November 9, 1973
Page 36495
By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr.RANDOLPH, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BUCKLEY, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CLARK, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr. MCCLURE, Mr. WILLIAM L. SCOTT, and Mr. STAFFORD)
S. 2680. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act, as amended. Referred to the Committee on Public Works.
THE SHORT- AND LONG-TERM ENERGY CRISIS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the President announced on Wednesday night a program to deal with both the short- and the long-term energy crisis with which the Nation is confronted. Among other things, the President called for relaxation of some environmental requirements in order to assure an adequate supply of fuel this winter.
While I have not yet seen the basis for the President's conclusion that a relaxation in environmental controls will assist in the short-term energy crisis, I am prepared to anticipate his justification and propose legislation which will facilitate the capability of the administration to deal with the crisis while maintaining our near-term commitment to clean air.
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution will hold hearings on this proposal on Monday morning. Witnesses invited to testify on this measure include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Sierra Club, and the National Coal Association.
We have information which suggests that certain electric powerplants can, in short order, convert from burning oil to burning coal. We know that other powerplants, both utility and industrial, could be converted to coal over time. And most important, Mr. President, we know that coal is the backbone of the Nation's energy reserve.
Unfortunately, the most economic, the most available, the most marketable coal is also high in sulfur content. This means that under present conditions the use of coal in utility and industrial powerplants will contribute to the deterioration of the environment.
If this were the only alternative, the people of the United States whose health is threatened by the chronic exposure to excessive levels of air pollution should indeed be alarmed. It is true that in the immediate short term – this winter – people who live in the areas in which converted powerplants will operate, will suffer increased exposure to powerplant pollution. If the President's program is adopted, we will have determined as a matter of national policy that a brief exposure to increased concentrations of sulfur dioxide in the air is better than a failure of electric utilities to meet basic demand.
But, Mr. President, this cannot be anything more than an emergency measure of limited duration. If it is, our environment will be damaged significantly from the continued use of high sulfur fuel after the immediate crisis has passed.
But there are other restraints on excessive use of high sulfur fuel. We cannot assume, in the future, that high sulfur oil will be available from the Middle East. And I seriously doubt that the Nation's coal industry will gear up for this new market if that new market is not dependable.
When the Clean Air Act of 1970 was written, we on the Public Works Committee, and especially the chairman, JENNINGS RANDOLPH of West Virginia, and the ranking members, JOHN SHERMAN COOPER of Kentucky and HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., of Tennessee, recognized that stack emissions controls on powerplants and industrial users of coal were an essential element to continued prosperity of the coal regions of the country. We knew that short of a clear commitment to install this pollution control technology, coal would be ignored by the utilities and oil would be substituted in our powerplants.
In this decade, most utilities and industries have continued practices they initiated as a result of early State, local, and Federal clean-air initiatives. Rather than clean up what came out of their stacks, they used cleaner fuel in their boilers and by and large that cleaner fuel was oil. The Nation's utilities obviously have never attempted to balance the uncertainty of foreign oil supplies with the long term needs of their consumers.
But, Mr. President, we now have an alternative and an opportunity. We have the opportunity to guarantee the coal industry that their investment in new, safe, deep coal mines will be justified on the basis of a long term commitment from utilities and industries to burn high sulfur coal. And we have the clean air alternative of available technology to cause removal of sulfur from the emissions from stacks of powerplants and industry.
Mr. President, the legislation which I will offer today, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), the distinguished Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER), and other members of the Public Works Committee, will amend the Clean Air Act to facilitate taking advantage of this opportunity to restore national self-sufficiency in our basic energy needs and require utilization of the alternative of continuous controls of emissions from powerplants.
Also, this legislation will provide the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency the authority he needs to act expeditiously to assure that environmental controls do not exacerbate the energy crisis.
This legislation is vital. It is absolutely essential that it move along with proposed emergency energy legislation because we must have the ability to move swiftly on all fronts, including clean air law.
Mr. President, there are those who will say that this legislation, which permits adjustment and delay in environmental controls, is an unacceptable compromise. And I must admit that it is an undesirable but apparently necessary setback for our environment. This legislation may, in the short term, adversely impact the programs which were so successfully undertaken as a result of the Clean Air Act of 1970 but, in the long run these amendments will guarantee the public that short term crises in the availability of fuels and wholly private decisions based simply on cost of fuels will not interfere with our effort to clean up the environment.
