of\nconsumption of gasoline, primarily\nby private individuals\nCompanies such as Purolator\nregulated by the d. C. C. and any\nCouniel and Purolator Security are\nessential coutes. products over established\nIt would seem logical to me that\nbe exempt from any gasoline tax.\nregulated motor carriers should\nCarl\nAddress GERALD R.FORD\nPurolator, Inc.\n1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 614\nWashington, D. C. 20006\n202 659-2750\nCarl S. Wallace\nCorporate Vice President\nApril 3, 1975\nDear Barber:\nIt is my understanding that the markup of H.R. 5005,\nThe Energy Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975, will\nbegin shortly after Congress returns on April 7th.\nPurolator Services, Inc., courier and armored car\nservices, uses approximately 16 million gallons of gasoline\na year, and you can readily see that a 5¢ per gallon gaso-\nline tax would have a great effect on our business.\nPurolator Security provides armored car service for\nthe transportation of coin, currency, securities, food\nstamps, bullion, precious metals and other valuables. Purolator\nCourier provides expedited ground and air courier services\nthroughout the United States and transports a wide variety of\ntime-critical commodities, including cardio-vascular instru-\nments, radioactive isotopes, blood, surgical arterial grafts,\nchecks in the process of collection to and from Federal\nReserve Centers and clearinghouses, and other urgent accounting\ndata for banks. These companies carry essential products\nover established routes and are regulated by the I.C.C. and\nthe Public Service Commissions in the various states.\nWe believe that all regulated motor carriers should\nbe exempt from the proposed increased tax on gasoline. If the\nregulated motor carriers are not granted an exemption, we will\nhave to request appropriate rate increases from the respective\nstate Public Utility Commissions to offset the tax. It appears\nto me that this would be inflationary in nature, and I feel sure\nthat this is not the intent of the bill.\nI realize the complexity of dealing with inflation,\nrecession, and the energy crisis but feel that the exemption of\nregulated motor carriers from the tax increase would be in the\nbest interests of all the people in the United States.\nI urge your support of this position as you consider this\nvery important energy bill before the Ways and Means Committee.\nSincerely,\nCarl S. Wallace\nThe Honorable Barber B. Conable, Jr.\nThe House of Representatives\nWashington, D. C. 20515\nCHAIRMAN\nJ. Kevin Murphy\nPHONE 202 833 1973\nPresident\nPurolator Services, Inc.\nCarl Wallace\nExecutive Director\nHON. CHAIRMEN\nCharles R. Barr\nbipartisan\nPresident\nPublic Affairs Analysts, Inc.\nncommittee\nClement M. Brown, Jr.\nOlin Corporation\nFOR ABSENTEE VOTING\nGeorge Bush\nChairman\nRepublican National Committee\nIBOOK STREET N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006\nRichard H. Moore\nCleary, Gottlieb. Steen &\nHamilton\nAMBASSADORS' COMMITTEE\nHon. Sargent Shriver\nChairman\nApril 3, 1975\nHon. William Attwood\nHon. William McC. Blair\nHon. Chester Bowles\nHon. Andrew V. Corry\nHon. Arthur J. Goldberg\nEUROPEAN CHAIRMEN\nHon. W. Averell Harriman\nAlfred E. Davidson\nHon. James Loeb\nHarvey S. Gerry\nHon. Gerard C. Smith\nEUROPEAN CO-ORDINATOR\nMEMBERS*\nKent Fry\nDear John:\nPurolator Services, Inc.\nKathleen Bennett\nWashington Representative\nCOUNTRY COMMITTEES\nPublic Affairs Analysts, Inc.\nBELGIUM\nAnthony van Zwaren De\nDavid E. Birenbaum,\nFried, Frank, Harris,\nOn January 15, 19$5, The Overseas Citizens Voting\nZwarenstein\nUnifast S.A.\nShriver & Kampelman\nRights Act of 1975, was introduced in the Senate by\n1-3 Rue de Bas-Fosses\n7490 Brain-Le-Comte, Belgium\nJames M. Carrillo\nPresident\nSenator Mathias (for himself, and Senators Pell, Goldwater\nCANAL ZONE\nThe American Club of Madrid\nNan Dietz, Vice Chairman\nBayh, Brock and Roth). An almost identical bill was\nCanal Zone Democratic Party\nClifford R. Dammers,\nPost Office Box 699\nCleary, Gottlieb, Steen &\nBalboa, Canal Zone\nHamilton\npassed by the Senate unanimously in the 93rd Congress.\nFRANCE\nHuskel Ekaireb\nAlfred E. Davidson &\nPresident\nHarvey S. Gerry\nMerck Sharp & Dome\nOn February 19, 1975, H.R. 3211 was introduced in\nBipartisan Committee on\nInternational Division\nAbsentee Voting\n20 Place Vendome\nDr. R. H. Edwin Espy\nGeneral Secretary\nthe House of Representatives by Congressman Dent (for\n75 Paris ler, France\nNational Council of the\nGERMANY\nChurches of Christ\nhimself and Congressman Hays), and separate bills were in-\nRobert V. Daly, )r.\nO'Haire, Connor & Jones\nW.P. FitzGerald\ntroduced by Congressmen Frenzel and Gude. H.R. 3211 is\nFriedrich-Ebert-Anlage : 3\nEsso Eastern, Inc.\nFrankfurt-Main, Germany\nAmerican Chamber of\nCommerce in Korea\nidentical to S. 95. The Frenzel and Gude bills are\nHONG KONG\nBernard Blair\nThomas Flanagan\nVice President\nvirtually identical. Hearings have been held by the\nPresident\nCarmack Trading &\nPan American\nBernie Goodrich\nSubcommittee on Elections, and this bill is expected to\nInvestment Co., Hong Kong\nJames W. Sweitzer\nAssistant Manager\nPublic Affairs Dept.\nITT\nbe referred to the House Administration Committee immedi-\nManufacturers Hanover\nASIA, Ltd., Hong Kong\nBen Holt\nFourcade & Holt\nately following the Easter Recess.\nc/o American Chamber of\nCommerce in Hong Kong\n322 Edinburgh House, Hong Kon\nSteve Hopkins\nITALY-MILAN\nVice President\nFirst National City Bank\nAs Executive Director of the Bipartisan Committee\nHerman H. Burdick, General\nSecretary\nAmerican Chamber of\nPat Hutar\nChicago, Illinois\non Absentee Voting, I strongly urge your support of this\nCommerce in Italy\n12, via Agmello-20121 Milan\nJames B. Kennedy\nbill. There are some 750,000 American civilians residing\nPhone: 80 79 55/6-87 35\nPartner\nITALY-ROME\nAsesores de Pensiones, S.A.\nabroad who are barred from participating in Presidential\nDonald Malone\nProcter & Gamble\nDr. Peter Laussig\nPresident\nor Congressional elections. Members of the military and\nBox 10075\nVia Chopin, Rome\nTita Chemical-Taiwan\nfederal employees overseas can vote in these elections,\nKOREA\nFranklin 1. Lunding, Jr.