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 »
CANNOT “IN GOOD CONSCIENCE” VOTE FOR BILL
McCain Won’t Support Graham-Cassidy Bill
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

In a statement Friday, Sen. John McCain wrote, "I cannot in good conscience vote for the Graham-Cassidy proposal. I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried. Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will effect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it. Without a full CBO score, which won't be available by the end of the month, we won't have reliable answers to any of those questions." His "no" vote makes it much less likely Republicans will repeal and replace Obamacare by Sept. 30.

Source:
NEW DIRECTIVES ISSUED
DeVos Officially Replaces Obama-era Sexual Assault Guidelines
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

As anticipated, the Department of Education today withdrew the controversial Obama-era "Dear Colleague" letter on campus sexual assault, replacing it with new interim guidance. Most notably, the new guidance permits colleges to use a “clear and convincing” standard of evidence, rather than the preponderance of evidence standard that the 2011 letter seemed to mandate. "The new guidance also states that colleges may facilitate informal resolutions, including mediation, if all parties agree to participate in that process."

Source:
EXPECTED TO TAKE EFFECT BY SUNDAY
Country-Specific Rules to Replace Travel Ban
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Trump administration will unveil more tailored restrictions on travelers from certain countries as a replacement to the controversial travel ban, according to a senior administration official. The new restrictions will vary by country. They could include a ban on travel to the United States, or new restrictions on obtaining a visa for citizens of particular countries." They are expected to be unveiled by Sunday.

Source:
MORE TRANSPARENCY THAN FEC REQUIRES
Facebook Enhances Disclosure for Political Ads
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a live-streamed address from Silicon Valley, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced a nine-point plan that the tech giant is rolling out over coming months to respond to "efforts by nation-states and private actors to use the social media platform to influence U.S. elections." Most importantly, the company will force all advertisers to disclose what ads they're running to all audiences. “When someone buys political ads on TV or other media, they’re required by law to disclose who paid for them,” Zuckerberg said. “But you still don’t know if you’re seeing the same messages as everyone else. So we’re going to bring Facebook to an even higher standard of transparency. Not only will you have to disclose which page paid for an ad, but we will also make it so you can visit an advertiser’s page and see the ads they’re currently running to any audience on Facebook.”

Source:
TRUMP ADMIN CRACKING DOWN ON LEAKS
Mandatory Training EPA Employees on Leaking
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

As "part of a broader Trump administration order for anti-leaks training at all executive branch agencies," Environmental Protection Agency employees "are attending mandatory training sessions this week to reinforce their compliance with laws and rules against leaking classified or sensitive government information ... Relatively few EPA employees deal with classified files, but the new training also reinforces requirements to keep 'Controlled Unclassified Information' from unauthorized disclosure."

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