Mr. President, there is another important aspect of this problem. While the environmental programs have a role in resolving problems created by the energy crisis, I took strong exception to the repeated statements that environmental requirements created that crisis.
The energy companies of the United States have failed to respond to the demands which they have encouraged. They have failed to build the necessary powerplants in time to meet new demands. Plans and decisions by energy companies to deal with this shortage should have been made as much as 10 years ago – tough Federal environmental laws have only emerged in the past 3 years.
The energy companies have failed to plan and provide for the energy needs of this country, to develop alternatives that would make us secure, and to invest their profit in means to satisfy a growing demand.
The energy companies must bear responsibility for our current crisis – for failing to use our abundant coal resources – for failing to consider the alternative technologies and the methodologies to meet America's demand.
More importantly, Mr. President, because they have worked so hard to create that demand, the energy companies bear an additional burden to find acceptable solutions to problems created when that demand exceeds supply – not just the demand for energy, but the demands that increased production of energy places on air, water, and land resources.
I will not stand back and watch the great gains for improvement of the environment in the late 1960's and early 1970's be whittled away by those who would use the energy crisis as an opportunity to delay and defeat environmental regulation. The legislation which I have introduced today is a practical response to a difficult problem, but it should not be considered in any way a compromise of the views of this Senator on the relationship between the environment and the energy crisis.
I would conclude on this point. Energy supplies are limited – fossil fuel supplies are final – they are going to run out eventually. But the same is true of air and water – they are limited too, they are final – no one is manufacturing any more. The same is true of land. Energy, air, water, and land all by their nature impose limitations upon human activity. The energy crisis is just the first crisis. In our attempt to deal with this crisis, we ought not to contribute to the acceleration of potential crises in the supply of air, in the supply of water, and in the supply of land which are all essential to our well-being.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs relating to this issue be inserted in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NOVEMBER 7, 1973.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman,
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Scoop: After reviewing the legislation now pending before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on the energy crisis, including S. 2652 (the Coal Conversion Bill), Committee Print No. 1 of S. 2589 (the National Emergency Petroleum Act of 1973), and the draft of the Administration's emergency act, we believe that the only language necessary with regard to variances or waivers from the requirements of the Clean Air Act is a clause stating that such "variances" or "waivers" shall be in accordance with procedures established under the Clean Air Act.
It is our intention to introduce legislation and to hold hearings and to complete consideration on such legislation at an early date. Discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency indicate clearly that until such time as one or more of the emergency bills becomes law, the Environmental Protection Agency has sufficient existing authority to handle any temporary need for the use of high sulphur fuels by particular facilities. When the scope and intent of authority to require conversion of fuels is understood, we will act swiftly to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with any necessary supplementary authority.
It is, therefore, our recommendation that in any legislation which you report that language in lieu of the provisions in any of the bills be included which accomplishes the following purpose: Should a Presidential Order to change fuels result in a violation of an air quality implementation plan, a variance may be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
We assure you of our concern for this problem and our mutual desire to avoid energy shortages this winter. We urge your Committee's most prompt action on the basic emergency legislation. It is our belief that we must act quickly and well in the interest of the people of this country.
With official esteem and best personal regards, we are,
Truly,
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr.
JAMES L. BUCKLEY,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to which I have referred may be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 2680
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
SECTION 1. Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1683), is amended by adding the following new subsection:
"(g) (1) During the period commencing November 15, 1973, and ending May 15, 1974, the Administrator is authorized to temporarily suspend any emission limitation, schedule or timetable for compliance contained in any Federal, State or local law, regulation or requirement adopted under this Act as to any fuel burning stationary source which is or would be in violation of such requirement due to actions ordered by the President under the National Emergency Fuels Act, unless the Administrator determines that such suspension will present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons. Any suspensions given under this subsection shall be exempted from any procedural requirements set forth in this Act or any other provision of local, State or Federal law, and the granting of such suspension shall not be subject to judicial review nor to any proceeding under section 304 of this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the power of the Administrator to deal with sources presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons under section 303 of this Act.
