Longtime progressive Congressman will leave strong legacy, and a lot of Democrats looking at his seat

by Brian Leubitz

Henry Waxman is something of an institution, both in LA and in DC. He has an effective record that is tough to argue with, but he’s taking that legacy and heading for a more normal life it seems.

Congressman Henry A. Waxman, a senior Democrat from California, who has played a leading role in the enactment of major health, consumer protection, environmental, telecommunications, and good government laws, released the following statement announcing his decision not to seek reelection to the House this fall:

“In 1974, I announced my first campaign for Congress.  Today, I am announcing that I have run my last campaign.  I will not seek reelection to the Congress and will leave after 40 years in office at the end of this year.

“As I reflect on my career, I am filled with gratitude.  I am grateful for the support of my constituents, who have entrusted me to represent them and encouraged me to become a leader on national and international issues.  I am grateful for my supporters and allies, who have worked side-by-side with me to fight for issues we care about:  health, environmental protection, women’s and gay rights, and strengthening the ties between the United States and our most important ally, the State of Israel. ” (Henry Waxman)

As Joan McCarter points out Waxman takes his role as a public servant very seriously. He has consistently worked on behalf of his constituents against some pretty powerful interests. But, the rancor can get to be much for anybody, and Waxman blasts the Tea Party Republicans for failing to heed evidence and focus on the end results of policy rather than just walk along their ideological path blindly.

Meanwhile, the announcement will lead to quite the scrum on the Westside.  A number of names have already surfaced, but no announcements have yet been made. Given the short fundraising window, those announcements should come out very shortly.

This weekend, Congresswoman Maxine Waters stood in front of a room full of constituents and activists and did something extraordinary – she declared war on fellow Congress Member Henry Waxman.

Addressing a meeting of the Westchester Democratic club on Saturday, Waters told the packed room that Waxman secretly circulated a letter from the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in support of expanding Los Angeles’ International Airport to Congressional colleagues only a day after telling Waters he had not yet made up his mind about the issue. Waters accused Waxman of forming an “unholy alliance” with the Chamber and the construction trades to expand Los Angeles International Airport – a move that some experts believe would create region-wide traffic gridlock.

Waters, who represents the communities directly surrounding LAX supports modernizing, but not expanding, the airport.

I was on hand to record Waters’ remarks. Watch it: http://vimeo.com/62625350

The Chamber is promoting a plan which could expand capacity at LAX by up to 14 million passengers a year, and is advocating moving the North runway several hundred feet, a move some experts say would force the closure of parts of Lincoln and Sepulveda Blvds for at least 2 years, and perhaps even permanently.

Such closures would force thousands of cars onto other surface streets and nearby freeways, creating a near constant “carmageddon” scenario as traffic backed up onto the 405, 105 and 10 freeways, potentially affecting commuters as far away as Orange County, the Valley and Downtown Los Angeles.

The move is also backed by many of Los Angeles’ biggest labor unions, who see expansion as a job-creating engine for the region. Airport opponents say a multi-billion dollar plan to modernize the airport without moving the runway would create just as many jobs.

In a highly unusual move that signaled just how seriously Waters took Waxman’s end-run, Waters very publicly threatened to take the fight to the Congressman’s own district, calling into question Waxman’s motives for being the bag man for an “unholy alliance between organized labor and the Chamber of Commerce”

“Now I can’t say this is why Mr. Waxman is doing what he’s doing,” said Waters.  “But these are the two places they go for money – the Chamber…..and organized labor. And so some of these elected officials don’t feel they can be independent and fight. They say, ‘Hey, you know, this is too difficult, after all, they’ve come together on this issue’.”

Waters then encouraged her constituents  in the room to reach out to their counterparts in Waxman’s district.

“I want you to find all the community activists in his district and ask them to join with us. I want them to call him and tell him to get his nose out of Westchester’s business. He’s thinking, ‘Well, it’s not my district, so I don’t have to worry about my constituents on this issue. I can do what ever I want.'”

“But we have to turn that around. Get busy. I will remind him, every day, that we’re after him.”, Waters said, smiling.

