Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1535294",
    "label": "1976/09/22 - Westinghouse Officials",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535294"
}

{
    "id": "1535294",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535294",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "1976/09/22 - Westinghouse Officials",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535294",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Meetings Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Legislation",
        "Nuclear nonproliferation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535294.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535294.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535294.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1535294",
    "naId": 1535294,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-30",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-09-01",
        "month": 9,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635913/1535294.pdf",
    "mediaId": "9f4e2f5fe6ebde61",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 62, folder \"1976/09/22 - Westinghouse Officials\"\nof the James 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 Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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.\nDigitized from Box 62 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nMTG. w/ SCHLEEDE & WESTINGHOUSE\nOFFICIALS\nWednesday, Sept. 22, 1976\n3:00 p.m.\nre; Nuclear Policy\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 21, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nGLENN SCHLEEDE\nSUBJECT:\nMEETING WITH THE WESTINGHOUSE PEOPLE\nThe purpose of this meeting is to give the Westinghouse\npeople an opportunity to present to you their concerns\nabout non-proliferation legislation (specifically, the\nPrice-Anderson bill which is the most acceptable version\nwe've seen so far) now being considered in the Congress.*\nTheir general concerns are summed up in the attached\nletter to Bob Seamans from the American Nuclear Energy\nCouncil. Briefly, they are:\nIndustry has not had an opportunity to be heard on\nthis issue.\nThe bill, in effect, abrogates provisions in existing\nbilateral agreements with the trading partners --\nwithout first giving an opportunity to obtain other\nnations' agreement by negotiation.\nOther supplier nations, with less rigorous export\nlicense criteria will step in to replace U.S. suppliers.\nU.S. loss of markets will not help the non-proliferation\nobjectives.\n\"At stake is a backlog of perhaps $4 billion of overseas\norders to American industry (30,000 direct jobs), and\nan estimated $29 billion of potential U.S. sales and\n200,000 jobs per year through 1981.\"\nWestinghouse is particularly concerned about loss of two\nreactor sales in Spain where they now only have letter\nagreements and one reactor in Belgium. France has gone\nafter all three.\nThey are even more concerned, it turns out, about the Zablocki\namendment to the Export Administration Act which will be\non the floor Wednesday afternoon--in the House\n092110\nFORD & LIBRA GERALD\n-2-\nI think our main function should be to listen. However,\nyou may also want to:\n(1) Express our sympathy with their desire for a strong\nsupplier position of the U.S.\n(2) Reassure them that the Administration does not plan\nto \"give away the farm\" in proliferation legislation\nto get the NFAA.\n(3) Urge them to support NFAA strongly -- something they\nhave not done in the past.\nAttachment.\nAMERICAN NUCLEAR ENERGY COUNCIL\n1750 K STREET, N.W.\na\nSUITE 300\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20006\n(202) 295-4520\nCRAIG HOSMER\nPRESIDENT\nSeptember 16, 1976\nHon. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.\nAdministrator\nU.S. Energy Research &\nDevelopment Administration\nWashington, D.C. 20545\nRe: H.R. 15419 (Nuclear Exports)\nDear Bob:\nI feel it essential to write you regarding industry concerns over the\nbill \"Nuclear Proliferation Control Act of 1976\", H.R. 15419, as re-\nported by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on September 14,\n1976, with the so-called technical amendments recommended by ERDA.\nFirst, let me make clear that the nuclear industry perceives that\nlegislation addressed to the problem of nuclear non-proliferation is\ndesired by some people. We do not, however, feel that the public\ngenerally is in that category, or if so, only mildly. Notwithstand-\ning, an orderly international nuclear commerce requires the world to\nadopt common, effective measures which will meet the deep and genuine\nconcerns of the Administration, the Congress, the American people,\nand of many other nations with similar views. So, legislation which\nactually provides these measures can be helpful.