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
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
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 »
SPONSORED BY BARBARA LEE
House Approps Passes AUMF Repeal Amendment
8 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
DRAWS IRE OF WOMEN AGAIN
Trump Posts Crude Tweet About Mika Brzezinski
26 minutes ago
THE LATEST

President Trump is taking heat for another series of tweets, this one aimed at the co-hosts of Morning Joe. “I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don’t watch anymore),” Trump wrote. “Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came … to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!” In a tweet, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) said of Trump's statement, "This is not okay." NBC public relations chief Mark Kornblau said it's "beneath my dignity to respond to the President of the United States."

Source:
HEAD OF SECURITY TURNED WHITE HOUSE AIDE
House Intel Wants to Interview Trump Bodyguard
38 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"Congressional investigators now want to interview Keith Schiller, President Donald Trump’s longtime bodyguard-turned-White House aide, as part of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News. Schiller, the former head of security for the Trump Organization who now serves as the White House director of Oval Office operations, is one of several Trump associates on the House Intelligence Committee’s witness list in its ongoing investigation into Russian election interference."

Source:
MOSUL NEARLY RECAPTURED
Iraq Says ISIS Is Defeated
39 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"After eight months of grinding urban warfare, Iraqi government troops on Thursday captured the ruined mosque in Mosul from where Islamic State proclaimed its self-styled caliphate three years ago," and the Iraqi military expect the entire city to be retaken in a matter of days. "Their fictitious state has fallen," said an Iraqi military spokesman.

Source:
BUT WILL BUY HALF OF ITS STORES
Walgreens Won’t Buy Rite Aid
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The move puts to death the long-suffering tie-up between Walgreens and Rite Aid, which was originally announced in October 2015 ...The new deal was designed to alleviate the FTC's concerns about the market overlap between Walgreens and Rite Aid and the bolstered bargaining power a full acquisition would have given Walgreens. Rite Aid said it had to ditch the original deal after regulators privately 'led the company to believe that the parties would not have obtained FTC clearance to consummate the merger.'"

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login