Waters strategy, though unusually pointed and public, might be effective. Last November, Henry Waxman faced the fight of his life when he suddenly found himself representing the beach cities on either side of LAX due to redistricting.  Rather than cruise to victory virtually unopposed, as he had nearly every year since he was first elected to Congress in 1975 to represent constituents in Beverly Hills and Santa Monica, the 17-term Congressman narrowly fended off Manhattan Beach resident Bill Bloomfield.

Whoops.

The newest member of Congress could be among the most adversely affected by new political maps currently being considered by the state’s redistricting commission.

Democratic Congresswoman-elect Janice Hahn of San Pedro could find herself in a new district that runs along the coast from the South Bay to Malibu, and stretching inland to grab parts of West Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. Much of that district is currently represented by Rep. Henry Waxman. The other option for Hahn is a Long Beach district that has none of her South Bay political base and also includes two other Democratic incumbents — Reps. Linda Sanchez and Laura Richardson.

Democratic consultant Paul Mitchell, who has been actively monitoring the redistricting process, says Hahn could be “in serious trouble.”

“She’s losing the seat that she just won,” Mitchell said.

Mitchell says that under new working maps released by the commission this week, the number of Latino seats in Los Angeles is likely to increase, while one of the basin’s three African American congressional seats could disappear.

Here’s what happened: The California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission just released a third version of their “visioning” maps for Congressional and State Assembly Districts. And as indicated above, these new maps are radically different from anything we’ve seen before.

There are three different proposed versions of CA-36. Depending on which option you chose, our newly-elected Congresswoman Janice Hahn could end up sharing her district with Henry Waxman, or she could even end up outside the district. All of the options include everything from Malibu to Rancho Palos Verdes, while cutting the Beach Cities – Redondo, Manhattan, Hermosa and Torrance – in half just west of the 405 freeway.

Click here to see version One.

Click here to see version Two.

Click here to see version Three.

To see more detailed congressional maps, go to this link, type in your home address, then go to the “Select District” pull-down menu, and select “congress la opt1, opt2, or opt3”

The new Assembly districts in Southern California aren’t much better. My Assembly district, AD53, is now partially divided into three separate districts, with Venice as the nexus. Which means that Venice – 1 square mile wide – could potentially be represented by THREE different Assembly members.

To see the new Assembly map, Go to this link, type in your home address, then go to the “Select District” pull-down menu, and select “assembly la opt1”

So now what? The final district maps are slated to be released July 28, according to a press release, and adopted by the commission on Aug. 15. So you still have time to make your voice heard.

The Commission needs to hear from you. Send an email to [email protected] and let them know what you think.

Be sure to put down where you live so they know you’re a constituent.

February 10, 2010

Winograd accepts Jewish Journal’s Debate Offer:  Harman, No Response

“Let’s pack the house,” says Winograd

(Marina del Rey, CA) Congressional Candidate Marcy Winograd (CA-36) accepts the Jewish Journal’s offer to participate in a proposed debate with opponent Jane Harman, and urges her opponent to accept, as well.  In a recent Jewish Journal article, Editor Rob Eshman issued an open invitation to both candidates, saying, “I invite Winograd and Harman to discuss this issue (Israel/Palestine) in a public forum hosted by The Jewish Journal at a mutually convenient date.”   Harman has not responded.

The offer to sponsor a debate followed a controversy over a letter Congressman Waxman wrote urging potential high-dollar donors to contribute the maximum to Harman’s campaign because of Winograd’s support for equal rights for all in Israel/Palestine.  Winograd is the co-founder of LA Jews for Peace, an organization which calls for an end to the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Winograd responded to Eshman’s invitation, saying in a letter published in the Jewish Journal, “I thank the Jewish Journal for graciously inviting me to debate my opponent in the June 8, 2010, Democratic Party primary.  Given the diversity of opinion, I look forward to a robust and open debate, not only on issues pertaining to middle east peace, but also on single-payer health care, immigration and citizenship, and the transition from a war economy to a new Green economy. Let’s pack the house, wrestle with critical issues, and do some serious soul searching.”

During the 2006 campaign, Harman refused to debate, or even stand on the same stage.  In 2006 Winograd jumped into the race only three months before the primary, mobilizing almost 38% of the vote on an anti-war and pro-constitutional rights platform.   In 2010, Winograd’s platform calls for ending multiple perpetual wars and investing in human needs at home.

