December 10, 1979
Page 35284
THE ENERGY MOBILIZATION BOARD
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the issue of energy independence has been in the forefront for many months. The Congress will soon be confronted again with a proposed solution to our energy problems, when the Senate is asked to approve a conference report creating an Energy Mobilization Board.
I have strong reservations that the legislation passed by the Senate will contribute to our objective. As I stated during the debate on that bill, I do not believe that the unprecedented intrusions into Federal, State and local prerogatives to protect public health and safety are necessary to achieve energy independence. Nor do I believe that the new bureaucracy contributing more red tape, not less, to the approval process for energy facilities.
The legislation approved by the House of Representatives contains similar flaws, but makes even more serious intrusions into our ability to protect our health and safety from yet unknown and uncontrolled impacts of energy facilities.
I hope that the members of the conference committee will carefully consider the potential consequences of their decisions.
Mr. Anthony Lewis has written a thought-provoking article on this subject. I commend his analysis to my colleagues as the time approaches for a decision on the merits of an Energy Mobilization Board and request that it be printed in the RECORD.
The analysis follows:
[From the New York Times, Dec. 6, 1979]
ACT NOW, PAY LATER
(By Anthony Lewis)
Of all the energy bills sought by President Carter since last summer, one is approaching the end of the legislative process. That is the bill to create an Energy Mobilization Board with broad power to hasten the approval of energy projects. The legislation has passed both House and Senate, and conferees have been appointed to work out the differences.
Speeding the way for new energy facilities sounds like a simple, straightforward idea. In fact, the legislation is dauntingly complex. The House and Senate versions differ in dozens of significant ways. The whole thing is an example of how, on many issues, the public discussion that in our democratic theory is supposed to shape government policy has become despairingly difficult.
But the attempt has to be made. For the Mobilization Board legislation may have a very large impact on the quality of life in this country. And it is a significant test of the trust that can be placed in Jimmy Carter as a politician.
The Energy Mobilization Board, under both bills, would designate "priority energy projects" — not just a few, but as many as it wants. Those projects would get a "fast track" schedule for action by state and Federal agencies. If any agency failed to act on time, the E.M.B. could step in and make the decision itself.
That is great power for the board, and extremely centralized power by American standards. For Washington officials to have the right to preempt the functions of local zoning or health or safety boards from Maine to Texas is novel, to put it mildly. But that is by no means the limit of what the legislation does.
The Senate and House bills, with somewhat different mechanisms, also allow the E.M.B. to put aside any laws or regulations that went into effect after an energy project got under way. That sounds simple enough, but again it is not.
Suppose, for example, that scientists believe a proposed synthetic fuel plant would create massive toxic wastes: Love Canal on a large scale. Congress has passed the Toxic Substances Control Act to deal with such problems. But the necessary regulations under the act have not yet been written. If the synthetic fuel project was under way before the regulations came. out, the E.M.B. could exempt it from the rules.
Or suppose one of the Western states decided that it needed new legislation to reserve a certain amount of the water flow in its rivers for fishing or recreational use. If the state passed that law after an energy project was in its earliest stages, the E.M.B. could order that the project get as much water as it needed despite the state law — even if the effect was to dry up the rivers for miles around.
The House version of the legislation gives the E.M.B. a further and much more drastic power. It could recommend the waiver of any Federal law that would interfere with a priority energy project. And the President could then order the waiver if he found that it would not "unduly" endanger the public health or safety.
The waiver would be subject to approval by both houses of Congress, but under rules that make that protection of dubious value. The resolution approving each waiver could not be amended in committee or on the floor; there would be an up-or-down vote, at an early date.
For Congress to consider a complicated set of issues in such a hasty, narrow way would be a dangerous change in the legislative process.
It would invite log-rolling. All the interests in favor of a single project would concentrate their lobbying, while the more general concerns of health and the environment would be dispersed. It would be the Tellico Dam affair again and again: The interests would always find an ambitious little Howard Baker to carry the ball.
One of the curiosities of this legislation is that it has had so little attention from conservatives.
They should be shocked at the concentration of power that is envisaged: power for a few men in Washington to override state and local authority. They should be troubled, too, at the idea of a hasty process putting aside carefully considered Federal laws to keep our air and water clean, to protect us from toxic substances, to keep wilderness areas undisturbed.
Jimmy Carter has a personal stake because his White House lobbyists have played a big part in shaping the legislation. They've said all along that they would work to remove the dangerous clauses later in the legislative process. Will they really do so now? Or will they leave, as the legacy of an environmentalist President, a statute that would let future Administrations despoil the country?
No Washington board can magically make it easy to locate energy facilities. The decisions are hard because the issues are hard. Mistakes, which last a long time, may be worse than delay. The Mobilization Board can do some modest good, but that should not be at a disproportionate price.