The End of the Power of One

Henry Waxman’s retirement captures Congress’s transformation into a quasi-parliamentary institution.

Rep. Henry Waxman in his Rayburn Building office
National Journal
Ronald Brownstein
Feb. 7, 2014, midnight

Henry Wax­man could be the last per­son in Wash­ing­ton to ac­know­ledge that there may nev­er be an­oth­er Henry Wax­man. His de­par­ture cap­tures a fun­da­ment­al shift in Con­gress that has vastly re­duced the abil­ity of any in­di­vidu­al mem­ber to shape policy as con­sequen­tially as he did.

Wax­man, a Demo­crat­ic rep­res­ent­at­ive from Los Angeles first elec­ted in the 1974 Wa­ter­gate class, an­nounced last week he would re­tire after this ses­sion. No oth­er le­gis­lat­or over his four-dec­ade ca­reer — and few in any era — af­fected the daily lives of more Amer­ic­ans than Wax­man, who shep­her­ded in­to law land­mark bills on clean air, clean wa­ter, ac­cess to health care, to­bacco reg­u­la­tion, nu­tri­tion­al la­beling, food safety, HIV/AIDS, and gen­er­ic drugs.

Over his re­mark­able ten­ure, Wax­man em­bod­ied the defin­i­tion of a great le­gis­lat­or: He cre­ated co­ali­tions that would not have ex­is­ted without him. Most of his ma­jor ac­com­plish­ments were passed with sig­ni­fic­ant Re­pub­lic­an sup­port. Wax­man demon­strated that a single le­gis­lat­or, with enough skill and tenacity, can leave an in­delible mark.

That has been true through most of Con­gress’s his­tory. But since the 1980s, power has passed from in­di­vidu­al le­gis­lat­ors to the parties col­lect­ively. Each side has cent­ral­ized more au­thor­ity in the party lead­er­ship. And far few­er mem­bers are will­ing to buck their party’s con­sensus to part­ner with le­gis­lat­ors from the oth­er side, no mat­ter how skill­fully they craft a com­prom­ise.

The res­ult has been to greatly di­min­ish the abil­ity of even the most bril­liant le­gis­lat­ors — wheth­er Wax­man or sen­at­ors like Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole — to break stale­mates by cre­at­ively as­sem­bling co­ali­tions no one else could en­vi­sion. “It’s hard for a guy like that to emerge now on either side,” says former Rep. Tom Dav­is, the Re­pub­lic­an who chaired the House Over­sight and Gov­ern­ment Re­form Com­mit­tee when Wax­man was the rank­ing Demo­crat. Adds Steve El­men­d­orf, a former top House Demo­crat­ic aide, “The lead­er­ship is not go­ing to give you the space to do it.”

In­stead, in al­most all cases, each party’s lead­er­ship now de­cides wheth­er to reach agree­ment with the op­pos­i­tion — or, more of­ten, to not agree. Rather than ne­go­ti­at­ing their own com­prom­ises, le­gis­lat­ors are ex­pec­ted to sa­lute their party’s col­lect­ive de­cision. “The best way to put it,” Dav­is says, “is we’ve turned in­to a par­lia­ment­ary sys­tem.”

Wax­man’s own ca­reer il­lus­trates the con­strict­ing ef­fect of this new dy­nam­ic. His re­form-minded class of 1974 drove a his­tor­ic de­cent­ral­iz­a­tion of au­thor­ity, passing rules that shattered the power of seni­or­ity and forced pre­vi­ously auto­crat­ic com­mit­tee chairs to re­spond more to their party’s rank-and-file con­sensus. That era’s House speak­ers, re­cog­niz­ing the demo­crat­iz­ing cur­rent, gov­erned lightly and gave mem­bers enorm­ous lat­it­ude. In an em­blem­at­ic mo­ment, Wax­man re­calls that while he and Rep. John Din­gell, then-chair­man of the mighty House En­ergy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee, fought their ti­tan­ic duel over ex­tend­ing the Clean Air Act through the 1980s, Speak­ers Tip O’Neill and Jim Wright es­sen­tially stood aside. “Neither took that much of an act­ive role be­cause they didn’t see that as their job,” Wax­man told me.

Wax­man thrived in this flu­id at­mo­sphere. He at­trac­ted 159 GOP votes for his land­mark AIDS bill in 1990, 154 for the Clean Air Act amend­ments he passed in 1989 after fi­nally out­last­ing Din­gell, and so much bi­par­tis­an con­sensus on is­sues like safe wa­ter and nu­tri­tion la­beling that the bills passed without re­cor­ded votes. The House ap­proved his gen­er­ic-drug bill un­an­im­ously. It was some­times re­luct­ant, but Ron­ald Re­agan and George H.W. Bush signed in­to law many of Wax­man’s greatest ac­com­plish­ments, par­tic­u­larly his ten­a­cious step-by-step Medi­caid ex­pan­sion across the 1980s.

