08-11-2001

LOBBYING: K Street For August 11, 2001

AARP as Deal-Maker?


As the nation's largest organization of elderly Americans (and aging baby
boomers), AARP is always noticed whenever it flexes its muscles on Capitol
Hill. And, over the years, the group has sometimes refrained from
endorsing specific legislative proposals because of its diverse
membership. But after recent fireworks at the Senate Finance Committee,
the mammoth association-whose members number 35 million Americans age 50
and older-decided to step up its involvement. Why the change in tactics?
Comity on the committee had all but evaporated, a development that could
have undermined prospects for Medicare revisions and prescription drug
benefit legislation passing this year. Here's what happened.


Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., had been holding regular meetings with
committee members-and with the White House's designated agents-to try to
broker a consensus measure that could pass muster with the panel and the
full Senate. Then on August 1, ranking member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa,
joined by committee colleagues Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, Orrin G. Hatch,
R-Utah, John Breaux, D-La., and James M. Jeffords, I-Vt., sprang their own
plan on the committee. Caught off guard, Baucus was none too pleased. He
promptly informed Grassley and the others that he would not let the
Finance Committee vote on their approach. The Grassley plan, according to
Baucus and committee members John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., and Bob
Graham, D-Fla., would put too much money into Medicare changes and not
enough into providing a prescription drug benefit. Rockefeller suggested
that AARP's intervention would help sort out the mess.


"We've got to, in effect, accept Rockefeller's invitation," says
John Rother, the association's director of legislation. "It seems
that without our stepping in and doing that, they're going to have a hard
time coming to a compromise. We need to step up and push the sides to
resolve their differences." The group is planning to tell both groups
of Senators which provisions it supports and which it doesn't. Rother says
AARP maintains that a prescription drug bill could include some Medicare
revisions. "We're not advocating a prescription- drug-only
approach," he explains. On the other hand, Rother adds: "Our
idea of acceptable Medicare reform may not necessarily be the same as the
Grassley cohort's proposal."


Well-Paid Cheerleaders


The Chronicle of Higher Education's yearly survey of the top university
recipients of federal aid is a reliable reminder that members of the
Appropriations committees never lose their knack for bringing home the
bacon for local schools. This year, the home-state campuses of Senate
Appropriations Chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., and ranking member Ted
Stevens, R-Alaska, fared particularly well in the survey of federal
funding in fiscal 2001.


But several universities also benefited from the help of Washington
lobbyists. Van Scoyoc Associates Inc., for example, made a big score for
five clients that came in among the top 30 schools, including three in the
top 10: the University of Missouri (Columbia), which placed sixth with
$23.7 million in federal funds; the University of Alabama (Birmingham) at
No. 8, with more than $22 million; and the University of Nebraska
(Lincoln), which finished ninth with $19.5 million. Van Scoyoc also
represented the No. 20 school, the University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa), and
the 26th-ranked school, Montana State University (Bozeman). Among those
Van Scoyoc lobbyists who helped line up the funding were four former
Appropriations Committee aides: Carolyn Fuller, Steve E. Crane, Kevin F.
Kelly, and Ray Cole. "We feel pretty good about it," said H.
Stewart Van Scoyoc, the firm's president. His shop's role isn't so much a
matter of twisting arms on Capitol Hill, he said: "Normally the
members of Congress are anxious to help their [home- state] institutions.
We help the universities define their projects so that it's
achievable."


Barbour Griffith & Rogers also kept one of its university clients well
fed. Nearly $24 million was earmarked for the University of Mississippi,
good for seventh place on The Chronicle's list. Cassidy & Associates
Inc., often considered the leading firm for appropriations work, had only
one client in the top 30, the University of Hawaii (Manoa), which took in
$10.3 million and placed 28th.


Pssst! Santiago's Hiring


With the United States and Chile in the midst of negotiating a free-trade
agreement, the Chilean government has tapped four Washington law firms for
legal advice and a Washington public affairs outfit for political and
strategic assistance. The law firms that have been retained are Arnold
& Porter; Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton; O'Melveny &
Myers; and Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Each has been asked to provide
legal advice on specific topics that are part of the U.S.-Chile free-trade
agreement, which has been in the talking stage for years and may be
finished by year's end. To handle the U.S. media and build the requisite
coalitions to help obtain congressional approval once the treaty is
wrapped up, the Chileans have turned to FH/GPC, an affiliate of
Fleishman-Hillard Inc. Jon Huenemann, who spent 15 years in the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office and was deeply involved in the negotiations with
Chile, is spearheading the firm's efforts.


"We're putting together a group of U.S. businesses that will support
the treaty once it's concluded," says Huenemann, a vice president at
the public affairs shop. In addition, the firm is working with some think
tanks and opinion leaders in and outside of Washington who can provide
so-called "grass-tops" backing for the treaty when it's done.
The Chileans haven't hired any inside-the-Beltway lobbyists yet, but
there's no shortage of eager applicants waiting to pounce once Santiago
signals it's ready to sign more contracts.


Marilyn Werber Serafini, Shawn Zeller, Peter H. Stone

National Journal