\nH.E. O'Neill\nRoan & Grossman\nand I believe these private citizens should have the same\nc/o American Chamber of\nCommerce in Korea\nClark MacGregor\nVice President\nrights. These private citizens are vitally affected by\n529 Bando Building\nSeoul, Korea\nUnited Aircraft Corp.\nDavid T. McGovern,\nactions which the President and the Congress take, and\nthe ylian Fromer\nShearman & Sterling\nP.O. Box 346\nJ. Eugene Marans\ndeserve to be represented in the Congress of the United\nPort Lewis, Mauritius\nCleary, Gottlieb, Steen\nStates.\nMEXICO\n& Hamilton\nCarl D. Ross, President\nInversiones Alba, S.A.\nJoe Miller\nReforma 336\nAss't. Executive Vice President\nMexico, D.F.\nAmerican Medical Association\nIn the course of their stay overseas, Americans\nJohn E. Smith, Jr.\nMrs. Charles Mincbere\nPartner\nPresident pro tem\nmeet many more of the average citizens than our official\nMariceting Mix de Mexico, S.A.\nAssociation of Americans\nRio Mixcoac 20-2\nResident Overseas\nrepresentatives, both civilian and military, possibly can\nMexico, D.F.\nRobert A. Newman\nNETHERLANDS\nTRW\nand certainly should be our best ambassadors. However,\nG. Russell Pipe\nFrans van Mieristraat 10\nBrother Thomas More Page,\nC.F.X.\nthis becomes extremely difficult when they are confronted\nAmsterdam, Holland\nHome Phone: 020-79-74-53\nExecutive Director of\nOffice Phone: 020-79-50-85\nthe Catholic Mission\nwith a question such as, \"If your country is so great, why\nSPAIN\nRobert T. Snure\nPublic Affairs Department\naren't you allowed to vote?\"\nBrigham Day\nSecretary General\nU.S. Chamber of Commerce\nAmerican Chamber of\nCommerce in Spain\nDick Stuart\nAvda, Generalisimo Franco, 477\nVice President\nBarcelona 11, Spain\nGovernment Affairs\nAmerican Express Co.\nTHAILAND\nW. Clement Stone\nRalph C. Lambert &\nMartin McClintock\nCombined Insurance Cos.\nc/o American Chamber of\nof America\nCommerce in Thailand\nJames Trowbridge\n140 Wireless Road\nThe Ford Foundation\nP.O. Box 703\nRepresentative for Peru\nBangkok, Thailand\nUNITED KINGDOM\nBishop Paul A. Washburn\nPresident\nAnthony'Hyde, Chairman\nBoard of Global Ministries\nDemocratic Nat'l. Comm.\nThe United Methodist Church\nOverseas in England\nand\nWalter Whitmyre\nV.W. Warren Pearl, Chairman\nIBM-Taiwan\nRepublican Committee\n20 Chester Square\nJames E. Wood, Jr.\nLondon S.W. 1., England\nExecutive Director\nBaptist Joint Committee\nof Public Affairs\nDuring the last Congress some of the Republican\nmembers of the House Subcommittee on Elections objected\nto the postcard registration feature and the payment of\npostage for overseas voters. These two objectionable\nfeatures have been removed from the bills as introduced in\nthe Senate and House.\nI hope you will give this bill your wholehearted\nsupport when it reaches the House floor.\nSincerely,\nCarl S. Wallace\nExecutive Director\nThe Honorable John J. Rhodes\nThe House of Representatives\nWashington, D. C.\nHam Committee to uport their\nmuch. will in Bull Buttu & Wiggini\nmay office\n4014\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE\nMarch 17, 1975\nfication in either the threatened or endan-\nsures cannot be relieved in any other way,\nrepresents the \"extraordinary case where\ngered classes.\nthere would appear to be no basis for legally\npopulation pressures cannot be other-\nIt might also be possible to amend the\nvalid regulations on regulated taking. Also,\nwise relieved.\"\nAct, giving a qualified but protected status\nthe principal language establishes the goal\nAgain, we are aware of the deep commit-\nto the species under study. This qualified\nof other regulations, to be promulgated, as\nment with which the personnel in the De-\nstatus could be limited to a reasonably ade-\nthe restoration of species to a non-threatened\npartment of the Interior have approached the\nquate study period, (such as, two years). or\nor non-endangered status.\npreservation of endangered and threatened\nmight protect the studied species on Fed-\nIn this regard, the regulations promul-\nspecies. Implementation of this law will un-\neral lands, or on certain classes of Federal\ngated regarding the three species of kangaroo\ndoubtedly aid in protecting both endangered\nlands only. This alternative however, also\nare not consistent with the letter or the\nspecies and environmental quality through-\nraises the controversial issue of competing\nspirit of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.\nout the U.S. and the world. In that regard,\nState and Federal powers over the manage-\nThe regulations purport to allow importa-\nwe hope our comments are helpful in further\nment of wild animals, an issue which Mr.\ntion of taken kangaroos when (1) a sus-\nadministration of the law and in achieving\nWidman of this office has discussed with\ntained yield program is established that (2)\nits objectives.\nyour staff. It would appear desirable to have\nis not detrimental to the survival of the\nSincerely,\nany potential legislative solution to this\nspecies. Neither the \"sustained yield pro-\nRUSSELL W. PETERSON,\ncontroversy developed before introducing an\ngram\" nor the \"not detrimental\" test meet\nChairman.\namendment to extend the coverage of the\nthe statutory criterion, showing that\nAct.\npopulation pressures cannot be otherwise\nIn regard to the specific problem of the\nrelieved. Thus, we believe that the regula-\nREBUTTAL TO CRITICS OF OVER-\ngrizzly bear, we have checked the matter with\ntions should be revised or interpreted so as\nSEAS VOTING LEGISLATION\nthe Department of the Interior. As you know,\nto be in keeping with the mandate of the\nMr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, it\nduring the court proceeding that Department\nAct.\nhas been brought to my attention that\nagreed to initiate an independent study of the\nThe rules submitted with the proposed\ngrizzly bear's status. We are advised that the\nlisting of the grizzly bear are also trouble-\nsome questions were raised recently at\nfinal report of that study has now been sub-\nsome. One portion of the proposal indicates\nhearings by the House Subcommittee on\nmitted to Interior. and that Interior is plan-\nthat de facto regulations will be promulgated\nElections with respect to the constitu-\nning to take appropriate action on the grizzly\nwhich allow the taking (mostly by sport\ntionality of legislation strengthening the\nbear in the immediate future.