The House Sinks The Cargo Bill

A rare coalition votes no

Not often do Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and the liberal lobbying group Common Cause find themselves on the same side of an issue with the major oil companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the leadership of the Republican Party. But last week just such a formidable, if unlikely coalition sank the Energy Transportation Security Act of 1977, better known as the cargo preference bill. In a confused and acrimonious vote, the House of Representatives defeated the bill, 257 to 165. In so doing, the legislators rejected both Jimmy Carter's endorsement of the measure and a campaign by U.S. shipping companies and maritime unions to ensure its passage.

For the President, the defeat may have come as a relief in disguise. His economic advisers had predicted that the bill --which would require that by 1982 at least 9.5% of the nation's imported oil be transported in U.S.-flag ships--would fuel inflation. Main reasons: since U.S. shipping lines pay higher wages and observe higher safety standards than foreign competitors, they cost up to 50% more to operate. Domestic tankers now carry only 4% of U.S. oil imports. If their share of the market were increased to 9.5%, it would mean more business for the U.S. shippers and more jobs for U.S. seamen, but, economists estimate, it could cost the nation an additional $300 million for foreign oil. Because of higher transportation costs, the big petroleum companies would have to pay more for Arabian crude and charge more for gasoline at the pump. Hence the curious coalition between giants of the industry and consumer advocates in lobbying against the bill.

The maritime unions have traditionally been an influential lobby, disproportionately so, given their membership of only 73,000. Over the years they have funneled millions in campaign contributions to selected politicians, mostly Democrats. In last year's elections, maritime-related unions doled out $449,410 to 215 successful House candidates, including $16,200 to New York's John Murphy, chairman of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and $51,713 to five other prominent committee members. Jimmy Carter was another beneficiary of the unions' largesse; he received more than $100,000 in his bid for the presidency. So when Murphy sponsored the cargo preference bill and Carter backed it last July, House Republican Leader John Rhodes was not totally unjustified in charging "political payoff."

Last week Republican Congressman James Quillen of Tennessee picked up the partisan attack where Rhodes had left off. Said he: "The House has no business inflicting higher oil prices on the American people in order to fulfill President Carter's campaign promises to the maritime unions." Sponsor Murphy replied that he and his supporters were only trying to salvage the U.S. merchant fleet, which has dwindled from 5,000 to 570 ships during the past three decades.

After a five-hour debate, House Speaker Tip O'Neill called for a vote on the bill. Those in favor shouted their votes louder than the opponents, and O'Neill announced that the ayes had it. At that moment, according to House procedure, a Congressman may request a roll call. But one of the bill's chief opponents, California Republican Paul McCloskey, was engaged in conversation and did not realize what had happened as O'Neill moved on to other motions.

When McCloskey finally scrambled to his feet, O'Neill snapped that it was too late; the bill had already passed. "I was on my feet," protested McCloskey. "The chair will not stand for that," O'Neill thundered, adding that he had "looked in [McCloskey's] direction ... expecting someone would rise and no member rose." Although the bill had already passed, McCloskey was allowed by unanimous consent to make a belated request for a roll call; when the tally was complete, the measure had failed.

As the final vote showed, members of Congress have grown more reluctant to support the maritime industry. Only three years ago, the House approved, by a 30-vote margin, a more generous version of the cargo preference bill--one that would have allotted 30% of U.S. oil imports to U.S.-flag ships. Gerald Ford vetoed that measure.

This year Common Cause, the major oil companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined forces in a counterattack against the maritime lobby. Some recipients of past maritime contributions made a point of opposing the cargo preference bill on the roll call in order to demonstrate to their constituents that their votes were not for sale. Sensing the new mood, Speaker O'Neill decided not to pressure Democrats into supporting the Administration. The bill was "not a party issue," he said.

Instead of displaying caution amid the obvious backlash against its past influence, the maritime industry engaged in some of its most blatant lobbying efforts. Just six weeks before the House committee approved the bill in August, a fund-raising cocktail party for Chairman Murphy in Washington garnered $9,950 from maritime sources for his 1978 campaign. "That doesn't mean I'm bought," snapped Murphy angrily after Common Cause broke the news. But the fact that Congressmen had to deny they were selling votes showed how counterproductive the lobbying effort had become.

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