Copping Out on Energy

With the commitment of a crusader, Democratic Congressman Al Ullman spent months trying to produce an energy policy that would reduce U.S. consumption and make the nation less vulnerable to another Arab oil boycott or price boost. As Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he devoted day after day to hearings and markup sessions on a tough bill that would have raised the tax on gasoline to as much as 40-c- per gal. in stages by 1979, imposed a windfall-profits tax on the oil companies, put a tax on autos with poor mileage and set oil-import quotas.

Ullman's bill never stood a chance in the rambunctious 94th Congress. Bit by bit, all the tough provisions were softened in committee until the final bill resembled what White House Press Secretary Ron Nessen called a "marshmal-low." Liberals objected to the gasoline tax. Representatives from oil states did not like the windfall-profits tax. New Englanders protested the import quotas. Congressmen with ties to the auto companies and the United Auto Workers reduced the tax on big cars. Ullman's bill faced at least 100 amendments. Giving up, the House leadership put off consideration of the measure until Congress returns from recess on June 2. But even then no bill is assured.

No Problem. The withdrawal of the bill was a humiliating setback for the conscientious Ullman, who hoped to gain the stature of his Ways and Means predecessor Wilbur Mills. Yet the defeat was less a reflection on Ullman's legislative craft than on the condition of Congress, and for that matter, of the country. Said an Ullman aide: "The problem is persuading people that there is a problem. For a lot of people, we're adding a tax to no problem." Yet the U.S. continues to buy huge quantities of oil from the Middle East, remaining perilously dependent on that unpredictable part of the world.

Congressional confusion allows the President to take the lead, and Ford is willing to do so. Last week he vetoed a bill to regulate the strip mining of coal, arguing that the restrictions arrived at to protect the environment would be too costly for consumers and reduce coal production. Though the bill had passed the House May 7 by a 293-to-115 margin, the Democratic leaders put off until June 10 attempts to override it. As of last week they clearly did not have the two-thirds majority needed to break the veto. "We may back into an energy policy," says Barber Conable, a New York Republican member of Ways and Means. "By the Democrats' failing to block the President, we may get a partial policy."

Doing Nothing. Ford intends to plunge ahead with his own program. He is expected to increase the tariff on foreign oil by $1 per bbl. on top of the $1 boost that he ordered last February. He also might start phasing out price controls on domestic old oil. By several reliable estimates, decontrol would add $250 a year to the average American family's energy bill. But the two measures would also stimulate oil exploration, which is lagging in the U.S., and probably reduce consumption by 1.5 million bbl. a day by mid-1977.

By a two-thirds vote, Congress can prevent the President from raising the oil tariff. By a simple majority, it can stop Ford's deregulation of prices. But that would be politically hazardous. Democrats would look bad if they frustrated the President after doing nothing themselves. Besides, there might be some political profit in letting the President take the heat for his own program if it turns out to be highly unpopular.

Despite the congressional performance to date, Ullman remains confident that the Democrats will eventually pass a significant energy-conservation bill. Says he: "If we don't, we're in real trouble as a Congress and as a Democratic Party. The problem is the drift. I'm trying to convince the members that they will be in more trouble politically if they do nothing than if they have to explain something tough."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.