November 15, 1973
Page 37308
Mr. FANNIN. Mr. President, several days ago the Washington Post referred to this week as "energy week in the Senate." Might I add that, for the Interior Committee, this past session has been "energy year." In 1973 we have reported six major bills on energy: The Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act; the Surface Mining Reclamation Act; the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act; the National Fuels and Energy Conservation Act; the Federal Lands Right-of- Way Act, which I fully expect the President to sign shortly; and the National Energy Emergency Act which we are discussing today.
May I point out that, regrettably, of those six bills only the trans-Alaska pipeline bill and the legislation dealing with our current energy emergency address in any way the problem of increasing energy supplies. It is my firm belief that the major flaw in both of these bills lies in their failure to leave to the workings of the marketplace the stimulation of increased energy supplies. If we are to persuade industry to make the high risk investments necessary to meet our energy problems, and if we are to encourage the consumer to curb his wasteful use of excess energy, we must face up to the bitter necessity of freeing up the price structure.
What these six major bills do have in common – also regrettably – is a philosophical bent toward expanding the scope of Federal regulation of both energy production and energy consumption. It would seem to me that a lesson should have been learned from the mistakes of Federal regulation of natural gas production. The elaborate regulatory procedures and formulas contained in these bills bode ill for producer and consumer alike.
It was in light of these considerations that several of my colleagues and I urgently requested public hearings on this bill. Although such hearings were in fact held, they came with scarcely 24-hours' notice to the witnesses called upon to testify. In a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Interior Committee, five other Senators and myself recommended allowing a reasonable period of time, consistent with the emergency nature of the problem, for thoughtful analysis and consideration of S. 2589. I would like to share that letter with my colleagues at this time. It reads:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
November 5, 1973.
Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Scoop: We have reviewed your bill, S. 2589, "The National Emergency Petroleum Act" and the draft Administration "Emergency Energy Act". While we share your genuine concern about the gravity of the domestic and international energy supply situation and your sincere desire for speedy legislative action in a continuing nonpartisan manner, we nevertheless have serious reservations about the content of parts of both bills.
Regardless of intention, any such emergency legislation can profoundly affect the state of the Nation's economy as a whole. Regardless of intention, any such legislation can affect the health, well being, and lawful rights of the people of the United States. Regardless of intention, any such legislation can result in the imposition of controls of a sweeping, omnipresent and potentially crippling nature.
While recognizing that any such legislation must, by its nature, to some degree affect the economy, the rights and well being of U.S. citizens, and also must require some level of temporary and unusual control, it is our firm conviction and belief that as senators we have a constitutional duty to preserve democratic values and prevent abuses of congressional and executive power inconsistent with such values.
As you know, we are indeed committed to move forward with you in molding appropriate legislation in a responsive, timely and nonpartisan manner. We fear, however, that excessively hasty action could result in horrendous and unintended calamity for the people and institutions of this country. Accordingly, we feel that it is incumbent upon us to tailor the emergency authority to the fuels shortage problem in order to avoid both delegation of excessively sweeping emergency authority and delegation of inadequate emergency authority.
Toward this end we concur in your suggestion that Administration and Senate staff personnel begin to work diligently in a cooperative effort to prepare draft emergency legislation for our urgent consideration. Following the completion of such a draft we would then expect to have the lawfully required hearings during which we may hear testimony from expert witnesses as to the likely impact of the application of contemplated provisions of the draft bill on the fuels shortage (including production, refining, transportation, and distribution of petroleum and associated matters affecting coal production, transportation, and use), the economy, the rights of U.S. citizens, and the preservation of our democratic institutions.
Sincerely yours,
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN. DEWEY F. BARTLETT. EDMUND S. MUSKIE. PAUL FANNIN. MARK O. HATFIELD. JAMES L. BUCKLEY.