\nhunting) of up to 25 bears per year in the\nvoting rights of overseas citizens.\nWhile the Council has no immediate sug-\nBob Marshall Ecosystem. Again, in our\nPRECEDENT OF 1970 LAW SUPPORTS TURTHER\ngestions for resolving all these issues, we\nview, the Secretary must first fulfill the\nACTION BY CONGRESS\nwould be happy to review any proposal\nstatutory burden by showing that the pro-\nwhich you might develop.\nposed taking by hunting will be the \"extra-\nFrankly, I cannot see any doubt at all\nSincerely,\nordinary case\" which follows substantial\nabout the constitutionality of the pro-\nRUSSELL W. PETERSON,\nattempts to relieve population pressures by\nposed law. It is a logical extension of a\nChairman.\nother means. In our view, this test, again,\nlaw on the same subject which I authored\nhas not been met and we believe that the\nin 1970 and which was upheld as a valid\nCOUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,\nregulations and proposal for final action\nexercise of Congress powers by the U.S.\nWashington, D.C., February 3, 1975.\nshould be revised accordingly.\nSupreme Court 6 months later.\nHon. ROGERS C. B. MORTON,\nOne other portion of the proposed regula-\nSecretary of the Interior,\ntions concerning grizzly bears is also of spe-\nThis law is section 202 of the Voting\nWashington, D.C.\ncial concern to us. The regulations pertain-\nRights Act Amendments of 1970, which\nDEAR MR. SECRETARY: On December 30, 1974,\ning to listing of grizzlies in the Yellowstone\nextended absentee registration and bal-\nnotice of rule making appeared in the Fed-\necosystem state that depredating bears may\nloting rights to American citizens who\neral Register regarding the threatened kan-\nbe taken. Similarly, the de facto regulations\nwere denied the right to vote because they\ngaroos. Similarly, on January 2, 1975, notice\nfor the Bob Marshall Ecosystem state that\nwere away from home on election day\nof proposed rule making appeared in the\nnuisance (including depredating) bears may\nand were not allowed to register absentee\nRegister regarding the grizzly bear. This\nbe taken.\nor obtain absentee ballots. One of the\nletter represents the Council's comments on\nWe feel that the regulations in both cases\nthose two actions.\nshould clearly differentiate between bears\nstated purposes of the law, spelled out\nWe commend the Department of the In-\ncausing depredations on public and on\nduring Senate floor action on it, is the\nterior for taking these two actions. We real-\nprivate lands. On public lands, no threatened\nintent to facilitate the vote in Presiden-\nize that both have been highly controversial\ngrizzly bears should be taken except for\ntial elections for Americans outside the\nand there have been numerous delays and\nclear reasons of human safety.\nUnited States.\nfalse starts. With these two actions, the\nGrizzly bears, and in fact all endangered\nThe law also struck down the dura-\nDepartment is taking its first steps in public\nand threatened species, are valued highly by\ntional waiting periods preventing Ameri-\nimplementation of the Endangered Species\nthe people of this nation. Public lands are\nAct of 1973, which was an important com-\ncans from voting for President and Vice\nlands held in trust for all Americans, not\nponent of the Administration's Environmen-\nPresident solely because they had made\njust one or another special interest group.\ntal Program. As a consequence, these two\na change of households before the elec-\nCertain uses of these lands require spe-\nactions take on considerable significance as\ncific regulation and are a privilege, not a\ntion. Section 202, in which these provi-\npotential precedents.\nright. Grazing and ranching are such uses.\nsions were set forth, was upheld in\nIn that regard, elements of the actions\nThus, in determining which of such dis-\nOregon V. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).\nconcern us greatly, particularly in light of\ncretionary uses may be allowed or may have\nIn overhauling State residence and ab-\nthe intent and substantive provisions of the\npriority, the public land manager must con-\nsentee regulations in Presidential elec-\nAct.\nsider the impact of the proposed use on other\ntions, Congress had relied upon at least\nSection 4(d) of the Endangered Species\npublic uses or values of those lands. Where\nfour district grounds for the exercise of\nAct requires the Secretary of the Interior\nthere are public values, particularly wild-\nto promulgate \"such regulations as he deems\ncongressional authority. In the case of\nlife such as the threatened grizzly on public\nnecessary and advisable to provide for the\nlands, it may be logically argued that if\nOregon, the Supreme Court seized upon\nconservation of such (threatened) species.\"\nlivestock owner wishes the privilege of graz-\neach of these justifications in holding for\n(Emphasis added). Conservation is defined,\ning domestic livestock on the same area, he\nthe validity of the statute.\ninter\nalia,\nas\nto\nuse\nall\nmethods\nmust accept some losses from the wildlife\nFirst, section 202 rests upon Congress\nand procedures which are necessary to bring\nas part of the cost of doing his business on\npower to secure the rights inherent in\nany endangered species or threatened species\nthat public land. In such a case the restora-\nnational citizenship, which include the\nto the point at which the measures provided\ntion of the threatened species should be rec-\nright to vote for Federal officers. Since\npursuant to this chapter (the Act) are no\nognized as having a greater public value than\nthese rights adhere to U.S. citizenship.\nlonger necessary. Such methods and proce-\nthe economic return to the affected rancher.