ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

PUBLIC LAW 96-294-JUNE 30, 1980

(b) Upon introduction, the concurrent resolution shall be referred immediately to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the appropriate committee or committees of the House of Representatives.

(c) For the purpose of subsection (a)(1) of this section

(1) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment of Congress sine die at the end of the second session of a Congress; and

(2) the days on which either House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain are excluded in the computation of the calendar day period involved. (d) This subsection is enacted by Congress

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of resolutions described by subsection (e) of this section; and it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent therewith; and

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the respective House. (e) The concurrent resolution approving the amendment under this part shall read as follows after the resolving clause: "That the Congress of the United States approves the amendment to the comprehensive strategy submitted to the Congress by the United States Synthetic Fuels Corporation on the blank space therein being filled with the date and the year.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(f)1) If any committee to which such concurrent resolution with respect to the amendment to the comprehensive strategy has been referred has not reported it at the end of 60 calendar days after its referral, it shall be in order to move either to discharge any such committee from further consideration of such concurrent resolution or to discharge any such committee from further consideration of any other concurrent resolution with respect to such amendment to the comprehensive strategy which has been referred to such committee. (2) A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual favoring such concurrent resolution, shall be highly privileged (except that it may not be made after all committees to which such joint resolution has been referred have reported a concurrent resolution with respect to the request), and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the concurrent resolution. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or disagreed

to.

(3) If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed to, the motion may not be renewed, nor may another motion to discharge the committee be made with respect to any other concurrent resolution with respect to the same amendment to the comprehensive strategy. (gX1) When all such committees have reported (or have been discharged from further consideration of) a concurrent resolution, it shall be at any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of such a concurrent resolution. The motion shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable. An amendment to the

94 STAT. 653

94 STAT. 654

Debate, time limitation.

Appeals.

PUBLIC LAW 96-294-JUNE 30, 1980

motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or disagreed to.

(2) Debate on the concurrent resolution shall be limited to not more than 5 hours and final action on the concurrent resolution shall occur immediately following conclusion of such debate. The 5 hours shall be equally divided between supporters and opponents of such resolution. A motion further to limit debate shall not be debatable. Except to the extent provided in subsection (i), an amendment to, or motion to recommit such a concurrent resolution shall not be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which such a concurrent resolution was agreed to or disagreed to.

(h)(1) Motions to postpone, made with respect to the discharge from committee, or the consideration of a concurrent resolution, shall be decided without debate.

(2) Appeals from the decision of the Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedures relating to a concurrent resolution shall be decided without debate.

(i) With respect to a concurrent resolution related to an amendment to the comprehensive strategy, if one House receives from the other House a concurrent resolution with respect to such amendment, then the following procedure applies:

(1) the concurrent resolution of the other House with respect to such request shall not be referred to a committee; and

(2) in the case of a concurrent resolution of the first House with respect to such request

(A) the procedure with respect to that or other concurrent resolutions of such House with respect to such amendment shall be the same as if no concurrent resolution from the other House with respect to such request had been received; but

(B) on any vote on final passage of a concurrent resolution of the first House with respect to such amendment a concurrent resolution from the other House with respect to such plan where the text is identical shall be automatically substituted for the concurrent resolution of the first House.

[From the New York Times, June 22, 1981]

SYNTHETIC FUEL CHIEF DOUBTS GAS NEED

(By Robert D. Hershey Jr.)

WASHINGTON, June 21.-The chairman of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation has expressed strong doubts about the need for plants that produce natural gas, raising new fears that the Government may reduce its support for the fledgling industry. Edward E. Noble, who took office a month ago, met last week with officials of the American Natural Resources Company, which is now building the Great Plains Coal Gasification project in North Dakota. He told them that he was concerned that the gas from what would be the nation's first modern-day commerical synthetic fuels plant would cost too much and might not be needed.

Mr. Noble would not comment directly on accounts of these talks but they were confirmed by a spokesman for the Synthetic Fuels Corporation.

"Right now he's got real serious questions about it," the spokesman declared.

REPORT SAID TO URGE TERMINATION

Mr. Noble's objections might not be sufficient to kill the Great Plains project, on which work began last summer, since the necessary Federal loan guarantee of up to $3.02 billion could be provided by the Department of Energy.

But they were regarded by Congressional and other sources as evidence that Mr. Noble may be moving aggressively to severely limit overall Government support for synthetic fuels.