\nBut let me add that, in the attempt to secure legislation in the\nbrief time before Congress adjourns, there has been no response to\nindustry's attempts to be heard on its informed views on this sub-\nject. We feel this is a serious omission, because this exceedingly\ncomplicated, little understood and much amended bill is still inter-\nmixed with adverse commercial and foreign policy implications. We\nare writing you to be sure that ERDA understands, however, that our\nconcerns are not just commercial in nature. That is important, but\nsecondary. They are based on basic questions as to whether the pro-\nposed measure really is effective to inhibit nuclear non-prolifera-\ntion, or even may be counterproductive.\nThe focus of our concern is Section 14, which creates licensing\nprinciples which would immediately apply to nuclear exports from the\nUnited States. Defined principles are certainly desirable by which\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nNRC may exercise its judgement on nuclear exports. But the bill goes\nfurther. It would abrogate provisions in existing bilateral agree-\nments with other countries. Most important, it would do so without\ngiving diplomatic efforts a chance to modify those agreements through\nHon. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.\n- 2 -\nSeptember 16, 1976\nrenegotiation.\nIn the meantime, and until renegotiation, the NRC must apply the\nlegally-defined principles to all exports, including those which stem\nfrom existing contracts, already financed (in the most part) through\nthe Export-Import Bank. This is bound to create confusion in the minds\nof customer nations as to the reliability of the U.S. as a supplier,\nand to have a potentially damaging effect on U.S. nuclear exports, both\nas to existing business and future sales.\nWe see the real risk that other supplier nations who have not yet adop-\nted similar export licensing criteria (and there are none) will simply\nstep in to replace U.S. suppliers. This is already happening in an\nincreasingly competitive market situation -- the effect of the bill in\nadding a question mark as to the credibility of the U.S. as a reliable\nsupplier could put us at a decisive disadvantage in the international\nmarket place. As our share of it shrinks, so shrinks American non-\nproliferation clout.\nNo amount of protestation in the bill about the U.S. becoming a re-\nliable supplier can overcome the fact that its competitors are taking\naway its business because many countries are not convinced in this re-\nspect. They are aware that no enriching contracts have been offered\nsince 1974; that Congress is balking at NFAA; that bills and amendments\nto apply all kinds of nuclear exports proliferate in Congress; that\nnuclear moratoria are pending in several states; and so on.\nThere is no need to re-emphasize that the consequence of this market\nshift to other suppliers would neither serve non-proliferation object-\ntives, nor do much to convince other supplier nations that they should\ngive back the competitive advantage which we have handed to them.\nAt stake is a backlog of perhaps $4 billion of overseas orders to\nAmerican industry (30,000 direct jobs), and another estimated $29 bil-\nlion potential for U.S. sales and 200,000 jobs per year through 1981.\nPerhaps only some of this potential business would be lost if the bill\npasses. The industry would surely agree to accept that consequence in\nexchange for the achievement of real and far-reaching non-proliferation\ngoals. But, we feel it would be a very high price to pay if the bill\nfalls short of its announced objectives. We feel that it does fall\nshort. We are not convinced that such unilateral action by the United\nStates on nuclear export controls will, in the absence of similar\npolicy decisions and actions by other supplier states, accomplish the\nimportant non-proliferation objectives being sought.\nFORD\nIt is possible that the Congress may be having second thoughts on con-\nis\nsidering nuclear export legislation in the current session. If this\nGERALD\nis so, perhaps ERDA can thereafter draft legislation which could, early\nin the next session, be submitted to Congress and be exposed to the\ndeliberative hearing process which this complex and important subject\ndeserves.\nI have only highlighted a few specific objections to the bill as now\nwritten and amended. There are others, but I think that those re-\ncited should be sufficient to indicate that a more deliberative\napproach should be taken to this kind of legislation. And, there is\nno emergency situation at hand that requires immediate action.\nCordially,\nCRAIG CraigHoemer HOSMER\nPresident\nCH:jh\nFORD & LIBRARY BERALD\n9/15/76\nScheduled wed Sept 23\nMr. Cannon:\n3PM\nHugh Scott's office called to see if there would\nbe a possible ty of you meeting with Leo Wright, Director\nof Federal Programs for Westinghouse Corporation and\nDwight Porter, former ambassador in Lebanon, who is\nan expert in the nuclear field.\nThey would like to talk to you about Nuclear\nProliferation.\nI\nWILL w/Schleede MEET WITH THEM\nI WILL NOT MEET WITH THEM\nOTHER\nkb\nRichard Quick, 224-6324\nERDA, nsc\nthree\nSchleede will call Porter\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY"
}