Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s

Chapter 15. Breaking the Energy Logjam

246 Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s Breaking the Energy Logjam Chapter 15 Dale Bumpers was a member of the Ninety-fourth Congress’s large Democratic freshman class. After serving four years as Arkansas governor, he decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 1974. He won easily and moved to Washington, but as he drove through the city’s streets during the energy crisis, something bothered him. “It occurred to me,” he said, “as I sat at stop lights without a car in sight in any direction, idling, that I was sitting there using precious fuel at a time when we were trying to become energy independent.” Bumpers knew that since 1937, California had permitted motorists to make a right turn at red lights. He recalled, “I got to thinking if you did that nationwide, it would obviously save quite a bit of fuel.” Congress was developing a bill in response to Gerald Ford’s energy program, and Bumpers proposed to include a “right-on-red” provision, citing statistics that a national law would save 12,000 barrels of oil daily. Initially, the Ford administration balked, citing safety concerns for pedestrians. But Democratic congressman John Moss of California reminded legislators that his state had safely practiced the law for almost three decades. Convinced of its merits, Congress included right-on-red in the bill. The White House ultimately agreed that in the struggle to make Americans more conscious of energy issues, right-on-red was “something that was visible and that the American people could touch,” Frank Zarb recalled.1 Right-on-red was one of the new energy bill’s sensible components. But Ford administration members disliked the bill’s central feature, the crude oil pricing provisions, and with good reason. One member was bent on getting Ford to veto the bill. On December 21, 1975, just before midnight, Ford received an unusual telephone call upstairs in the White House residence. It was from William Simon. For half an hour, Simon engaged in a vigorous verbal arm-twisting, finally giving up when he realized that Ford had made 247 Breaking the Energy Logjam up his mind.2 But the president knew that the controversial bill would have serious political and economic implications. Phased Decontrol After Ford’s angry television performance and actions, Congress temporized. In June 1975, it gutted what was supposed to be forceful energy legislation. The House Ways and Means Committee had approved a bill with rigorous measures to enforce gasoline conservation and reduce dependence on foreign oil. But the full House removed key provisions. It approved quotas on imported oil but left them higher than the Ways and Means Committee had proposed, then drove a stake through the heart of the committee’s package by rejecting a $.23-a-gallon increase in the gas tax. Pleading for at least a $.03 increase, Tip O’Neill said, “Have we got the guts to stand up and vote for the future of America?” Democratic congressman Joseph Karth of Minnesota told his colleagues that if they “can’t vote to raise [gas] taxes we don’t deserve to sit here as leaders of the nation.”3 No amount of impassioned oratory could save the measure. Zarb recalled that Ford’s “political instincts were right. [The gas tax] was a non-starter. Actually, when [Ways and Means Committee chair] Al Ullman constructed that bill, he asked for our help. I talked to the president, and the president said, ‘Give him all the technical help he needs, as a friend, but don’t support the bill.’ The thing fell of its own weight, as [Ford] knew it would.”4 On June 13, the House doled out more bad news for the Ways and Means bill, eliminating its proposed tax on gas-guzzling cars. On June 19, the House passed a weak bill. Republicans claimed it would neither encourage production nor discourage consumption. Its provisions included quotas on oil imports, tax credits for homeowners for energy-saving measures such as installing solar heating and cooling devices, an excise tax on businesses that used oil and natural gas as fuels, and a $50-per-car penalty against automakers for each mile per gallon below federally prescribed standards.5 Now that the House finally passed a bill, Ford faced new pressures. The EPAA was scheduled to expire on August 31, removing controls on domestic oil prices. Democrats raised a hue and cry over the prospect. Since the State of the...