\ndures included\nresearch, census, law\nConsidering this, we-believe that taking of a\nrather than citizenship of a State, we\nenforcement, habitat acquisition\nand,\nthreatened species committing depredations,\nacted to protect the rights under the nec-\nin the extraordinary case where population\nor otherwise being a \"nuisance,\" on public\nessary and proper clause of article I of\npressures within a given ecosystem cannot\nlands should be prohibited in any case not\nthe Constitution.\nbe otherwise relieved, may include regulated\ninvolving direct threats to human safety. In\nA related basis for congressional power\ntaking\" (16 U.S.C. 1532) (Emphasis added).\nfact, we suggest that the intent of Section 7\nwas our design to protect the funda-\nThis language clearly restricts the use of\n(16 U.S.C. 1536) of the Act, inter alia, to\nmental, national right of travel by a\nregulated taking to the \"extraordinary case\"\nprohibit taking (killing) of endangered or\ncitizen.\nwhere population pressures cannot be other-\nthreatened species on lands belonging to\nwise relieved. In the absence of facts which\nall of the American people, in any situation\nA third basis of Congress authority\nclearly establish that the population pres-\nwhere it cannot be shown that such taking\nthat was asserted is our power to enforce\nMarch 17, 1975\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE\n4015\nthe privileges and immunities guaranteed\nacts with a purpose of protecting these\nbeen expressly necognized as a right dl-\nto citizens of all the States. Here we were\nrights or privileges in a narrowly drawn\nrectly secured to citizens by the Consti-\nmindful of correcting the maze of con-\nmanner, rather than with the purpose\ntution.\nflicting State and local requirements ap-\nof passing general legislation over a\nContrary to the blanket statement by\nplicable to Presidential elections which\nState-reserved field, Congress possesses\nopponents of overseas voting legislation\ncreated a serious inequality of treat-\npower to establish specific regulations at-\nthat no Supreme Court opinions indicate\nment among citizens of one State as com-\ntacking a particular problem in that\nthe existence of any inherent constitu-\npared with citizens of the other States.\nfield.\ntional right to vote in Federal elections,\nFourth, we viewed section 202 as an\nPOWER OF CONGRESS RESTS ON WELL-SETTLED\nother than the lone opinion of Justice\nexercise of power under the 14th amend-\nCASE LAW\nBlack in Oregon, there are at least five\nment. In this context, we were protecting\nApplying the above rules to the pend-\nSupreme Court decisions in which such\nagainst a discriminatory classification in\ning legislation on behalf of overseas citi-\na right has been specifically mentioned:\nvoting made between citizens who were\nzens, I am confident Congress is on firm\nUnited States V. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 314,\nable to be physically present at the time\nground in proposing to expand the 1970\n315 (1941) Twining V. New Jersey, 211\nof registration or voting and those who\nvote law to cover congressional as well\nU.S. 78, 97 (1908) Wiley V. Sinkler, 179\ncould not be present in person. Also, we\nas Presidential elections. The case law\nU.S. 58, 62 (1900); In Te Quarles, 158\nconsidered the unfair classification made\nmay be summarized as follows:\nU.S. 532, 538 (1895) and Ex parte Yar-\nbetween citizens who were new residents\nFirst. In the past 10 years there have\nborough, 110 U.S. 651, 663 (1884). (Also\nand those who were longtime residents\nbeen, at least eight Supreme Court de-\nsee the opinion of Justice Frankfurter in\nof a State or locality.\ncisions upsetting State and local elec-\nUnited States V. Williams, 341 U.S. 70, at\nIn light of similar laws in many of the\ntion practices founded upon the principle\n79 (1951).\nStates which indicated that States could\nof a strict judicial scrutiny under\nIn Twining, the Supreme Court plainly\nsatisfy their legitimate interests by the\nthe 14th amendment of the State or\nannounced that:\nrules legislated in section 202, we in Con-\nlocal governmental objectives and meth-\nAmong the rights and privileges of Na-\ngress could not find any compelling rea-\nods. Bullock V. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 144\ntional citizenship recognized by this court\nson why a State should condition the\n(1972) Dunn V. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330,\n[is] the\nright to vote for National of-\nright to vote for President on the dura-\n337 (1972) Evans V. Cornman, 398 U.S.\nficers.\" 211 U.S., at 97.\ntion of resident's physical presence or\n419, 424, 426 (1970) Phoenix V. Kolod-\nFourth. Opponents of overseas voting\nabsence at the polls.\nziejski, 399 U.S. 204, 205 (1970) Cipri-\nlegislation argue that elections for Presi-\nEight members of the Supreme Court\nano V. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704\ndential electors may be State rather than\nupheld Congress' power to adopt the uni-\n(1969) ; Kramer V. Union School District,\nFederal elections for constitutional pur-\nform regulations of section 202. Justice\n395 U.S. 621, 628 (1969) Harper V. Va.\nposes. This argument ignores the deci-\nBrennan, joined by Justices Marshall\nBoard of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 670\nsion of In re Quarles, where the Supreme\nand White, rested his opinion squarely\n(1966) and Carrington V. Rash, 380 U.S.\nCourt expressly stated that:\nupon the \"compelling interest\" doctrine\n89 (1965).\nAmong the rights secured to citizens di-\nand Congress' power to enforce the 14th\nSecond. In at least three of the above\nrectly by the Constitution is \"the right to\namendment by \"eliminating an unneces-\ncases, the Supreme Court has overturned\nvote for presidential electors or members of\nsary burden on the right of interstate\nState rules which were purported to be\nCongress.\" 158 U.S., at 535. (Emphasis\nmigration\" (400 U.S., at 239)\nbona fide residence requirements.\nadded.)\nJustice Douglas also upheld section 202\nIn Carrington V. Rash, 380 U.S. 89\nThese same critics mistakenly cite\nas a 14th amendment matter, but tied\n(1965), the Court overturned the use by\nBurroughs V. United States, 290 U.S. 534\nhis opinion to section 1 of that amend-\nTexas of an irrebuttable statutory pre-\n(1934), in support of their position. Bur-\nment, the privileges and immunities\nsumption that excluded servicemen from\nroughs specifically considers and rejects\nclause.