October 8, 1975
Page 32299
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, we in Congress have been accused of avoiding the energy crisis for an entire year now. What we have avoided, so far, is a disastrous second round of massive price increases before the economy and the public have recovered from the first round. Saving energy by telling 8 million people that they have no job to drive to is not the answer.
We must put in place a comprehensive and certain policy that will move the country toward energy independence without putting the economy through the wringer once again. What we seek is a policy that will hold energy prices down as long as possible. The Stevenson-Moss-Hollings amendment meets that goal because:
First. It rolls the price of new oil back, from $12 per barrel to $9. But putting this cap on new oil, the price is prevented from rising to the ever increasing price of imported oil.
Second. It does not permit a rapid increase in the price of the 60 percent of domestic production that is defined as old oil. Instead, the amendment phases in the redefinition of old oil over a 60-month period — corresponding to the natural decline rate of these old oil fields.
Third. It sets a price of $1.30 per thousand cubic feet for natural gas. The Stevenson-Moss- Hollings amendment is superior to the Pearson-Bentsen amendment which is the alternative
before the Senate. The Pearson-Bentsen amendment would let the price of onshore natural gas go as high as $3 per M ft³ and leave the oil situation unresolved. The Senate must recognize that oil and natural gas are two inseparable parts of a common problem.
Therefore, I will vote for the Stevenson-Moss-Hollings amendment. Frankly, I am not sure that the $9 price for oil is the optimum. A lower price might provide all the incentives that are needed for production and conservation. The House bill, H.R. 7014, nominally sets a price of $7.50. But that bill has so many exceptions — for Alaskan oil, for oil produced by independents, and so on — that the average price is estimated to be higher than the $9 in the amendment before us.
The administration and the energy industry has continuously called for certain and comprehensive policy so that they could get on with the job of meeting the country's energy needs. The Stevenson-Moss-Hollings amendment is such a policy. We will see by today's vote
whether it means a responsible compromise. If we pass this amendment, the Senate will have answered its critics.