Contact:  Michael Jay

Campaign Manager, Winograd for Congress

[email protected]

Ph: (818) 445 4520

To learn more about the Winograd For Congress campaign, visit:

http://www.WinogradForCongress…

###

President Obama has officially directed the EPA to review the decision to deny California (and 17 other states) a waiver under the Clean Air Act to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions, and considering that Obama’s EPA is about to hire the lead attorney in the Supreme Court case that found the EPA has the authority regulate carbon emissions, I expect we will see the waiver granted in short order.

“For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change,” Obama said in the East Room of the White House. “It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.”

Today’s actions come as Obama seeks to fulfill campaign promises in the first days of his administration. The moves fulfill long-held goals of the environmental movement.

Lawmakers and environmentalists throughout California are hailing the move (I’ll put some reactions on the flip).  But notably, another group on board with the decisions are – wait for it – the automakers.

Auto-industry officials were surprisingly receptive to President Obama’s announcement about tightening emission standards, saying the steps he announced were the best they could hope for.

“It seems the president has set out a reasonable process,” said a top industry official who refused to be named. “He can say with credibility that there’s a new sheriff in town. Now, maybe there’s room to discuss this with stakeholders.”

The uncertainty of the process, given the Bush Administration’s failure to set standards passed by Congress in the 2007 energy bill and this looming fight over the California waiver which could have ended up in Congress or the courts, may be a factor in the auto companies’ tepid support.  So too is the fact that Obama and the federal government still partially controls the fate of the Big Three in the auto industry bailout.

Eventually, we will much to what amounts to a national standard, with 40% of the country’s population poised to back California’s emissions targets and the auto industry forced to calibrate to the higher standard.  This will SPUR innovation, not dampen it, and will eventually be a boon to an industry which has failed to adapt to changing needs for far too long.

As promised, I have some local reactions.  Here are a few from the above-linked LA Times article:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the actions historic. California has the most aggressive policies, though other states plan to follow California’s lead.

“Allowing California and other states to aggressively reduce their own harmful vehicle tailpipe emissions would be a historic win for clean air and for millions of Americans who want more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly cars,” said Schwarzenegger in an e-mailed statement.

“This should prompt cheers from California to Maine,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, speaking before today’s formal announcement. He praised Obama as “a man of his word” for the decision.

Tim Carmichael, senior policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, hailed the decision as a vital step for the administration and the world in the fight against global warming.

“I think Obama got a clear message that this is a priority not only for California state protection but also for planetary protection,” Carmichael said.

And here’s Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer:

“I have long said that granting California the waiver so that California and 18 other states can address tailpipe emissions from cars is the best first step the President can take to combat global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is so refreshing to see that the President understands that science must lead the way. We know that the scientists and professionals at EPA have made it clear that science and the law demand that the waiver be granted. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will be working with the new EPA Administrator to ensure that the California waiver moves forward as quickly as possible. The President’s comments about the importance of American leadership on clean energy and global warming were also music to my ears.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

“This morning, President Obama signaled that our country can no longer afford to wait to combat the climate crisis and our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.  He is setting our country on a path led by science and innovation, in a dramatic departure from the past eight years.

“Granting the request of California and other states to move forward with reducing greenhouse gases emissions from vehicles will steer American automakers to retool their fleets.  Only through innovation will automakers be able to create the greener cars of the future and regain their global competitiveness.

“President Obama has also sent a clear message on CAFE standards.  Restarting the implementation of new fuel efficiency standards will allow the Obama Administration to bring fresh thinking to the process and ensure the standards achieve the goals set by Congress in the landmark 2007 energy bill.  

“The New Direction Congress will work with President Obama to embrace a clean, renewable, and energy-independent future for America.  We look forward to building on the historic Energy Independence and Security Act with an economic recovery package that works to double renewable energy generation, invests in green infrastructure, and creates the clean energy jobs that will provide a stronger economy for the future.”

Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman:

This is a tremendous and long overdue step for energy independence and the environment. President Obama is taking the nation in a decisive new direction that will receive broad support across the country.