"(2) Upon enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall undertake and, after public hearings and within four months, complete an assessment of the probable effect of anticipated fuel shortages on the ability of sources to comply with State implementation plans to achieve the national ambient air quality standards within the deadlines established pursuant to this Act. Such report shall be submitted to the Congress and shall, if the Administrator determines that fuel shortages will interfere with the statutory deadlines, contain recommendations of changes in the Act which will accomplish the purpose of the Act in the most expeditious and practical manner."
SEC. 2. Subsection (a) of section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (84 Stat. 1681) is amended by adding the following new paragraph
"(5) Whenever the Administrator determines that a source or sources of pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards have been promulgated will not be able to comply with applicable emission limitations through the use of fuels because, in the determination of the President, such fuels are likely to be unavailable due to a continued shortage of fuels, he shall notify the State. If revisions of the implementation plan and local or state regulations necessary to insure the attainment of primary ambient air quality standards protective of public health as expeditiously as practicable are not submitted and approved by the Administrator within 120 days after such notice, the Administrator is authorized to require or promulgate legally enforceable compliance schedules for such source or sources, which schedules shall specify continuous emission reduction measures to be used to achieve compliance, interim steps of progress, and reasonable interim control measures to minimize the emissions of pollutants pending final compliance with applicable emission limitations. Actions taken under this paragraph shall be taken in accordance with procedures prescribed in this Act and shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with the Act; provided, however, that the final date for compliance for sources regulated under this section may not extend beyond July 1, 1977."
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation, which I support as a necessary measure at this time.
The President's speech Wednesday night dramatically highlighted the opportunities we have as a nation to meet the energy shortages this winter without undue hardship, if we cut back to the bone on unnecessary energy use. The President also recognized that meeting the energy shortage may require some modifications of some State implementation plans under the Clean Air Act.
This legislation would facilitate the procedures for modifying a State's implementation plan during a 6-month period to allow greater use of more abundant fuels, such as coal or higher sulfur petroleum products. The bill, of course, will prevent any changes that would present an "imminent and substantial endangerment" to public health. EPA would be directed to assess within 4 months the impact of such exceptions in terms of whether air quality standards can be met or whether further measures are needed.
The bill also would clarify the intent of the Congress regarding emission standards for individual stationary sources. It would allow the modification of implementation plans, over the long term, to allow the burning of coal so long as the source agrees to a timetable to install effective measures such as stack-gas cleaning equipment for operation by mid-1977.
I want to emphasize that the bill provides interim, short-term methods to be used in concert with other tools in expanding available energy supplies. It does not seek to abrogate our national commitment to clean air. The bill does not provide a way for sacrificing air quality in favor of adequate energy supplies. We can and shall have both.
As part of the Nation's largest industry, electric utilities must raise their spending on new technologies, including emissions control, to the level of such other major industrial sectors as the automobile and steel companies.
The Clean Air Act did not create the energy crisis, as some people may argue. There has been added demand for low sulfur petroleum products as a result of the act. But that demand was a function of the decisions by various industrial users, not any requirement of the act. The Environmental Protection Agency has demonstrated that effective control technology, within the definition of the law, exists to achieve effective emissions control without fuel switching.
But most users took the easier option of switching fuels. That private decision was the basis for the added demand, not any specific requirement in the law.
I believe that the electric power industry must accelerate consideration of the option of emission- reduction technology, rather than switching to low sulfur fuels.
In separate areas related to this bill, I am concerned that we not push full tilt into use of high- sulfur coal and unregulated strip mining. In those instances where stack-gas cleaning or other technological solutions are not preferable to fuel switching, we must guard against a complete switch to high-sulfur coal. There is a great deal of low-sulfur coal in the East, as well as the West. It is not being used fully because high-sulfur deposits are larger and easier to mine, and because coal users will not pay a premium for low-sulfur coal.
I am exploring alternatives to encourage the development and use of low-sulfur coal in those cases where stack gas cleaning cannot be used.
In addition, I encourage prompt action on the strip mining legislation which has passed the Senate and is pending in the House. This legislation will assure that strip mining pays its full environmental costs while giving the mining industry a uniform regulatory structure in which to operate.
Mr. President, because of the emergency nature of the energy situation, the Committee on Public Works will hold a hearing on Monday and will act immediately to report this bill. I look forward to receiving the views of the administration and the public on the proposal.