\nthe vote by classifying them as nonresi-\nthe very suggestion raised by the critics,\nJustice Stewart, jointed by Chief Jus-\ndents.\nholding that Presidential electors, \"exer-\ntice Burger and Justice Blackmun, sus-\nIn Evans V. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419\ncise Federal functions under, and dis-\ntained section 202 on the ground of Con-\n(1970), the Court struck down a Mary-\ncharge duties in virtue of authority con-\ngress' authority to protect and facilitate\nland statute which created a presump-\nferred by, the Constitution of the United\nthe exercise of privileges of U.S. citizen-\ntion that persons living on a Federal en-\nStates.\" Id. at 545. Thus Burroughs actu-\nship under the Necessary and Proper\nclave within the State did not fulfill the\nally can be cited as additional support for\nClause of Article I. He stated that the\nresidence requirement for voting in\nthe power of Congress to legislate with\nprivilege of free travel, without loss of\nMaryland.\nrespect to Presidential elections.\nthe right to vote, \"finds its protection\nIn Dunn V. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330\nFifth. Critics of overseas voting legis-\nin the Federal Government and is na-\n(1970), the Court held unconstitutional\nlation assert that the liberty to travel\ntional in character\" (400 U.S., at 287).\nthe 1-year durational waiting period\nabroad is seemingly not as absolute as\nJustice Black based his opinion sus-\nTennessee had used as a precondition\nthe right of interstate travel. Again, the\ntaining section 202 on the final authority\nto voting in that State.\ncritics ignore the clear message of the\nof Congress to make laws governing Fed-\nIronically, Dunn, which overturned a\nSupreme Court.\neral elections and Congress' general\nState residence rule, is cited by opponents\nIn Kent V. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126\npowers under the Necessary and Proper\nof the overseas voting bill for the propo-\n(1958), the Supreme Court plainly\nClause of Article I.\nsition that such rules are immune from\nequated the right of interstate travel\nOnly Justice Harlan believed section\nthe reach of Congress. To the contrary,\nwith the right to travel abroad.\n202 was invalid on any ground.\nthe Supreme Court observed in Dunn\nThe Court stated:\nThe fact that the Court divided in\nthat:\n\"Freedom of movement across frontiers in\nchoosing alternative grounds for uphold-\nIf it was not clear then [referring to 1965],\neither direction, and inside frontiers as well,\ning section 202 is argued by some as de-\nit is certainly clear now that a more exact-\nwas a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like\npriving the case of precedential weight.\ning test is required for any statute that\ntravel within the country, may be necessary\nBut what this restricted view overlooks\n\"places a condition on the exercise of the\nfor a livelihood. It may be as close to the\nis the fact that eight Members of the\nright to vote.\" 405 U.S., at 337.\nheart of the individual as the choice of what\nCourt actually did unite on the prin-\nThus, the Supreme Court has made it\nhe eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of move-\nment is basic in our scheme of values.\" 357\nciple that the jurisdiction of the States\nclear that the States may not use a bona\nU.S. at 126.\nover matters normally considered as be-\nfide residence rule in such a way that it\nFar from taking a narrower view of\ning within their primary domain is sub-\ncould sweep an entire group of otherwise\nCongress power to secure the vote to\nject to the superior power of Congress to\nqualified U.S. citizens off the voting rolls,\ntravelers abroad, than of its comparable\nvindicate personal rights or privileges of\nunless the restriction is proven necessary\npower with respect to interstate travelers.\ncitizenship which the Court has deter-\nto promote a compelling State interest.\nthe Supreme Court has given a broad\nmined to be secured by the Constitution.\nThird. The right to vote for national\nprotection to foreign travel. In Aptheker\nMoreover, Oregon clearly stands for\nelective officers, including Members of\nagainst Secretary of State, the Court con-\nthe proposition that so long as Congress\nCongress and Presidential electors, has\nsidered freedom of movement abroad to\nS 4016\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE\nMarch 17, 1975\nbe of such great importance that the\nin making statements pertinent to the\nWhile an exhaustive search of historical\nCourt held this personal liberty para-\napplication, such as a claim to being last\nrecords has not been undertaken, the fol-\nmount to a substantial governmental in-\ndomiciled in such State prior to depar-\nlowing chronology and facts are clear.\nterest in restricting travel based on\nture from the United States.\n1. The construction of a suitable building\ngrounds of national security, 378 U.S.\nThus, Congress can act, consistent with\nto house the Nation's air and space col-\nlections has been a long-awaited event. The\n500, 505, 508 (1964).\nthe highest standards of our constitu-\nact of August 12, 1946, establishing the Na-\nLEGISLATION IS CONSISTENT WITH BASIC SCHEME\ntional system, to establish uniform, na-\ntional Air Museum, included provisions for\nOF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT\ntional practices securing the right of\na method of selecting a site for a National\nIn summary, it is clear the proposed\nAmericans abroad to participate in the\nAir Museum to be located in the Nation's\noverseas voting legislation is constitu-\nchoice of Federal officers whose decisions\nCapital. The act of September 6, 1958, desig-\ntional. Its object is to protect and fa-\nand programs affect them directly and\nnated the site for a building to be on the\ncilitate the right of almost 1 million\nsubstantially.\nMall from Fourth to Seventh Streets, In-\ndependence Avenue to Jefferson Drive, S.W.\nU.S. citizens to vote in Federal elections.