I guess Henry Waxman, a key ally to Nancy Pelosi, wouldn’t have made the move to unseat John Dingell if he didn’t count the votes.

Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) has ousted Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (Mich.), as Democratic lawmakers voted 137-122 Thursday morning to hand the gavel of the powerhouse panel to its second-ranking member.

This, more than anything, could be the biggest change in the federal government in 2009 and beyond.  Waxman’s Safe Climate Act sets the targets needed to mitigate the worst effects of global warming.  It now becomes the working document in the House for anti-global warming legislation.  And his constituency doesn’t include a major polluting industry.

From a policy standpoint, it’s a major progressive victory.  

This is a very big deal.  Henry Waxman has been nominated by the House’s Steering Committee to be the head of the House panel on Energy and Commerce, ahead of longtime chair John Dingell.  The implications for such a change would be huge, but it’s not over yet.

The House Democratic Steering Committee has nominated Henry A. Waxman to be chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee next year – a stinging rebuke of the sitting chairman, John D. Dingell .

Waxman won a 25-22 vote over Dingell in a closed-door meeting Wednesday by the Steering panel. Because Dingell got more than 13 votes in the secret balloting, he can be nominated to run against Waxman at Thursday’s Democratic Caucus meeting, at which all of the Democrats elected to the 111th Congress are eligible to vote.

That means we have one day to whip our Congresspeople on this vote.  Waxman, who wrote the Clean Air Act and who has an understanding of what is needed to be done on global warming and the post-carbon future, would make a great chairman, as opposed to the Dingellsaurus, who is still trying to protect the auto industry from moving into the 21st century, even as the verdict on their approach is defined by their trudging to Capitol Hill for a bailout.  A majority of the caucus has signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking for greater efforts to combat climate change.  Waxman at Energy is a key to that happening.  We must eliminate this roadblock.

Marc Ambinder sets the scene (this was written before today’s vote)

Waxman wants the job for obvious reasons: the committee will be the most powerful in the new Congress, one that’ll deal with health care and energy legislation. (Ways and Means? Pleghghgh.)  A lot of impatient liberal Democrats want to see Dingell go; he is too old, too blinkered in his thinking and too at odds with the party on energy, they say; just as many, it seems, want him to say, including some influential members of the leadership, even if for reasons of preserving the integrity of the seniority system.

Senior Democratic aides expect that the vote will go to the full caucus; all the loser of the steering committee vote has to do is present a letter with 35 House members.  The full vote would be Thursday via secret ballot.

Lots of members of Congress put themselves in the position of someone like Dingell, who earned his chairmanship with seniority, and they don’t want to see him pushed out because they wouldn’t want it to happen to them.  That’s the kind of institutional thinking that must be vanquished, as it restricts change.  The enviro groups are backing away from this fight because they don’t want to feel Dingell’s wrath if he wins.  There is nobody else left to step in but us.  I was skeptical that House Democrats would be pushed in the direction of progress, but with Waxman’s former chief of staff, Phil Schiliro, in the Obama White House, some pressure may be coming down from the top.  It’s in all of our interests to have Henry Waxman atop this committee.

Call Congress and tell them you want to see a committee chair with bold ideas on energy as the head of the Energy Committee.  If you want some extra incentive, read the smugness of the Blue Dogs who are fighting for their roadblock:

Dingell’s supporters said they are not worried by the vote of the Steering panel, which they say is stocked with left-leaning members who do not represent the broader makeup of Democratic caucus.

“If you look at the makeup of that committee in terms of geography and political leanings, this is not the same dynamic as our whole caucus,” said Jim Matheson , D-Utah, who is part of a team working the phones for Dingell, D-Mich.

In particular, if your member is in the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, both of which are supporting Dingell, ask them if they want their constituents to breathe clean air in the future.

That’s if you believe Tim Fernholz, who talked to a couple people in the know.

2. At least two people who would know (blind quotes suck but that’s the way of the world) don’t expect the Waxman challenge to Dingell at the Energy committee to get anywhere, in part because the last two classes of new representatives are more conservative on the whole than other members and will support the incumbent. The leadership hopes that it won’t come to a vote, because Waxman, who is more closely identified with Pelosi (who isn’t taking a position on the challenge) will drop out when he realizes he doesn’t have the votes.