I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water, Mr. MUSKIE, for his leadership in developing the reasonable approach contained in this legislation.
I would also point out that nearly all members of the Committee on Public Works, including the chairman, Mr. RANDOLPH, and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, Mr. BUCKLEY, have united behind this bill.
Mr McCLURE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Maine for the legislation he has introduced, which legislation I have joined in sponsoring. That legislation addresses the question of the energy crisis in a way which will have as little as possible adverse effect on the environment as we can contrive.
One of the difficulties we have in dealing with the situation that has emerged is a difficulty that has been all too familiar to me for too long now. That is the extremely difficult task of convincing the people of this country that we are in a crisis that is not a crisis which has emerged without warning. It is not a crisis that was without its predictability.
Last April 26 in Boise, Idaho, I gave a speech to an energy symposium dealing with some of the things that I thought it might be possible to do at that time to deal with the emerging energy crisis. I would like to make some reference to that speech.
I made some suggestions about some simple, volunteer efforts such as turning down the heating system in the winter, turning up the air-conditioning system in the summer, buying smaller automobiles and driving them easier. I suggested that we might reduce airline flights and introduce a national automobile speed law of 50 miles an hour.
I proposed some other things which might be difficult, but which might be done, such as relaxing air quality standards for sulfur on a temporary basis, not on a permanent or uncalled for basis, but a very carefully and very prudently drafted one.
Mr. President, that is what the legislation being introduced by the Senator from Maine, myself, and others seeks to do.
I suggested that we reduce the obstacles confronting nuclear powerplants. I pointed out a harsh statistic that is inescapable. To replace a single 1,000-megawatt nuclear powerplant requires the burning of about 1 million barrels of oil each month. We might do that without any threat to our population, and we should do so.
Mr. President, I ended that speech at that time with a quotation from a speech given by former Secretary of the Interior Wally Hickel at Geneva, Switzerland, last spring. He said:
Show me any area in the world where there is a shortage of energy, and I'll show you basic poverty.
I concluded that speech by saying:
And that is what it is all about – do we want to maintain and improve the standard of living for all Americans, do we want to have available the energy and resources necessary to carry out our national goals and policies, do we want to provide the basis on which future generations may enjoy the benefits and opportunities which we have had? I believe the answer of most Americans is "yes."
Mr. President, this proposal – which I am proud to join in cosponsoring – will give us the capacity to respond in a very real way at this time to a crisis that will be upon us more quickly and more harshly than most Americans now realize.
I also serve on the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee which is now sitting in a markup session of emergency legislation dealing with the energy crisis. I am pleased to be able to cosponsor this measure which will go through the Senate Committee on Public Works. It deals with amendments to the Clean Air Act so that we can deal with this crisis in a national way.
I am glad to see that some of the suggestions which have been made and which have now been called for by the President of the United States will be included in a crisis plan to alleviate the very stringent effects upon our life and economy of a dwindling energy supply.
I am sorry that it has taken so long to do this. The crisis would not have been so deep if we had acted sooner.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be printed at this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without objection, it is so ordered.
There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SENATOR JAMES A, MCCLURE, IDAHO: "THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS ROLE IN THE ENERGY CRISIS"
CONCLUSION
Of course, when we blame the government for anything, we have to be indirectly blaming ourselves.
But, if the government is mainly responsible for getting us into an energy crisis, why can't government get us out? The answer is, of course, it can. And this brings me to the third question, "What do we do now?" To answer this, I will have to divide the future into four time periods. Each period has its own particular demands and solutions.
Let us start with the most distant time period – the 21st century. Hopefully by then we will have developed the new sources of energy which our R&D is now working on. A possible energy mix would be fusion reactors, solar-powered energy generators, and hydrogen-fueled engines and space heaters. Government can contribute to this effort through continued R&D funding, and appropriate tax provisions, but the major effort will have to come from private individuals and companies.
The false hopes of nuclear energy should have taught us that a government-controlled effort cannot produce an economically feasible, as well as technically-feasible, end product. These systems will have to prove themselves in the market-place if they are to meet future energy needs.