\n2. During the period of the late 1950's and\nThese citizens have a direct and substan-\nNATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM\nearly 1960's, the Smithsonian Institution\ntial interest in decisions and policies\nengaged in preplanning studies for this new\nacted upon by the public officials chosen\nMr. MOSS. Mr. President, having re-\nmuseum building. During this period it was\nin Federal elections, the President and\ncently been appointed to be a member of\nconcluded, as part of the planning process,\nVice President and Members of Congress.\nthe Board of Regents of the Smithsonian\nthat the costs of such a building should not\nInstitution, I was disturbed to read an\nexceed $40,000,000, which the Institution\nAction by Congress is required if over-\nbelieved would produce an outstanding\nseas citizens are to be brought within the\narticle on February 28 in the Washington\nbuilding to commemorate American attain-\nbasic system of representative govern-\nPost indicating that the construction of\nments.\nment. No single State can guarantee the\nthe National Air and Space Museum is\n3. A \"Schedule of Building Projects\" was\nfranchise to all or most of these persons.\nexperiencing a cost overrun.\nincluded by the Smithsonian in both its FY\nIn order to establish a uniform process\nMichael Collins, the Director of the\n1962 and FY 1963 budget submissions to the\nby which all or most overseas citizens can\nmuseum, has set the matter straight in\nCongress. The Schedule in the FY 1962 sub-\nenjoy an equal opportunity to vote in\na letter to the editor of the Post published\nmission (page 32) projected the FY 1963\nrequest for a planning appropriation of\nFederal elections, it is necessary for Con-\non March 10.\n$1,820,000 and an FY 1965 construction ap-\ngress to enact appropriate implementing\nI ask unanimous consent that Mr.\npropriation of $37,680,000 for the NASM\nlegislation.\nCollins' letter be printed in the RECORD.\nbuilding. These two amounts total $39,500,-\nThe specific procedures which Con-\nThere being no objection, the letter\n000. The Schedule in the FY 1963 document\ngress uses in the pending overseas vot-\nwas ordered to be printed in the RECORD,\n(page 57) maintained the two amounts but\ning bill are, in general, derived from sec-\nas follows:\nslipped the Schedule to FY 1964 and FY\ntion 202 of the Voting Rights Act Amend-\n[Letter to the editor, Washington Post,\n1966. This Schedule, dated January 2, 1962,\nwould appear to be the source of the 1962\nments of 1970, which in turn were drawn\nMar. 10, 1975]\n\"original estimate\" cited in the GAO re-\nfrom the proven practice of the States\nMUSEUM'S CosT\nport.\nthemselves. In section 202 we made a\nYour February 26 front page story con-\n4. In 1963, the Smithsonian revised its\nfinding that these practices were applied\ncerning construction cost overruns states\ncost estimate to $41,920,000, including a\nby many States with respect to some of\nthat the National Air and Space Museum will\ntotal of $1,875,000 for planning. Actual plan-\nhave a 6% overrun. While it may seem a\nning appropriations in the amounts of $511,-\ntheir residents without significant fraud\nsmall point, those of us working on this\n000 and $1,364,000, for a total of $1,875,000\nor administrative difficulty in their own\nproject are proud of the fact that there will\nwere made available to the Institution by\nelections, and in the overseas voting bill\nbe no overrun, in terms of either time or\nthe Interior and Related Agencies Appropri-\nwe again make the same finding.\nmoney. The building will be ready for its\nation Acts for the fiscal years 1964 and 1965,\nIf some of the States can use these\npublic opening in July 1976, as originally\nrespectively. This planning was completed\npractices successfully for purposes of\nplanned, and it will cost no more than its\nand the project approved by the Commission\nvoting, and determining residence for\noriginal $41.9-minion price tag.\nof Fine Arts and the National Capital Plan-\nMICHAEL COBLINS,\nning Commission. The cost of the building,\nvoting, by certain citizens from such\nDirector,\nbuilt to those plans and specifications, was\nState, such as absentee servicemen and\nNational Air and Space Museum.\nestimated to be $40,000,000 in 1965.\nwomen and their accompanying depend-\nWashington.\n5. In 1966, the Congress enacted legislation\nents, then surely we in Congress may\nauthorizing the construction of the NASM\nproperly find that there is no compelling\nMr. MOSS. Mr. President, at my re-\nbut deferred appropriations for construc-\nreason why all States should not use the\nquest, Mike Collins has provided me with\ntion until expenditures for the Vietnam war\nsame practices for protecting the vote of\nbackground information on the status of\nhad shown a substantial reduction.\ncitizens with at least an equal nexus with\nthe National Air and Space Museum con-\n6. By the early 1970's, when it appeared\nthe particular State. Whatever the inter-\nstruction. So that the record may be com-\nthis project might be allowed to proceed, it\npletely clear in this regard, I ask unani-\nwas obvious that as a result of rising costs of\nest of the States in more narrowly defin-\nmous consent that the background state-\nlabor and materials over the intervening\ning residence for purposes of purely\nyears, the 1965 plans would now cost be-\nState, county, and municipal offices, there\nment be printed in the RECORD.\ntween $60 and $70 million to implement\nis no compelling need for using a stricter\nThis major and important construc-\nConsequently, in its FY 1972 budget, the\ntest in Federal elections than the one\ntion project, even though delayed for\nSmithsonian requested an appropriation of\nset forth in the pending legislation.\nmany years, is not overrunning.