Lobbying the Carter UFO

With 113 parts affecting nearly all Americans, the Carter Administration's energy bill is turning into one of history's great challenges to lobbyists. Almost daily, they swarm through congressional hearing rooms and in the Capitol's corridors, pressing politicians and seeking to shape the proposed legislation to the liking of myriad special interest groups. For Ellen Berman, a stylish Barnard Russian major, it is an 18-hour-a-day job. She is director of the energy policy task force (annual budget: $50,000) of the Consumer Federation of America. Says she: "Lobbying, when you don't have any money, is like bicycling uphill against the wind."

Hardly anyone, except the Carter White House, is satisfied with the bill as sent to Congress in April, accompanied by the President's declaration that solving the nation's energy problems was "the moral equivalent of war." The American Institute of Architects faults the program for not counting items like sunshades as energy savers worthy of tax credits. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists claims that some of the bill's pricing proposals will inhibit drilling. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is concerned about the entire program, saying that it would eliminate a million jobs, cause a 2% drop in the nation's output of goods and services, boost inflation by 2.7% and shrink business investment 4% by 1982.

Most of the lobbyists are descending upon the House. The crucial votes come there first, in five committees that have been ordered by Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. to turn their recommendations over to a special coordinating committee by July 13. O'Neill plans to bring a consolidated bill to a floor vote in August. The Senate, where two committees are chewing over parts of the bill, hopes to clear its version before October. The final bill could go to Carter for his signature just before the end of the year.

Skirmishes Lost. Some of the hottest lobbying action is in the House Ways and Means Committee, now dealing with the many parts of the program that aim to conserve energy by raising taxes or granting tax credits and rebates. Last week the Administration lost several important skirmishes. By big majorities, the committee scrapped the Carter idea to award rebates to buyers of small, economical cars, a provision that could have favored imported vehicles over Detroit's products. Ways and Means also decided to delay for a year, until the fall of 1979, a scheme to impose heavy taxes on large "gas-guzzling" cars and redefined guzzlers as cars that get 15 m.p.g., v. 18 m.p.g. as in the Administration's plan. Most severely, it rejected the Administration's unpopular attempt to raise federal gasoline taxes as much as 50-c- per gal. during the next 10 years. At week's end Carter accused Congress of bowing to oil and auto lobbies, and said citizens would suffer because of "the special-interest victories."

The actions do not mean the various provisions are dead or permanently modified. They could be revived or restored at several points along the road to Carter's desk. But for the lobbyists, the committee's decisions were an acid test of their effectiveness. Says Bill Cable, 32, chief White House lobbyist at the House: "I think we've got chairmen in key places who are committed to working with the President to get a good energy bill. But it may not be the same bill we sent up there."

The bill hit Congress like a UFO. Much of it was--and is--unfamiliar. The result: many lobbyists spend much of their time explaining instead of persuading. Bewilderment prevails, numbers change daily. The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with the Administration's estimate of how much oil imports could be reduced under the plan; CBO Economist Alice Rivlin says the White House is "overoptimistic." The General Accounting Office last week disclosed that the Administration itself feels that imports can be cut to no fewer than 7 million bbl. daily by 1985 (v. roughly 8.6 million bbl. now), even though the White House goal is 6 million bbl.

On the potential of solar energy alone, a relatively small part of the coal-and conservation-oriented program, expert views differ wildly. The plan originally called for 2.5 million solar-heated dwellings by 1985; Schlesinger later accepted 1.3 million as more realistic. Now the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group, says both figures are unrealistically low; it could meet a demand of 11 million dwellings.

Doug Walgren, a Democratic Representative from Pittsburgh, admits he is confused by all the complexities and contradictions: "I suppose I will continue to waver. But, my God, what a mess!" Chuck Sandler, the American Petroleum Institute's director of federal relations, confesses: "Trying to figure out the consensus [of his own organization's members] takes 50% of my time. It's more difficult than convincing the Congress." In addition to five staffers, who spend time monitoring meetings on Capitol Hill, Sandler oversees other aides in 34 state capitals. Also, he advises representatives of more than 70 Washington offices of oil and gas companies, suppliers and trade groups. Sandler tried out a speech on his 14-year-old daughter, who chirped, "To sum up, Daddy, all you want is more money." Says Sandler: "It's terrible to have to go out and say the oil industry wants more money. How do you get people to listen long enough to explain that?"

Nonetheless, the lobbyists frequently get measurable results. Dave Caney, a lawyer-architect and lobbyist for the American Institute of Architects, initially spent a frustrating week trying to talk with staffers at the Federal Energy Administration. His mission: to convince them that outside experts should do "energy audits" of schools and hospitals to see what forms of insulation and heating devices would make them more energy efficient. (Under the plan, $900 million would be granted to the states to carry out such programs.) Caney tried reaching Democratic staffers on the House energy and power subcommittee, but to no avail; they were too busy. Finally, he got through--to Republican subcommittee aides. They listened, convinced Republican members who persuaded Democratic Chairman John Dingell that Caney had a point--and the subcommittee wrote the provision that Caney wanted into the bill.

Multiple Pressure. The lobbyists concentrate hardest on "swing" votes. Perhaps the most heavily lobbied individual in the House last week was Democrat Marty Russo of Illinois. His vote in the energy and power subcommittee was crucial to deregulation of natural gas prices. The industry wants it; the Administration does not, at least for the foreseeable future. In drumfire order, Russo was lobbied by Carter, Energy Chief James Schlesinger, Dingell, O'Neill, White House Lobbyist Jim Free, FEA Administrator John O'Leary and industry lawyers. The Consumer Federation's Ellen Berman spent seven hours with Russo, at one point debating American Gas Association President G.H. ("Bud") Lawrence in Russo's office.

As last week's vote neared, Russo told TIME'S Don Sider: "I'm frank to tell you. I'm worn out." When his turn to vote finally came, he hesitated, then voted for continued regulation. But not enough of his colleagues went along. By a vote of 12 to 10, the subcommittee agreed to end control of gas prices. Lobbyist Berman had no time to mourn her loss. She was already on her way to the next big test, the House Commerce Committee, adding up pros, antis and swings along the way.

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