Moving closer to the present, we can consider the period of 1985 to the year 2000. During this period, fast breeder reactors should begin to operate, providing more fuel than they consume. Coal gasification and liquefaction and shale oil should become commercially-producing technologies, and supplemental techniques for energy production should be developed, such as geothermal and magnetohydrodynamics. Here again, government R&D funding and tax advantages will be essential, but with one additional requirement – access to Federal lands. It is not too early now to begin the analysis required so that that access will be available when it is required, so that the questions of environmental protection and public property use will have been answered to the satisfaction of all concerned. One point to remember, though, is that we will continue to rely on fossil fuels for as much as 70 percent of our energy up to the year 2000.
Our next time period, though, has more specific demands – the time between 1975 and 1985. By then, increased exploration and development in offshore lands and other more difficult locations should begin to produce fields of oil and natural gas. The Alaskan pipeline could be providing upwards of 2 million barrels per day. New technology for removal of sulphur from coal and sulphur dioxide from exhaust gases should be proven and available, and solutions to the problems of surface mining and underground mining will have been found. One definite requirement during this period, however, is the operation of nuclear power plants, presently being planned or under construction. And also during this decade we will begin to obtain savings from improved building installation and construction, assuming that the present efforts in that direction continue.
We realize, of course, that none of these energy sources, or savings will become available automatically. They will all require the expenditures of literally billions of dollars, both through government taxes, direct industry outays, and through the consumer's pocket. But the government's role is primarily one of staying out of the way. Seeing to it, in other words, that the road is not blocked by shortsighted or unreasonable policies and regulations. If the demand for energy is there, as we certainly expect it to be, then there will be someone who will fill it if allowed.
And that brings me to the most difficult period – from April 26, 1973, to 1975. The future energy pictures that I have drawn depend heavily on this brief time. It takes energy to produce energy. Or, it takes the R&D funds produced by energy-consuming individuals and enterprises in order to build the energy systems of the future.
For this immediate period facing us, there are some simple, voluntary efforts which would definitely help. They are so simple, and so often stated, that I hesitate to mention them. But, for the sake of completeness, I will.
They include turning up your air conditioning in the summer, turning down your heating system in the winter, turning off unused lighting, buying appliances based more on efficiency of energy use rather than initial price, and buying smaller automobiles (and driving them easier). In other words, develop an energy consciousness, that will be reflected in our actions involving energy use.
Moving up the scale slightly, there are some actions which help save energy with minimum inconvenience, but would require government action. Included would be:
1. Reduce airline flights.
2. Open up urban express lanes for commuter traffic using carpools.
3. Impose a nationwide maximum speed limit of 50 miles per hour.
These all would help, but the major solutions to our present situation will require much more controversial and difficult actions by government. Let's take them one at a time.
First, relax air quality standards for sulphur.
This is obviously something that no one wants to do. But, at the same time, it has become obvious that some government bodies have gone to extremes with sulphur standards. Fortunately, there is some growing realization of this, such as the recent decision by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission to grant Union Electric Company permission to continue using high-sulphur coal for one year. Similarly, during the fuel oil shortage last winter, cities such as New York and Boston decided to relax sulphur standards. And, mine workers in Illinois have petitioned the state legislature to delay implementation of the state's air pollution standards.
What we are faced with is the necessity to relax, temporarily, standards in order to give technology and new fuel supplies time to catch up.
In fact, when Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, we specifically did not impose a time limit for imposition of secondary air quality standards. We required only that each state implementation plan specify a reasonable time at which such secondary standards be attained.
Relaxed standards would accomplish several worthwhile objectives. First, it would allow substitution of coal for oil and natural gas in some electric power plant boilers. Second, it would allow the use of residual fuel oils with higher sulphur content. Higher, not high. In other words, 1% or 0.7 % instead of 0.2%. And third, this would stop the wasting of No. 2 home heating oil as either a blender with No. 6 or as a direct substitute.
Alternatives to this type of relaxation include the recent agreements by two U.S. companies to import low-sulphur coal into the East Coast. Where will this coal come from? Poland, believe it or not. At a time when our domestic coal miners and mines are facing continuing shutdowns and layoffs, we're going to buy coal from Poland.