I want to push back on the idea that the most recent classes of Reps. are all conservative, because while that is ossified conventional wisdom inside the Beltway it’s simply not true.  Alan Grayson is not conservative.  Tom Perriello is not conservative.  Larry Kissell is not conservative.  In fact, in this cycle the four Democrats who lost Congressional elections were all deeply conservative – Tim Mahoney, Nick Lampson, Don Cazayoux and Nancy Boyda.  

This isn’t totally about right-left, it’s about those in the status quo who want to protect the seniority system in the event that they stick around Congress look enough to secure a plum post.  That’s why you have liberals in the Congressional Black Caucus like John Lewis pushing for Dingell to stay in his chairmanship.  Dingell is trying to sucker new members by saying he is good on health care, but of course that’s not totally true.

But Dingell is good on health care.  Well, by good, I mean he has pushed ‘single-payer’ for literally decades, while preventing action on drug prices and appointing most of the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee that killed Clinton’s health care plan, because they were reliable pro-auto industry votes on other issues Dingell prioritized (there aren’t a lot of single payer pro-polluting members out there).  But health care is all Dingell has, so he’s emphasizing his willingness to work on health care with Obama in return for keeping his chairmanship of the enormously powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.

With the Senate appearing to take the lead on health care anyway, and Waxman just as solid on the issue, this is an irrelevant argument.  What should be far more central to the debate is this:

The California economy loses about $28 billion annually due to premature deaths and illnesses linked to ozone and particulates spewed from hundreds of locations in the South Coast and San Joaquin air basins, according to findings released Wednesday by a Cal State Fullerton research team.

Most of those costs, about $25 billion, are connected to roughly 3,000 smog-related deaths each year, but additional factors include work and school absences, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses, said team leader Jane Hall, a professor of economics and co-director of the university’s Institute for Economics and Environment Studies.

The decades of shameless defense of a heavily polluting auto industry should be grounds for Dingell’s resignation, not just for booting him from this key committee (especially because it’s resulted in the car companies being broke and looking for a government handout).  But it’s awful hard to impact an insider caucus battle with anything resembling reason.

However, we must keep trying.  Call Congress and tell them you’d rather have someone concerned about catastrophic climate change in charge of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, instead of someone who uses it as a pretext to keep his failing auto industry executive buddies happy.

I can’t even begin to link to all the examples (just click back through the tag), but Darrell Issa is an embarrassment, an idiot, and a fundamentally mean person. Which, if you think about it, makes him a perfect contender for Ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee.

His line to the top was cleared in the past few months by the retirement of Rep. Tom Davis and the defeat of Rep. Chris Shays. Issa spends most of his time in Congress picking fights, “whispering and giggling…like a schoolboy” and pitching stupid fits over not being able to hang signs and charts on his office door.

But with Rep. Waxman looking to leave the committee for more glamorous pastures and the heir to the chairmanship on the Democratic side still unclear, FedBlog notes, this would be

a great opportunity for Republicans who want to make names for themselves. In the Senate, Susan Collins, the ranking member on HSGAC, presumably isn’t going to go anywhere, but she’s not going to go out of her way to score points against Obama. So it makes sense that members of the Republican Conference would look for an attack dog in the House. Issa fits that bill.

Which is the point of course. He gets to grandstand and spew vitriol from a better pulpit and fashion himself into a no-holds-barred attack dog of the new, more-extreme GOP minority. And with Rep. Dan Lungren making a play for Minority Leader and Chuck DeVore announcing his plans to challenge Sen. Boxer in 2010, it looks like the lack of Obama coattails in California is inspiring some ambition from the far right of the state.

After following Darrell Issa for several years, I know with considerable confidence that he’s often sophomoric but always vicious. His is a scorched earth, nose-to-spite-the-face approach to government that prefers the fundamental destruction of function to anything besides his own agenda moving forward. He’s filthy rich in an exceptionally safe seat, so he’s not going anywhere unless he chooses to. Which means that obnoxious as it’ll be, Issa is likely gearing up to be a professional pain in the ass for at least the next two years. Time to get used to dealing with his antics.