House Returns to Old-Style Legislating on Water-Projects Bill

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 16: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) (L) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) attend the dedication ceremony of the Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center April 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. A member of Giffords' Congressional staff, Gabriel Zimmerman was murdered during a shooting spree January 8, 2011 that left six dead and 13 injured, including Giffords.
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Fawn Johnson
Oct. 27, 2013, 7:09 a.m.

What a dif­fer­ence a week makes. Ex­actly sev­en days after Con­gress grudgingly res­cued the coun­try from de­fault, battle-weary House mem­bers voted al­most un­an­im­ously on a ma­jor in­fra­struc­ture bill last week. (Only three dis­sen­ted.)

A few hours later, Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic staffers who helped write the bill were hav­ing drinks at a nearby wa­ter­ing hole, toast­ing their suc­cess. It was the pic­ture-per­fect end to a long, yet pro­duct­ive day of ac­tu­al law­mak­ing.

It felt like old times.

Old-style le­gis­lat­ing was pre­cisely the goal of House Trans­port­a­tion and In­fra­struc­ture Com­mit­tee Chair­man Bill Shuster, R-Pa., when he set a goal in Janu­ary of passing a bill that would au­thor­ize key con­struc­tion mis­sions of the Army Corps of En­gin­eers for har­bors, ports, and levees. The Wa­ter Re­sources Re­form and De­vel­op­ment Act had not been up­dated in six years.

Shuster knew that his own in­flu­ence was severely lim­ited be­cause House Re­pub­lic­ans had banned ear­marks, the spe­cial pro­jects that mem­bers tra­di­tion­ally used to ca­jole re­luct­ant law­makers. He knew that the con­ser­vat­ive wing of his own con­fer­ence would ob­ject to any­thing that gave the slight­est hint of en­lar­ging the gov­ern­ment. He also knew that he had no chance of suc­ceed­ing without help from Demo­crats.

And so he began, with lots and lots and lots of meet­ings, ac­cord­ing to staffers and law­makers in­volved in the pro­cess.

Shuster’s first step was to get com­mit­tee Demo­crats on board. He had din­ner with the pan­el’s rank­ing Demo­crat, Rep. Nick Ra­hall of West Vir­gin­ia, as soon as he was ap­poin­ted chair­man in Janu­ary. Shuster and Ra­hall agreed that they would present the bill as a duo. That meant the meas­ure would con­tain no lan­guage that the oth­er side couldn’t ac­cept. Demo­crats in­sisted that the le­gis­la­tion not tinker with labor laws or the Clean Wa­ter Act. Re­pub­lic­ans in­sisted that the bill man­date a time lim­it on the per­mits for Corps pro­jects and stream­line the en­vir­on­ment­al re­views. The rest was up for ne­go­ti­ation.

Then the com­mit­tee staffers dug in­to the de­tails, war­ily at first be­cause many of them had not built le­gis­la­tion on these equal terms be­fore. After sev­er­al months with no sur­prises, they came to real­ize that this was how it would be all the way through. “We didn’t think there was try­ing to be any trick be­ing pulled on us, or any­thing we had to be on our guard for. We didn’t feel he was try­ing to hide any­thing,” Ra­hall said of Shuster.

The open­ness was a wel­come change for Demo­crats, who spent the last sev­er­al years com­plain­ing that they were shut out of the ma­jor­ity party’s com­mit­tee ne­go­ti­ations, a de­par­ture from the con­sensus-driv­en meth­od that Trans­port­a­tion and In­fra­struc­ture used in the 1990s. “[Shuster] made it clear he wanted to re­turn to that tra­di­tion, and I think he has achieved that goal,” said Rep. Tim Bish­op, D-N.Y., rank­ing mem­ber of the Wa­ter Re­sources and En­vir­on­ment Sub­com­mit­tee.

Demo­crats, check.

Shuster’s second chal­lenge was his own GOP caucus. He met privately with dozens of law­makers rep­res­ent­ing vari­ous fac­tions — the ul­tracon­ser­vat­ive Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee, the caucus fresh­men, and oth­er com­mit­tee chair­men — to brief them on the bill and seek their in­put. His goal was to make sure that no one in the con­fer­ence was sur­prised with the meas­ure once it was out.

RSC Chair­man Steve Scal­ise, R-La., proved to be a ma­jor help in ad­voc­at­ing for the bill with the most con­ser­vat­ive House mem­bers. The day the House voted, Scal­ise stood at length just off the floor telling re­port­ers how it tightened up over­sight for Corps pro­jects. That wasn’t an ac­ci­dent. He and Shuster had worked closely on the bill, and his buy-in went a long way to­ward tea-party Re­pub­lic­ans ac­cept­ing a fed­er­al re­spons­ib­il­ity for dir­ect­ing the Corps.

Con­ser­vat­ives, check.