A second remedy to our short-term shortage would be to remove the obstacles presently confronting nuclear power plants. Some of these plants were scheduled for operation by this summer, but will be delayed because of prolonged regulatory procedures and/or legal challenges. Not only do these delays increase the threat of power blackouts for this summer, they impose an additional burden on oil supplies. To replace a single 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant requires the burning of about one million barrels of oil each month. In addition, other plants which are operating have been forced to generate electric energy below their rated capacity. While in some cases such down rating is necessary for safety or health reasons, in view of our present crisis we should determine where increased output could be allowed, without threats to our population, thereby gaining the fuel savings (and increased electric power reliability) which would result from such increases. These obstacles to operation were placed by the government – including the Congress, the Administration, and the Courts. If the public wants them removed, then they can be removed.
In addition, there is a third way to help relieve this short-term energy crisis. It is, however, one that no person in political life today wants even to think about – higher prices. But, by preventing price increases, are we really protecting the consumer? Look at natural gas, for instance. By artificial price ceilings, combined with other regulatory excesses, the government has created a shortage of natural gas. It has now reached the point where we will be buying increased quantities of liquefied natural gas – LNG – from countries such as Algeria for prices anywhere from two to three times greater than what American producers are allowed to sell their gas for. In other words, short-ranged political thinking has resulted in both shortages and higher prices.
Continued price controls on oil will have the same result.
For instance, due to the gasoline shortage, American suppliers now have to buy in the European marketplace. As should be expected. prices have soared – almost doubled in some cases. As just one example, a recent purchase of imported gasoline cost the U.S. company 20 cents per gallon. Under price ceiling restrictions, it was able to sell that gasoline for only 15 cents, thereby losing a nickel on each gallon. Does anyone honestly expect U.S. companies to continue searching for available stocks in Europe, so that they can lose half a million dollars on each cargo? And, now that we are dependent on imported crude oil, we will surely see continued price increases there, also.
I have not presented a very pleasant picture here this evening. The extent, consequences, and solutions of our energy crisis are distasteful to me and I am sure to you. But, if we do not act now, the results will be more than "distasteful." I believe that Wally Nickel, past Secretary of the Interior, expressed very well the significance of energy during his speech in Geneva, Switzerland, this month, by saying:
"Show me any area in the world where there is a shortage of energy, and I'll show you basic poverty."
And that is what it is all about – do we want to maintain and improve the standard of living for all Americans, do we want to have available the energy and resources necessary to carry out our national goals and policies, do we want to provide the basis on which future generations may enjoy the benefits and opportunities which we have had? I believe the answer of most Americans is “yes.”
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I, too, would like to address my remarks to the energy crisis.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the President finally has acknowledged the energy problems facing this country and at last is proposing steps to deal with them. Even so, I believe he grossly understated the seriousness of the situation and the sacrifices that lie ahead.
Unfortunately, the President could not resist his old habit of shifting blame for his failures to other shoulders. His criticism of Congress in this regard was an attempt to mislead the American people and I think they should know the facts.
They should know, for instance, that much of what the President is now proposing could have been done – and should have been done – 6 months ago under an amendment I authored to the Economic Stabilization Act. That amendment gave the President full authority to allocate fuels equitably and gave him unrestricted authority to do whatever he had to do to be sure that people had heat for their homes, farmers could continue to produce food and vital industries could continue to operate.
The administration actively opposed my amendment and even threatened to veto the act, because it contained the amendment. After the bill passed Congress April 30 by overwhelming majorities in both Houses, the President went ahead and signed it. So the Eagleton amendment became law. Their position was that they would just simply refuse to implement the provisions of my amendment.
They said we did not need a program for assuring a fair and equitable distribution of fuel – that we did not need to be worried about establishing priorities for the use of fuel. Administration spokesmen insisted that any fuel shortages which might develop would be temporary and local in nature.
There was a continued stream of statements from the administration to that effect.
That was the same line used when serious heating fuel shortages first hit the Midwest and New England last winter. Despite urgent appeals from Congress and the recommendations of his own task force on oil import quotas, the President refused to permit more oil to come into this country until so many homes and schools were without heat and so many businesses shut down that a national emergency was threatened.
Despite that brush with disaster and the subsequent warnings of energy experts that the situation for the future was precarious, the administration continued to ignore the problem and to oppose legislation meant to deal with it. The problem would go away, we were assured; there was no energy crisis. The administration obstinately refused to implement the provisions of my fuel allocation amendment for a mandatory program until events forced their hand just a few weeks ago. Bear in mind this became law on April 30 of this year. And it was not until a few weeks ago that they began the very first vestige of implementation of this amendment. Even so, the program is so poorly administered that thousands of families and businesses throughout my State are still unable to obtain fuel. I daresay the situation is quite similar in the State of the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Iowa (Mr. CLARK).
