This may not appeal to you so much, in view of your experiences as a Governor, as well as a Member of the Senate. But, it seems to me, without in anyway suggesting this would be true of any person now holding office as Governor, it would not be a good idea in matters of this consequence, to let a single man in power at a single time, have this decision as to a matter that will go on, and on. The decision, once taken, may have consequences for a long, long time to come. All of these considerations I lay before you for your consideration.

If there are other matters and methods by which this kind of check can be obtained, I would be the first to suggest that you probably will be ingenious enough to provide a solution to this problem far more effective than mine, without any of the difficulties which you properly raise.

I would welcome it and support it. My point is to raise it, to suggest that we as members of Congress from particular States, ought to have a strong voice in decisions of this kind, and I can think at the moment of no way we could do it except by requiring congressional approval, in which the Members of Congress from a particular State would undoubtedly be followed by the Congress as a whole.

Those are some rather hastily-sketched-out reasons that I have been resolving in my mind as I have thought about this problem for a considerable time.

Senator HOLLINGS. These superports affect not only the State that it would be offshore from, but the rest of the country.

Senator CASE. It would indeed.

Senator HOLLINGS. And we did not follow Senator Magnuson and Senator Jackson on the SST?

Senator CASE. We did not. But, they were seeking Federal assistance for a program that would benefit their State which we decided would not be in the national interest. You would have to reverse the situation if you want to make that analogy, Mr. Chairman. Here we are talking about imposing a project on a State against its will. Of course, any overriding national interest could always take precedence and that is why congress should make the decision.

Senator HOLLINGS. And one other thing, in your statment you mentioned energy policy. Really, Congress ought to set one. But do you think there is any chance in the world for Congress itself to actually set national energy policy for this Government? There are so many crosscurrents of committees, agencies, and departments.

Senator CASE. Just the other day, I appeared on this same matter in another context before the Public Works Committee. At that time, Senator Randolph made clear his concern about this and his determination to deal with this problem in his capacity as chairman of that committee.

I think we can. This has not particularly been my field, but I cannot imagine a sound decision being made in any other way than by Congress. We need all of the resources of advice available to the executive branch. They are equally available to us.

I am bold enough to suggest that the collective judgment of the Congress is as good as that of the executive branch. And I think,

far more representative and probably sounder in the long run as matters of this kind. To say it another way, it should be a joint decision, but we should have a very affirmative input into the decision. Senator HOLLINGS. This kind of joint decision, of couse, is called for in S. 870, a bill to establish a national energy policy council within the White House, and confirmed by the Senate. It would create a three-man group to correlate all of the information, coordinate the various departments and promulgate an energy plan with continuous updating.

How do we get it through the Congress? Everybody is still studying it and there are 18 different committees around here which can diffuse the whole thing. Then there's the President, and he has his Sunday energy council, Dr. Kissinger, Mr. Ehrlichman, and Secretary Shultz. I doubt if they can meet each other during the week. Maybe they can get together on Sunday, and as we see that, even Dr. Kissinger is on his way out, he says, after a little while; and Mr. Shultz is trying his best to, you know, determine whether to devalue a third time or not, or whatever else, and then they hire a fellow from Princeton and we are going to have an energy message. But, does it really give us an energy policy?

Senator CASE. No, it does not protect the country, necessarily.
Senator HOLLINGS. That is right.

Senator CASE. And, this again, the whole question is a matter that ultimately is going to be decided by the people and it should be.

And I think that the people are going to have to decide in a very broad way the extent to which, if at all, we should restrain our use of energy and in what forms, and what energy sources should be explored.

The vital questions of self-reliance as opposed to reliance on other countries, and the implication of that for foreign policy, for national security. All of these questions are questions which

Senator HOLLINGS. That would be the case with the superport bill. Suppose we put in a bill to approve a superport off the coast of New Jersey just beyond the 3-mile limit. The Commerce Department, with international trade interests, NOAA, with Coastal Zone planning and otherwise, must be in on the act. Interior would want to be in on it.

Senator CASE. They should be.

Senator HOLLINGS. Public Works, they would want to be heard on it. The Treasury Department, with foreign investment credits and royalties and tax payments and how imports would affect quotas. We would be referring that bill around the Congress for 2 years, and another series would have to start all over again, on just one superport bill.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing sacred about the ancient ways. This could be heard simultaneously by many committees, and they could all put an input in within a limited period. And the possibility of joint hearings by a number of committees on a particular facility could be held.

My own particular solution is not a matter in which I have pride of authorship, undue pride, and if there are better ways to meet this problem than as suggested in my bill, I would be the first, I hope, to recognize and support it.

I cannot imagine anyone who might have a better chance of providing that than the chairman presiding at this session.

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, we appreciate the thought, and attention you have given, Senator Case, to the entire matter, and the vital interst that New Jersey has in it.

Senator CASE. We do indeed. I cannot emphasize that too much.

Senator HOLLINGS. That is right. So, you are welcome to sit with the committee as you can find time. I know you have so many other commitments, but we do appreciate your contribution here this morning.

Senator CASE. The chairman is most generous, as well as enormously able, in handling this particular matter, and all matters that come before him.

I wish I could stay; I am supposed to be listening to Secretary Rogers at this moment, and I better get back to that.

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you very much, for coming and being with us.

The committee will next hear from Senator Roth, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, who is just as vitally involved.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM
DELAWARE

Senator ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HOLLINGS. We welcome you here.

What would you think of Congress passing a law on each proposed superport. Do you think it would be a good idea, before one could be constructed, for Congress to pass a law approving its construction?

