Strip Mining, Energy and Politics
The basic reason President Ford defied conventional political logic to cast his second veto of a bill to control strip-mining was summed up in private advice from Dr. Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.</br></br>Burns, the nationÛªs independent central banker, is not a member of the administration. But his views are respected by Mr. Ford, and he often attends White House councils. He was present at one of the two sessions discussing the strip-mining bill and was asked his opinion. His pithy reply: ÛÏMr. President, I donÛªt think we ought to be doing anything now to , increase the imports of oil.Û</br></br>If Mr. Ford had lingering doubts, that probably resolved them. As Burns indicated, the veto was essentially an energy decision ruling out interference with coal production as an alternative to oil. That ahows how deeply the President has become committed to the energy question, giving replacement of oil by other energy sources priority over politically popular environmental questions. Thus, officials in the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) view the strip-mining veto as more Important than raising the oil import tax another dollar. In fact, they view it as the PresidentÛªs most important energy decision so far.</br></br>Beyond energy, the veto suggests a toughened presidential style following , the Mayaguez incident. Mr. Ford was earning away from his congressional style of conciliation by vetoing the bill In the face of popular support, mixed Republican attitude* in Congress and deeply divided advice with-in his own administration.</br></br>Divided though that advice was, there was no doubt among FEA officials, Contending that recently enact- ed state regulation prevents the environmental outrages of oldtime strip-mining, they shuddered over 8,000 new federal regulatory bureaucrats. More important, they considered vital a precedent of Mr. Ford's giving energy priority'over environment in a forthcoming series.-.of such choices.