I want to repeat that a great many of the actions now being proposed by the President could have been taken 6 months ago under the broad grant of authority provided by my fuel allocation amendment.
For example, here is what could have been done, under that amendment 6 months ago.
The President clearly could have ordered reductions in airline flights and unnecessary travel by other carriers. He did not do so.
The President could have brought about a reduction in business hours by assigning nonessential business use of fuel a bottom priority. He did not do so.
He could have ordered a Federal program for conserving fuel and even a system of rationing if that was necessary. But he did not choose to do so.
To be sure, some of the President's proposals will require new legislation, such as a year-long daylight savings time. But he should have asked for that a year ago. Other proposals such as his call for a crash research and development program have been pending in Congress for months but have been stalled, because of administration opposition.
As it is, Mr. President, the administration's actions may have come too late to avoid serious hardships this winter. There is considerable doubt, for instance, that coal producers can mine and deliver sufficient fuel to utility companies to allow conversion of their plants from fuel oil before next spring.
The effectiveness of a voluntary conservation program is also in doubt and it may be too late to put together an effectively administered mandatory program.
Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about the sharp disparities in fuel supply that exist among regions of this country. Unless immediate steps are taken to correct the problem, the brunt of the President's proposed cutbacks will fall on the Midwest and New England. It is one thing to reduce fuel oil by 15 percent in an area that has relative abundance such as some of the Gulf States. But it is entirely another thing to require such a cutback in an area like the Midwest which is already critically short. Such action could invite disaster. The situation is particularly serious in view of predictions by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that we face an exceptionally cold winter this year. Not that these predictions are always uniformly accurate, and let us pray that this one is not; but it is their presumption that this winter is going to be an exceptionally severe one, thereby exacerbating and intensifying the already severe shortages which we face.
Thus the deck is stacked against the Midwest and New England, and there is nothing in the President's proposals which would assure a fair deal for those areas. Once again, the authority to provide for fair and equitable distribution of fuels among all sections of the country is already on the books in the form of the Eagleton amendment, but I question whether any effective action will be taken unless all discretion is removed from the administration. I intend to offer an amendment to do just that.
Finally, Mr. President, this country faces serious social and economic hardships unless we can move quickly to deal with our energy shortage. This problem did not begin with the Arab boycott of oil and it will not end with a relaxation of that boycott. It is a challenge that will be before us for years to come, and I believe it is time the administration faced up to its failure and began to exercise responsible leadership.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I am joining Senator MUSKIE today in introducing a bill which will enable the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to grant specific and restricted variances from provisions of the Clean Air Act to help us through this energy crisis. But the legislation also will insure that these variances do not subvert the national clean air goal.
Environmental regulations and environmental protection did not create the energy crisis, nor are they creating undue hardships right now.
Because much of this country's high sulfur oil has come from the Mideast, the Arab oil cutoff means we will have to use a higher percentage of low sulfur oil this winter. But in cases where the use of coal is possible – either through present coal burning processes or conversion – the authorization of variances may permit the use of available high-sulfur coal – and thus ease shortages.
The Federal Power Commission has indicated that powerplant conversion from oil to coal could reduce demand for petroleum products by 2.5 percent in 1 year. Certainly, our greatest potential domestic source of energy in the next few decades is coal, and an increased use of coal is going to be necessary. A temporary relaxation of clean air regulations will make the conversion process easier. But conversion to coal does not and must not represent the end of this country's commitment to clean air. The technology is available to clean up the coal burning process and, for any long-term use of high-sulfur coal, utilities must put that technology into operation. The bill being introduced today 'makes immediate conversion possible, but it must be emphasized that permanent conversion will be acceptable only if available cleanup technology is employed.
Giving this flexibility to the Clean Air Act should increase this country's capacity to insure that this winter is only uncomfortable – not unbearable. We must use effectively the resources we have – but we cannot destroy our other limited resources. We all must make sacrifices to cushion the country from the most severe and detrimental effects of the energy shortage we face – but those sacrifices cannot be unbalanced or permanent, or their long-term effects could be as severe as the effects of today's energy emergency.