gjg HISTORY (il 1 Ml COMMITTEE ON SCIENC1 kND TECHNOLOGY 



\\ hai started as a $6 billion loan guarantee program had now escalated to a $11.1 

 billion program, including price supports and construction grants. 



Five minutes before the start of the October 30 hearing, Dr. Seamans came in 

 with a 4-page, single-spaced letter, offering a "major new amendment" to provide 

 $410 million ot assistance to communities affected by the new plants. This new amend- 

 ment deserved to be analyzed 



Insufficient attention to the "boom-town" impact ot sudden new expansion ol 

 isolated areas where the huge plants, and big big mllux ot population was 

 contemplated. 



Governors and local communities had not been consulted about the impact in 

 their areas 



Little consideration ot diversion ot huge amounts ot water from agriculture and 

 other needs in areas where plants were planned. 



Environmental effects of the plants not carefully assessed. 



Diversion ot capital from housing and other necessary programs 



Protecting large energy companies against risks, but doing little to protect 

 people against human risks, all at public expense. 



Synthetic fuels to meet national energy needs required, and the way to speed up 

 production of synthetic fuels can better be done through any of three constructive 

 alternatives: 



(1) Immediate establishment of a program similar to the synthetic rubber 

 mi so successfully carried out in World War II, whereby the Federal Govern- 

 ment supervised the construction of the plants, pooled the patents developed, 

 and did the job like the Manhattan Project or Apollo program 



(2) Establishment ot a National Energy Production Board, similar to the 

 World War II War Production Board, which could control the development of 

 synthetic fuels in the public interest, instead ot turning tax funds over to those 

 big energy companies which would use them to amass profits at public expense. 



(3) A massive expansion of the controlled ERDA effort, with proper anti- 

 trust and windfall profits legislation, to carry demonstration plants one step 

 farther toward commercialization. 



McCorrnack responded: 



Loan guarantees are not radically new in the energy held; the committee and 

 t i ingress already wrote them into the solar, geothermal and electric vehicle acts. 



We must act now. The $6 billion loan guarantee program was dropped into our 

 lap like a fumble in a football game where we found we are on the defensive team. 

 The ball is bouncing around. The question is to pounce on it or not * * *. Earlier 

 this \ear, the President criticized Congress, saying we were chicken on energy. I say 

 that is unfair Now, it wouldn't be if we dropped the ball on the $6 billion. 



We have to get at the business of building demonstration programs. We have to 

 face the tact they will cost a lot of money. The moncv is inn out there unless there is 

 some sort ot guarantee. 



Perhaps it has a lot of bugs in it or some omissions. It is a vehicle that we prob- 

 ably would not have again, it it is dropped, lr is highly unlikely that similar legis- 

 lation could be enacted in this Congress because of the jurisdictional Struggles and 

 other political problems that would come up. 



This is nor an impetuous act. This committee has enacted legislation of more far- 

 reaching, profound impact on this country in much shorter tune and with much 

 fewer hearings The subject has had intense studv by the two subcommittees. 