The next prob­lem was the House floor. Shuster’s staff hectored Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, R-Va., early on to make sure the bill would get floor time. The meas­ure was ready in Ju­ly, but Can­tor told them he couldn’t guar­an­tee a floor vote un­til the fall. Ra­hall and Shuster de­cided to wait un­til Septem­ber for the com­mit­tee vote so they could use that mo­mentum to pro­mote the bill with the full House.

In Septem­ber, com­mit­tee staffers began an ex­tens­ive mar­ket­ing cam­paign for House mem­bers on so­cial me­dia and the Web that had been in the works since spring. Shuster did a first-ever Twit­ter town hall on the bill. Shuster and Ra­hall jointly cir­cu­lated a host of ma­ter­i­als on­line. Par­tic­u­larly use­ful was an eas­ily di­gest­ible pamph­let with ready-made talk­ing points, in­ten­ded for over­worked le­gis­lat­ive dir­ect­ors who wanted to of­fer a quick sum­mary for their bosses be­fore pars­ing the le­gis­lat­ive text while rid­ing the Metro home.

Shuster and Ra­hall were nearly de­railed by the gov­ern­ment shut­down, which took place the very week that Can­tor had pledged to put the wa­ter bill on the floor. “We kept check­ing with them” as the shut­down dragged on, a seni­or Re­pub­lic­an com­mit­tee aide said. “They kept say­ing, ‘You’re good, you’re good. Up as soon as we’re back.’ “

Can­tor proved true to his word. The bill oc­cu­pied the first post-shut­down floor de­bate, and it was con­duc­ted in jar­ringly col­legi­al terms. Can­tor and his oft-nemes­is, Minor­ity Whip Steny Hoy­er, D-Md., even ap­peared to­geth­er on the House floor prais­ing it.

Floor time, check.

A fi­nal hic­cup oc­curred the day be­fore the bill was to go to the floor, when a co­ali­tion of fisc­al-con­ser­vat­ive groups is­sued a let­ter to Con­gress com­plain­ing that the bill didn’t go far enough to re­duce the $60 bil­lion to $80 bil­lion Corps back­log. That sent jit­ters through Re­pub­lic­an spon­sors, who wor­ried that Her­it­age Ac­tion, the polit­ic­al wing of the con­ser­vat­ive Her­it­age Found­a­tion, would tell tea-party mem­bers to vote “no” on the bill.

Her­it­age Ac­tion signed the let­ter but ul­ti­mately did not “key vote” the bill, which gave the RSC mem­bers a free pass to vote for it. A Her­it­age spokes­man de­clined to ex­plain why his group didn’t press the is­sue, but the seni­or GOP com­mit­tee aide offered one clue. The com­mit­tee’s Re­pub­lic­an staff had already met re­peatedly with Her­it­age and oth­er tea-party-ori­ented groups, in­clud­ing Club for Growth and Cit­izens Against Gov­ern­ment Waste, to brief them on the bill.

Not­ably, those last two groups were not sig­nat­or­ies to the protest let­ter. In the end, this meant that the most in­flu­en­tial con­ser­vat­ive groups among House Re­pub­lic­ans backed off, not ne­ces­sar­ily be­cause they agreed with everything in the bill but be­cause they knew the spon­sors had heard them out.

Over­whelm­ing pas­sage, check. On to a con­fer­ence com­mit­tee with the Sen­ate, which passed its ver­sion of the bill in May.

What We're Following See More »
Session to Annouce Leak Investigations
1 hours ago

The stand off between President Trump and A.G. Sessions is escalating. But Sessions is standing his ground and getting work done. "Officials said Sessions is due to announce in coming days a number of criminal leak investigations based on news accounts of sensitive intelligence information. And within hours of Trump’s public broadside, the Justice Department announced it would change a police funding program to add new requirements that cities help federal agents find undocumented immigrants to receive grants."

Russia Ready to Retaliate for New Sanctions
1 hours ago

"Russia threatened to retaliate against new sanctions passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, saying they made it all but impossible to achieve the Trump administration’s goal of improved relations." Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the international affairs committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament, said hope “is dying” for improved relations because the scale of “the anti-Russian consensus in Congress makes dialogue impossible and for a long time." The bill passed with only three "no" votes.

Transgender Individuals to be Ban from Military
1 hours ago
N. Korea Could Strike U.S. with ICBM by Next Year
1 hours ago

"North Korea will be able to field a reliable, nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile as early as next year, U.S. officials have concluded in a confidential assessment that dramatically shrinks the timeline for when Pyongyang could strike North American cities with atomic weapons. The new assessment by the ­Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which shaves a full two years off the consensus forecast for North Korea’s ICBM program, was prompted by recent missile tests showing surprising technical advances by the country’s weapons scientists, at a pace beyond what many analysts believed was possible for the isolated communist regime."

House Sends Sanctions Bill to Senate
1 hours ago

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.