Mr. Noble was the Oklahoma businessman who led the Reagan administration's transition team for synthetic fuels, whose report is said to have recommended that the corporation be terminated.

The Synthetic Fuels Corporation was created under a law signed by President Carter last June. It was intended to spur creation of an industry that could produce the synthetic fuels equivalent of 500,000 barrels of oil a day by 1987.

It has gotten off to a very slow start, however, and the oil surplus that emerged this spring has now further reduced the sense of urgency that once surrounded the synthetic fuels goals.

Some Congressional sources say that they think Mr. Noble, in seeking to affect a project like Great Plains that does not, and might never, come under his jurisdiction, is on a "mission" to carry out the recommendations of the transition team. "He's parachuting into the stadium and saying 'stop the game,' asserted. "It's quite offensive."

SUPPORTERS MOUNT DEFENSE

one staff aide

When asked about this, the corporation's spokesman said, "It is true that it is his goal to get the job done and go out of business," But he added that if this were taken to mean this would be done in, say, six months or a year, that would be "an inaccurate interpretation."

Meanwhile, political supporters of synthetic fuels have mounted a defense centered on the confirmation proceedings for Synthetic Fuel Corporation board members.

Mr. Noble is said to have been pushing to have the White House declare his body fully operational, despite the fact that the other six board members are not yet in place. President Reagan has named five candidates but their formal nominations have not yet reached the Senate.

According to a source involved in the confirmation process, James A. McClure, the Idaho Republican who heads the Senate Energy Committee, has told the Administration that the committee was in effect holding the rest of the board hostage until agreement on corporation policy can be reached.

Among the prospective board members are Victor A. Schroeder, one of Mr. Noble's best friends, and V. M. Thompson Jr., his banker.

The problem-plagued Great Plains project, for which planning began in the early 1970's, now appears to be the vehicle for a showdown over policy.

Department of Energy approval of the Great Plains loan guarantee, which Energy Secretary James B. Edwards has repeatedly said he supported, would be regarded by many as a rebuke to Mr. Noble. Senior presidential aides are said to have told Mr. Edwards the decision is his.

D.O.E. MIGHT ADMINISTER

If granted, the loan guarantee would probably remain within the department to be administered, since it could not be transferred to the Synthetic Fuels Corporation unless the corporation voted to accept the project for its portfolio.

American Natural Resources, caught in the political crossfire, now says that unless the guarantee is approved soon it might have to scrub the project in which it has $65 million already at risk.

"After nine years of effort we have finally reached the starting gate," a company spokesman said late last week. But a decision has to be made by month's end, he indicated, if another building season is not to slip by, thereby escalating costs still further.

"It's not a matter of weeks anymore," said the spokesman for American Natural Resources, which has set similar deadlines on previous occasions. "We're talking about days."

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 19, 1981]

U.S. READIES GRANTS TO SYNFUELS PROJECTS AMID FEARS PROGRAM IS BEING

DEMOTED

(By Rich Jaroslovsky)

WASHINGTON.—The government's synthetic-fuels program is off and crawling. The Reagan administration is expected soon to announce agreements giving federal aid to two or three big synfuels projects, and a bit later the new U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corp. will be declared officially in business. But synfuels proponents fear that, despite such announcements, the administration is demoting the program to a low priority.

President Reagan has never been very enthusiastic about the synfuels program, but his administration doesn't seem to care enough to make the political effort to kill it. Instead, the administration seems content to move as slowly and cautiously as possible both to gear up the program and to support new synfuels projects and technologies.

As a result, observers, say, the program is likely never to match the once-massive expectations for it-unless events once again force it to the forefront of energy policy, or unless its so far low-key new leadership proves unexpectedly dynamic.

Once billed as the nation's biggest under taking since the Apollo moonshot, the synfuels program has already lagged badly. Two years after the House vote that started the synfuels bandwagon, and a full year after President Carter signed it into law, it has made little, if any, headway toward its stated goal of helping free the nation from reliance on foreign oil. Its original targets-of overseeing production of enough synthetics to replace 500,000 barrels of oil a day by 1987 and two million barrels by 1992-are dismissed as unattainable even by its supporters.

DIFFERENT CLIMATE

"I don't see how anyone can conclude anything but that synthetic fuels have been set back," says Michael Koleda, executive director of the National Council on Synthetic Fuels Production, a trade association. "It's a dramatically different climate than it was a year ago, or even eight months ago.'