\n$1,900,000 for planning and redesign of the\nI would remind critics of the proposal\nThere being no objection, the state-\nmuseum building with the goal of using the\nment was ordered to be printed in the\nlatest design and construction techniques\nthat the bill is not open ended. It only\nto lower the cost of the building to $40,000,-\napplies to Federal elections. It only cov-\nRECORD, as follows:\n000-the estimate of ten years earlier. Those\ners U.S. citizens who have a past nexus, a\nSTATEMENT ON PURPORTED CosT OVERRUN ON\nnew planning funds were appropriated and\ndomicile, in the particular State where\nTHE NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM\nthe redesign-completed and approved by the\nthey are seeking to vote in Federal elec-\nCONSTRUCTION\nCommission of Fine Arts and the National\ntions.\nGAO's report to the Congress of February\nCapital Planning Commission.\n24, 1975, entitled \"Financial Status of Major\n7. For FY 1973 the Institution requested a\nMoreover, the absentee citizen must\nCivil Acquisitions, December 31, 1973\" cites\nconstruction appropriation of $40,000,000.\ncomply with all applicable qualifications\non page 27 that the National Air and Space\nThe Interior and Related Agencies Appro-\nand valid procedural requirements of a\nMuseum's current cost estimate of $41,900,-\npriation Act for that year provided an ap-\nState. Each State will retain full power to\n000 exceeds by $2,400,000 (6 percent) the\npropriation of $13,000,000 and contract au-\ntest whether an applicant for absentee\n1962 estimate of $39,500,000. While both of\nthority for an additional $27,000,000. Ap-\nregistration or voting first, is of legal age;\nthese amounts do pertain to this building,\npropriations to liquidate the contract su-\nsecond, is incapacitated by reason of in-\ntheir comparison over this extended period\nthority were provided in FY 1974 ($17,000.-\nsanity; third, is disqualified as a con-\nis completely misleading. This comparison,\n000) and FY 1975 ($7,000,000) and are re-\nhowever, since it is now a matter of record,\nquested for FY 1976 ($3,000,000, the balance\nvicted felon; fourth, meets the prescribed\ndeserves to be explained. There 18 no cost\nof the approved amount).\ntime and manner for making applica-\noverrun against the funds actually appropri-\n8. The construction of the new museum\ntion; and fifth, is accurate or truthful\nated for this project.\nbuilding started in the fall 1972, and is DCW\nFEDERAL\nHEROY\nFEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20461\nADMINIST DEPORTMENT\nApril 28, 1975\nOFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSUBJECT: Energy Options for May 1\nFROM:\nFrank G. Zarb\nTHRU:\nRogers C. B. Morton\nSTATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS\nSince our meeting last week, we have vigorously pursued our\nnegotiations with Congressmen Ullman and Dingell in an effort\nto reach agreement on basic differences. Both chairmen have\nbeen receptive to our concerns and the May 1 deadline and are\nproceeding in some favorable directions. At the same time,\nneither chairman seems to have complete control over his\ncommittee, overall progress is slow, and significant differences\nin approach still persist. The situation in each committee is\nbriefly summarized in the following:\nWays and Means\nThe committee is moving towards a bill that will rely\nprimarily on price effects and market forces to achieve\nour conservation goals. It is likely that the price\neffects will be approximately equal to the $2.00 tax\nfee in our program, but applied in a selective manner\nand phased in over a longer period of time. Specific\nprovisions include:\n$1.00 per barrel import fee or 10% of the value of\nimported crude oil, whichever is higher.\nA lower fee for imported products (1/2 the crude oil\nrate for two years) Although we have argued for a\nhigher fee for imported products to protect and\nstimulate domestic refining capacity, the committee's\napproach is a concession to the Northeast.\n- 2 -\nAn ad valorem tax on new autos, starting in 1976,\nbased on auto fuel efficiency. The tax, which\nwould be between 2-10% in 1977 and rise to 16%\nin 1980, has strong support in the committee and\nis viewed by the chairman as being popular through-\nout the House.\nA gasoline tax of an as yet undetermined amount.\nThe tax is likely to start low in 1976 and rise to\nthe 20¢ level in 1980.\nAn industrial fuels tax that rises to $1.00 per\nbarrel over a several year period.\nIn addition to these market mechanisms, the committee\nstrongly favors the establishment of an import quota\nsystem to assure that domestic conservation savings\nresult in reductions in imports and a standby Federal\npetroleum import purchasing authority. Although our\nefforts to delete these provisions to date have not\nbeen successful, primarily because the chairmen believe\nthat these provisions will have to be included in any\nlegislation that is to be successful in the House, we\nhave been successful in convincing the committee to\nrender the provisions essentially harmless.\nCommerce Committee\nProgress in the Commerce Committee is much slower and\nthe conceptual directions much less favorable than in\nWays and Means. Several important issues have been\nput off until next week or later, including decontrol\nof old oil, emergency storage and coal conversion.\nAlthough there is a general commitment to decontrol,\nany decontrol provision from this committee is likely\nto be phased in over a several year period (e.g. 3-5)\nand there are disturbing amendments that would roll\nback the price of new oil as part of any phased decontrol\nscheme. To date, the Committee has agreed on the\nfollowing provisions:\nEstablishment of a fixed level of consumption of\ngasoline at 98 percent of comparable months in 1973-\n1974. Although some Presidential discretion is\nallowed, this allocation approach could be large\nenough to result in noticeable physical shortages:-\n- 3 -\nStandby emergency authorities that require sub-\nmission of contingency plans to the Congress for\napproval prior to their implementation.\nAction in the Senate remains slow and is tending towards\nmulti-tier crude oil pricing systems and reductions in new\noil prices. Active consideration is also being given towards\nprice ceilings on all new natural gas, including the intra-\nstate market which is now unregulated. Unrealistic, mandatory\nconservation programs are also being considered.