Senator ROTH. Let me answer you this way: I have, as you know, sponsored legislation to give the Governors a veto power in such

matters.

This is a matter, as you say, of tremendous interest to Delaware, which passed legislation protecting its coastal areas, legislation which I very strongly supported.

I'm in the process now of drafting further legislation in this area that we are going to submit at a later date.

What we are considering now are two modifications over this earlier legislation. One goes to the heart of what you are talking about. So let me spell it out.

at

I feel that in addition to giving the Governor the veto power the State level it ought to be broader. We ought to give that authority to the general assembly as well. So we are going to introduce legislation that will give the veto power to both the general assembly and the Governor.

A second part of the proposal we are considering at least this is our current thinking-is that in the event no State is willing to have superports and this possibility has been raised in other hearings, as I am sure you are aware that there be a "snapback" to the Congress, so Congress could consider the whole situation.

But, to answer you directly, I would not suggest that Congress consider each and every superport proposal.

Senator HOLLINGS. What are the conditions for this snapback procedure to the Congress?

Senator ROTH. That every coastal State vetoed the construction of a superport.

Senator HOLLINGS. So if the State refused, then it would come back to the Congress which would have to override the State before one could be constructed?

Senator ROTH. That is correct. But I wasn't thinking of only a single superport. As I understand it there are a number of superports under consideration. Every coastal State would have to exercise its veto. It would be the whole ball of wax, so to speak.

Senator HOLLINGS. Excuse me for interrupting your statement. Go right ahead.

Senator ROTH. I would like to thank you for affording me this opportunity to testify. In addition, I would like to commend you for focusing your attention on the issue of offshore development in general and deepwater oil terminals in particular. I know you are pressed for time, so I will make my remarks brief and to the point. As we are all aware, the proposals to construct deepwater oil terminals raise a large number of serious questions, most of which are unanswered.

We do not know, for instance, what effect the projected increases in foreign oil imports will have upon the balance of payments problem; nor do we know what effect the imports will have upon our national security.

But, most important, we have no concrete scientific information as to the effect of the construction, operation, and use of these terminals on our environment.

I personally hope that at the conclusion of your hearings we will have more information in this respect because the data we have accumulated thus far is scanty and incomplete, albeit frightening.

As you know, Delaware is presently the unwilling prime candidate for a deepwater oil terminal. Both the corps and the Maritime Administration have recommended the construction of one or more oil terminals at various points in or near Delaware Bay.

In addition, substantial oil transfer operations are alaready underway in Delaware Bay, threatening the estuary, as well as other coastal land areas in Delaware and New Jersey.

But I would like to emphasize that the various deepwater oil terminals pose a threat to States other than my own. Scientists at the University of Delaware, for instance, have conducted studies indicating that oil spilled off our Delaware coast could eventually end up not only along the shores of just New Jersey and Delaware, but the shores of North and South Carolina as well.

I make this observation only to emphasize to the members that what we are dealing with here is an environmental problem of regional as well as local concern.

Of couse, the specific effects of a terminal are yet to be ascertained, though I sincerely hope the committee will focus much of its attention on answering these questions.

There is one environmental issue, however, that can be answered without the benefit of expert scientific advice. Specifically, I do not

believe that I need to be an expert in geology, oceanography, marine biology, economics or any number of other scientific disciplines to know that the construction of a deepwater oil terminal will generate the construction of attendant heavy industry, such as refineries and holding farms, in coastal land areas.

In those cases, deciding to build a deepwater oil terminal would be tantamount to deciding in what direction a State will grow and how it will use its land.

Moreover, the impact of such a decision would be inversely proportional to the size of the State involved. In other words, the smaller the State the greater the impact such a proposal could have.

It is for these reasons that Senator Boggs and I introduced a bill during the last session which would have given Governors the veto power over the construction of deepwater oil terminals in the waters of their own or adjacent States.

Local elected officials have traditionally had a voice in determinations as to how their State would grow and how the State's land would be used. I can see no sound basis for making an exception to that principle in the case of deepwater oil terminals.

I mention this proposal because I believe the committee members should give serious consideration to incorporating such a consent requirement in S. 80.

Frankly, I belive S. 80 is a commendable step towards addressing one of the major issues involved in superport construction-the environment-but I believe it could be strengthened considerably by the addition of a constant requirement.

Whether the consent requirement is incorporated in general legislation or specific legislation is, to some degree, inmaterial. The important objective is to enact such a requirement, and to enact it as speedily as possible.

In summary, I would like to say that S. 80 is a commendable first step towards protecting the rights of our local citizens, though I would suggest some change in the present language.

Very frankly, the phrase "an unreasonable threat" found in section 304 (a) and 304 (c) concerns me. The word unreasonable seems somewhat elastic.

What is an unreasonable threat?

One supporting a superport might well argue that the need of oil makes a superstructure a reasonable threat despite the fact that it presents a significant environmental threat. I do not belive that is your intent; it certainly is not mine. This language needs to be clarified.

I, likewise, have questions as to the use of the word "minimize” in section 304 (a). In any event, I do belive S. 80 could be strengthened by the addition of a consent requirement and I hope the members will consider my suggestions carefully.

Senator HOLLINGS. That language should be clarified, Senator.

Now, on the Constitutional question, I would like to ask for your judgment on it. Let's say we consider locating a superport beyond the 3-mile limit near the State of Delaware. It would not only serve Delaware, but it would also affect New Jersey and other States as well. Do you think the State veto jurisdiction should go beyond that 3-mi it?