But the Con­gress that Wax­man mastered is gone. Start­ing with Newt Gin­grich in 1995, each party’s lead­er­ship has seized more con­trol over the con­gres­sion­al agenda: In con­trast to O’Neill’s hands-off pos­ture, Wax­man re­called, then-Speak­er Nancy Pelosi com­pelled the three rel­ev­ant com­mit­tee chairs to start the Af­ford­able Care Act de­bate with a com­mon le­gis­lat­ive draft. Bi­par­tis­an sup­port is in­fin­itely more dif­fi­cult to at­tract today, both be­cause party lead­ers and in­terest groups dis­cour­age it and be­cause po­lar­ized pop­u­la­tion pat­terns have culled the num­ber of House cent­rists. While Wax­man drew broad bi­par­tis­an back­ing on clean air in 1989, he at­trac­ted just eight House Re­pub­lic­ans to his cli­mate bill in 2010, even though he based it on a pro­pos­al from an al­li­ance of en­vir­on­ment­al­ists and busi­ness lead­ers. That ex­per­i­ence still frus­trates Wax­man. “It was a shock that the Re­pub­lic­ans “¦ wer­en’t in­ter­ested in what the busi­ness com­munity had to say,” he says.

To ob­serv­ers such as Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion seni­or fel­low Thomas Mann, these changes mean that in today’s quasi-par­lia­ment­ary Con­gress “in­di­vidu­als are just really di­min­ished in what they can ac­com­plish.” One who re­jects that con­clu­sion is Wax­man. Con­gress may be para­lyzed now, he says, with many Re­pub­lic­ans in par­tic­u­lar be­liev­ing “com­prom­ise is a dirty word,” but he in­sists that de­term­ined le­gis­lat­ors can cut through the po­lar­iz­a­tion to forge mean­ing­ful agree­ments. “I still think it can be done,” he says firmly. Op­tim­ism and pa­tience have been two of Wax­man’s greatest le­gis­lat­ive as­sets — but it will take big shifts in the way Con­gress op­er­ates, and prob­ably many years, for his con­fid­ence to be re­war­ded.

What We're Following See More »
‘PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE’
Priebus Asks Party to Unite Behind Trump
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
FEELING THE MIDWESTERN BERN
Sanders Upsets Clinton in Indiana
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

Despite trailing Hillary Clinton by a significant margin, Bernie Sanders wasn't going the way of Ted Cruz tonight. The Vermont senator upset Clinton in Indiana, with MSNBC calling the race at 9pm. Sanders appears poised to win by a five- or six-point spread.

Source:
TRUMP IS PRESUMPTIVE NOMINEE
Ted Cruz Bows Out, Effectively Ceding the Contest to Trump
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

And just like that, it's over. Ted Cruz will suspend his presidential campaign after losing badly to Donald Trump in Indiana tonight. "While Cruz had always hedged when asked whether he would quit if he lost Indiana; his campaign had laid a huge bet on the state." John Kasich's campaign has pledged to carry on. “From the beginning, I’ve said that I would continue on as long as there was a viable path to victory,” said Cruz. “Tonight, I’m sorry to say it appears that path has been foreclosed."

Source:
TAKES AT LEAST 45 DELEGATES
Trump Wins Indiana, All but Seals the Nomination
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Republican establishment's last remaining hope—a contested convention this summer—may have just ended in Indiana, as Donald Trump won a decisive victory over Ted Cruz. Nothing Cruz seemed to have in his corner seemed to help—not a presumptive VP pick in Carly Fiorina, not a midwestern state where he's done well in the past, and not the state's legions of conservatives. Though Trump "won't secure the 1,237 delegates he needs to formally claim the nomination until June, his Indiana triumph makes it almost impossible to stop him. Following his decisive wins in New York and other East Coast states, the Indiana victory could put Trump within 200 delegates of the magic number he needs to clinch the nomination." Cruz, meanwhile, "now faces the agonizing choice of whether to remain in the race, with his attempt to force the party into a contested convention in tatters, or to bow out and cede the party nomination to his political nemesis." The Associated Press, which called the race at 7pm, predicts Trump will win at least 45 delegates.

Source:
LOTS OF STRINGERS
Inside the AP’s Election Operation
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
×