[ocr errors]

A number of factors have contributed to the change. One is the election of Ronald Reagan; with his free-market, anit-big-goverment orientation, he and his advisers are suspicious of a $17 billion program to provide government incentives to private industry. Another factor is the current glut and price weakness of crude oil, which calls into question some of the economic and national-security assumptions on which the synfuels program was based. Still another factor is the continuing turmoil and disarray within the program itself; though it still hasn't been formally declared "operational" by the President, the government-chartered Synthetic Fuels Corp. is already on its third boss.

"We're in danger" of running out of steam to power the synfuels effort, argues former Rep. William Moorhead, the Pennsylvania Democrat who was as responsible as anyone for getting the program started in the first place.

What has happened to the synfuels program says a good deal about how times have changed since its inception in the midst of the spring 1979 gasoline lines triggered by the Iranian revolution. Back then, the political heat was on: angry constituents were demanding action from their elected representatives to remedy the

nation's all-too-obvious energy ills. In that charged atmosphere, Mr. Moorhead offered a measure to expand vastly the government's formerly desultory involvement in encouraging the production of oil and gas from coal, shale and other unconventional sources.

FAST ACTION

The Moorhead proposal was in the right place at the right time. It roared through the House almost without debate or opposition. The Carter administration then jumped aboard, elaborating and expanding the notion into the multibillion-dollar Synthetic Fuels Corp. After much political wrangling, the program finally cleared Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Carter last June 30.

The Reagan administration's attitude, though, has been less than enthusiastic. In its budget-cutting, the new administration moved to kill or cut back several projects that had been sponsored by the Energy Department. President Reagan resisted the urge to slash at the fledgling corporation, but sacked its Carter-appointed chairman and board of directors, then let it drift aimlessly for months under an acting chairman before naming Edward Noble, a Tulsa oilman, to run it. Since he was confirmed by the Senate May 26, several top officials have departed, voluntarily or otherwise; Mr. Noble, meanwhile, has said little about his plans to either industry or the public. (He declined to be interviewed for this story because, an aide says, he is still learning the ropes at the corporation.)

The administration continues to say, although quietly, that it supports the federal synfuels effort. "We think this (the corporation) is the way to go," insists one White House energy official. The pending contract awards and official start-up of the corporation could generate a flurry of favorable publicity for the administration.

Still, skepticism in Washington and in the industry runs high. "I don't think there's any commitment" to the program by the administration, one industry official asserts. Even if the corporation isn't gutted, he predicts, its Reagan-appointed leadership will back fewer projects, operate on a slower timetable and stick closer to already-known technologies. The result, he suggests, is that smaller companies and those with untried technologies may be increasingly squeezed out by those that least need government help but stand the best chance of getting it: major corporations.

BIGGEST IMPONDERABLE

The biggest imponderable for the program's future, however, is clearly out of the new corporation's hands: What happens to the price and supply of other, competing sources of energy? The push for synfuels sprang from the gasoline lines of 1979 and the subsequent doubling of world oil prices. Now, with prices soft and supplies plentiful, industry officials acknowledge that a number of companies are having second thoughts about beginning costly synfuels projects. The industry that seemed to be taking off even ahead of the government program may be returning to earth a bit. With the economic situation, environmental problems and the administration's lukewarm attitude, a few projects have already run into trouble. Conoco Inc. recently pulled out of a coal-gasification facility; a Gulf Oil Corp. plan to build an oil-fromcoal plant, which was to be financed by the U.S. Japanese and West Germany governments, is on the ropes.

But many other projects are proceeding out of a belief that energy prices will still be high enough in the future to make synfuels viable. The current oil-pricing disarray may prove temporary, synfuels backers say. Or the U.S. may further deregulate natural gas, sending prices spiraling upward. Or the Mideast may erupt again, recreating the economic and political pressures that gave birth to the synfuels push in the first place.

Former Rep. Moorhead, who is practicing law in the synfuels area, recalls that twice before-in 1944 and 1952-the government and the country took some tenative steps toward encouraging a synfuels industry only to lose interest. "If we repeat again our 1944 and 1952 mistakes," he warns, "we'll live to regret it in 1986."

[From Harper's, August 1983]

NOBLE ENDEAVOR

(By Eric Schine)

For almost an hour, Edward Noble, wealthy Oklahoma oil heir and head of the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation (SFC), squirms and shifts on what looks like a per

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »