Texas loses power in congress

[Epitome22]

Tom DeLay and the Texas delegation.
Texas Toast
by Patricia Kilday Hart
Only at TNR Online | Post date 05.15.06


In January 2003 the Texas congressional delegation gathered at Union Station for a luncheon hosted by then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay, in what was billed as a team-building session for the Lone Star state's lawmakers. As DeLay gave the group a pep talk, Democratic members became increasingly uncomfortable. What they all knew, but which went unmentioned by DeLay, was that the then-majority leader was engaged in extraordinary efforts to force the Texas legislature to redraw congressional districts with the sole purpose of defeating as many of them as possible.

Finally, Representative Martin Frost of Dallas, who would lose his seat in the following election cycle, challenged DeLay: How could DeLay ask Democrats to trust him when he had vowed to defeat them? "DeLay just grinned that grin of his and said, 'Oh, Martin, if you were in my shoes, you'd be doing the same thing,'" recalled Democratic Representative Lloyd Doggett of Austin. At that moment, it became clear--at least to the Democrats in the room--that DeLay's priority was building the Republican Party, regardless of the residual effect on the political stature of his home state.

In the weeks following DeLay's announcement that he would resign from Congress, local and state leaders who had come to rely on the majority leader's influence mourned openly about the loss of stature Texas would suffer with DeLay's retirement. But a more honest post-mortem on the Hammer's tenure as majority leader would take into account the devastating long-term impact the Texas delegation suffered as a result of the mid-census redistricting, which forced the retirement or defeat of six senior Democrats with formidable committee credentials. In that calculus, Texas will suffer--but less by DeLay's departure than by the seeds of destruction sewn by his partisan focus. His grand gamble--enhancing his own power by electing as many Republicans as possible--has decimated the state's place at the legislative table. And if Democrats win control of Congress, Texas will suffer even further in committee assignments.

It's fair to say the Texas delegation is at its lowest ebb" since the early-twentieth century, notes Cal Jillson, political science professor at Southern Methodist University. Since 1931, when Cactus Jack Garner first laid claim to the House speaker's office and began grooming a young protégée named Sam Rayburn, the Texas congressional delegation has enjoyed legendary clout on Capitol Hill. With only a few short gaps, Texans have made their influence felt in critical positions from House speaker (Garner, Rayburn, Jim Wright), majority leader (Wright, Dick Armey, and DeLay) to the chairmanship of significant committees (George Mahon on the Appropriations Committee and Lloyd Bentsen on the Senate Finance Committee) and caucuses (Olin Teague, Martin Frost). Not to mention the assistance the state could count on from the three Texans who have resided in the White House during the second-half of the twentieth century.

With DeLay's retirement, Texas enters what one state official calls "uncharted territory," with a delegation now claiming only one committee chairman and no leadership position--perhaps the state's worst portfolio since the Great Depression. What's more, this decline in stature coincides with President Bush's lame-duck phase--and Bush's precipitous decline in the polls.

Leaders in both political parties agree that DeLay's departure has dealt a severe body blow to the state's political leverage in Washington, fretting that Texas will no longer be able to exert its storied influence in the short term--on big-budget items like NASA and transportation projects. "The question isn't if DeLay's departure negatively affects the Lone Star state's influence, but how much and for how long?" explains Dave Walden, a senior vice president of the business-oriented Greater Houston Partnership. "That's not to denigrate the members we still have, but [DeLay] was a king when he wanted to be."

But DeLay's claim to the throne came at a huge price to his home state. After all, the Texas delegation underwent dramatic change after the 2004 elections, which were based on the Republican-friendly map DeLay forced through the state's legislature. (The issue produced a lengthy, bloody fight that prompted two dramatic flights of quorum-busting Democrats to neighboring states.) In that election, Texas lost 85 years of seniority and three powerful ranking members of Congress.

"The Texas delegation went from the most powerful to one of the weaker large state delegations, really as a result of DeLay's efforts," says Matt Angle, director of the Lone Star Project, a Democratic research operation, and a former Frost chief of staff. Angle's old boss was ranking member on the Rules Committee, Charlie Stenholm was ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, and Turner was ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee. In addition, Max Sandlin was chief deputy whip and Ciro Rodriquez was chairman of the Hispanic Caucus.

Republicans are quick to point out that Joe Barton chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a panel with sweeping jurisdiction on crucial issues like Medicaid reform. And other members are poised to assume greater leadership roles. For instance, Henry Bonilla is a subcommittee chair on the Appropriations Committee and Michael McCaul of Houston and Austin is a subcommittee chair of the Homeland Security Committee. But under Republican caucus rules, Barton has only one more term as chair. After that, the delegation will have no chairmen. And then there's also the question of what happens if the Republican Party loses its majority--a not-so-unthinkable scenario. "If the Democrats regain control of the Congress, the Texas delegation will be without a single chair or a single ranking member," Angle notes.

Former House Speaker Jim Wright recalls that Rayburn was once asked why Texas remained so powerful for so long in Congress. Simple, Rayburn replied. Texans send their representatives to Congress when they are young, and keep them there. DeLay subscribed to a radically different notion. "The leadership made it clear they were willing to trade Charlie [Stenholm] for Randy Neugebauer," Jillson points out. The senior status held by Texans on key committees now is claimed by New Yorkers, Minnesotans, Tennesseans.

In the immediate future, Texas will miss DeLay. He was the state's "go-to guy" on critical issues from Katrina-related appropriations to transportation projects. Even Democratic members who despise DeLay's partisan hardball tactics acknowledge that he was an asset to the Texas legislative agenda. "I wouldn't ever be listed as a big fan of Tom DeLay," acknowledges Representative Chet Edwards, a Waco Democrat. "But I don't think anyone can deny that the majority leader's office was helpful to the state of Texas."

For example, at DeLay's prodding, the federal government re-jiggered the federal highway trust fund distribution formulas to benefit Texas to the tune of $500 million over the next four years, according to Ric Williamson, chairman of the state's highway commission. The old formula favored low-growth states to the detriment of high-growth Texas, California, and Florida.

Long after potholes begin appearing on the highways DeLay built, the state's delegation still will be rebuilding its congressional portfolio to its pre-DeLay prominence. Congress will have to stay in Republican hands for several more election cycles for Texas to claim the chairmanships and leadership posts equal to its prestigious history. Demographics and the swinging political pendulum aren't likely to allow that to happen. If at some point Democrats take control of Congress, Texas's influence will suffer even further. "It's part of the DeLay legacy," notes Jillson. "It was good for the Republican Party, but not necessarily for the state of Texas."