\nOPTIONS FOR MAY 1 ACTION\nof the basic options regarding the May 1st deadline for the\n60 days you provided Congress to develop an energy package,\nthree appear to merit primary consideration:\nimpose the second dollar on the import fee,\ntake steps towards decontrol, or\ndo both.\nOPTION 1: Impose the second dollar of the import fee.\nUnless the national security proclamation is further\namended before May 1, the import fee will rise to $2.00\nper barrel on crude oil and $.60 per barrel on products.\nThis action will result in an immediate attempt to\noverride your veto of legislation prohibiting any increase\nin fees after January 15, 1975. If the veto is not\nsustained, you will not be able to increase import fees\nfor 90 days, the $1.00 already in existence will be\nrescinded, and our strength for the rest of the program\ncould be eroded.\nIf, on the other hand, the veto is sustained, it would\nbe a clear sign of strength and a ratification, however\nnarrow, of the market approach to our energy problems.\nIt is our judgment that the veto could be sustained\nby a slim margin if an all-out effort is launched, but\nit could go either way.\nImposition of the second dollar will place additional\npressure on Ullman and possibly give the impression that\nthe Administration is not happy with his progress to date\nor the direction of the Committee's bill, even though\nthe Committee:\nis farther along than any other in the Congress,\n- 4 -\nhas agreed to let us keep the $1.00 now in effect,\nis moving toward other price mechanisms that would\nbe comparable to your program in both magnitude\nand philosophy if not in specific application, and\nis likely to produce legislation that has perhaps\nthe highest degree of probability of being acceptable\nto both the House and the Administration.\nIn spite of this signal, however, Ullman would be in a\nposition to push his bill as a response to your action,\narguing that his bill would effectively roll-back the\nsecond dollar while enacting other positive provisions.\nHe might see this as a better response than a negative\naction to simply negate the second dollar by pushing for\nan override of the vetoed bill that would suspend your\ntariff authority for 90 days.\nA decision not to impose the second dollar would express\ngeneral satisfaction with Ullman's efforts, give him\nadditional time to produce a bill, and avoid strong\nmoves/pressures from the New England delegation. At the\nsame time, the viability of one of our major action-forcing\nlevers would be seriously undermined. Failure to impose\nthe second dollar now in the face of a poor performance\nby the Congress might be an indication of the fact that\nwe do not intend to use it in the future.\nOPTION 2: Initiate decontrol procedures.\nUnder this option, the second dollar would be held in\nabeyance for an unspecified period of time (an always\npresent threat if the Congress doesn't move) and a\nphased decontrol plan would be submitted to the Congress\nwithin 15 days (to allow for 10 days of public hearings)\nfor its 5 day period to approve or disapprove such a plan.\nThe phased plan, which would be a two year program designed\nto remove 1/4 of old oil from control every six months,\nwould be comparable in approach if slightly faster in\nspeed, than the approaches that have some support in the\nCommerce Committee.\nAlthough this action could result in punitive legislation,\nit is a further compromise from your original proposal of\nimmediate decontrol, it places us on a firm decontrol\nschedule if successful, and has considerable chances of\nbeing viewed as an acceptable solution by the Congress,\nparticularly since it can be construed as an action by\n- 5 -\nthe President. As one of the most critical pieces of\nyour entire legislative program, a move on decontrol\nwhile holding the second dollar might enhance the\nchances for the decontrol plan to be approved. The\nNew England delegation, at least, would not actively\noppose the plan.\nn\nOPTION 3: Impose the second dollar and initiate\ndecontrol proceedings.\nThis action which combines the basic advantages and\ndisadvantages, opportunities and pitfalls, of options\n1 and 2, would be a strong move by the Administration\nto re-energize the entire Congress on energy legislation.\nThe basic arguments for this option are two-fold:\nAlthough Ullman is making some progress, his legislation\nfaces many steps and obstacles before final Congressional\naction. The likelihood of action on his bill and\nothers by the Congress is remote over the next several\nmonths, and the chances of legislation highly objection-\nable to the Administration are good if we do not main-\ntain a show of strength.\nIf successful, this option would represent 90% of the\neconomic components of your energy program, even\nthough achieved in a less efficient manner. All that\nwould essentially be lacking is a windfall profits tax.\nThe basic problems with this action center in its magnitude\nand force. Prospects for negative legislation, parti-\ncularly on the tariff, are higher for this option than\noptions 1 or 2.\nRECOMMENDATION\nGiven the lack of progress by the Congress to date, the need\nfor maximum pressure to keep the Congress from trying to avoid\nthe tough decisions required by the nation's energy situation,\nand the problems being generated by continued controls on old\noil, the ERC recommends that the following actions proceed on\nMay 1:\nAnnounce the imposition of the second dollar if we\nare reasonably certain of being able to sustain\nyour veto;\nInitiate decontrol proceedings.\n- 6 -\nIf we cannot sustain the veto, then the ERC would recommend\nthe second option - decontrol with an indefinite hold on\nthe second dollar.\nThe ERC further recommends the following sequence of events\nleading up to the announcement of your decision:\n1. Monday afternoon - President meets with advisers;\nno final decisions are made, and public statements\nindicate only that the President has met with his\nadvisers to review the options.\n2. Wednesday morning - President meets first with\nRepublican leadership to inform them of his decision,\nand then with Ullman and Dingell, separately if\noption 3, together if option 2.\n3. Wednesday afternoon - Public announcement of\ndecision.\n4. Thursday - Press briefing by President or by Zarb."
}