Dissension Dilutes Power of California in Congress

Like the state itself, California’s delegation in Congress is diverse and powerful, dwarfs its neighbors and is sure to get even larger in the future.

No other state has so many lawmakers in key positions in the House of Representatives or exerts so much influence on issues ranging from immigration and highways to air pollution and AIDS.

Yet, like the fault lines under California, deep divisions run through the 45-member group and can erupt at any time. For all its clout, the delegation is often at war with itself, unable to put aside strong ideological differences and flex its collective muscle to protect the state’s interests.

The dissension has taken a heavy economic toll: In recent years, California has competed for billions of dollars in federal contracts but often has lost out to other states, such as Texas, whose congressmen were better organized and less divided.

Now, as the 101st Congress gets down to the task of reshaping the national agenda and setting priorities for a tight federal budget, many state observers wonder whether California’s lot will again be as notable for squandered opportunities as for its solid accomplishments.

Will the delegation, with greater political and legislative influence at hand than at any time in recent memory, find a way to turn its massive potential into concrete benefits for the state’s people and concerns?

It is a troubling question for those in local governments, industries and social groups who promote California interests in Washington, and one with no clear answer.

“For sheer size and the number of people in positions of power, California’s delegation is second to none,” said Eugene C. Lee, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley, “but it also has such extremes of left and right, so many diverse interests to consider, that this makes unity very difficult to achieve.”

Study in Contrasts

Indeed, some observers joke that getting all 45 Californians together in one room to participate in a civil discussion would be an accomplishment in itself. The delegation includes some of the most fiery liberals in Congress, such as Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley), and some of its most hard-line conservatives, such as Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove).

At times, the members’ disputes can be quite bitter. In what has become a rite of spring, liberal Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who heads a House subcommittee on public health policy, has clashed with conservative Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) over the federal AIDS policy.

“These two guys are from the same part of the state and their districts are less than 50 miles apart, but they might as well come from different planets,” said one Democratic member. “You see that kind of friction on a lot of issues around here.”

On occasion, ideology does not prevent cooperation. City and industry lobbyists give California’s 27 Democrats and 18 Republicans high marks for protecting trade and agricultural interests, as well as for projects such as Los Angeles’ Metro Rail subway. Increasingly, the two sides have joined forces to defeat attempts to slash funds for state programs.

Seeking Common Ground

In this session of Congress there are indications that some members will try to find common ground on issues such as the need for a tougher Clean Air Act and increased federal funds for immigration and refugee assistance programs.

“We have the ability to pull together and do something for the good of the state, despite all the talk that the delegation is divided,” said Rep. Carlos Moorhead (R-Glendale), who heads the California Republican caucus and meets frequently with his Democratic counterpart, Rep. Don Edwards of San Jose. “I don’t agree that we can’t work together. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.”

History shows that such harmony is fragile and rarely lasts for long, however.

In recent years, cooperation usually has been limited to individual members working across party lines on a few specific issues such as immigration and trade. Although California’s Democrats and Republicans have formed separate organizations, they do not meet as a bipartisan group to plot legislative strategy, as New York, Texas and other large-state delegations do.

“We have zero interaction with most Democrats, because we just don’t have much in common with these guys,” said one Republican from California. “There’s a lot of bad blood. You could say we’re permanently split, right down the middle.”

Remapping Wounds

Some of the division stems from the 1980 reapportionment plan pushed through by Democrats. It redrew congressional district lines and collapsed several districts held by Republicans. Lingering memories of that clash and anticipation of the next reapportionment battle in 1990 have stymied efforts to improve cooperation, members say. The state, which already has 11% of all House members, is expected to gain five or six seats after the next census because of increased population.

“There’s no question that the fallout from reapportionment prevents us from doing a lot of things together,” said Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), third-ranking member in the House Democratic leadership. “Given past political history, there’s a lack of trust here.”

Members also are divided by geography. Most states are part of an identifiable and homogenous region, but California’s varied terrain and diverse population reflect the nation as a whole. It has poor, inner-city neighborhoods, expansive suburbs, rural towns and vast agricultural areas that seem to have more in common with other parts of the country than with each other.

“At times, it’s hard to pin down exactly what California’s interests are,” said Rep. Vic Fazio (D-Sacramento). “When we talk about child care, are we talking about big cities, where day-care centers may be the answer, or are we talking about small, rural communities, where care in homes or churches may be a better answer? In each case, you’re talking about California.”

Texas Togetherness

Still, delegations from other large and diverse states seem better able to rise above such differences when federal programs offering big payrolls and prestige are at stake.

For example, Texas’ 27 representatives, from hard-line conservative Tom DeLay to urban liberal Mickey Leland, consistently mount strong bipartisan campaigns to secure their state’s full share of the federal largess.

“I’d say the Texas delegation is the most influential in Congress, at least right now,” said Larry Sabato, a professor of political science at the University of Virginia. “They’re helped by the fact that the President is from Texas, as well as (House Speaker) Jim Wright, but they also have a tradition of working together. If federal dollars are at stake, they’ll almost always work across party lines.”

The Californians in Congress maintain that the state does get a fair share of new roads, water projects and the like, but their lack of unity is conspicuous when pork-barrel bonanzas in the government budget are up for grabs.

In 1987, for example, California staged a sputtering, conflict-ridden lobbying campaign and lost out in the furious competition for the $4.4-billion superconducting super collider, the largest scientific instrument ever to be built. Texas won the plum contract, while California failed to make it to the semifinal round.

A year earlier, the state was unable to win a $50-million grant to build an earthquake research center and lost out to Buffalo, N. Y. California also sought, but did not win, a $125-million federal contract to build a semiconductor research center. Again, Texas made the winning bid.

Californians Out-Hustled

In each case, a handful of California lawmakers worked hard to land the lucrative projects but were out-hustled by rival delegations with better research backing up their bids and members who put aside partisan differences to mount a tough selling campaign. Knowledgeable observers have said that California legislators should not be blamed entirely for these setbacks. They note that there was poor coordination among industry leaders, Sacramento lawmakers, the governor’s office and the Washington delegation.

“The fact is we’re getting beat, and it could take a long-term economic toll on the state,” said a House aide familiar with these battles. “California has this great image of itself, that it’s so powerful, but the world is changing and the power that we have in numbers doesn’t guarantee that we’re going to stay on top.”

To some members, the losses seem inexcusable.

“It’s ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous, that the nation’s largest congressional delegation can’t find a way to pull together on these things,” Coelho said. “With all of our numbers, with all of the influence we’ve built up in Congress, we should be doing a much better job.”

Clout on Paper

On paper, the state has ample clout to make its voice heard. Coelho and Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) are the third-ranking members in the House leadership of their respective parties. As the so-called whip, Coelho plays a key role in pushing legislation through the House and lining up votes on closely contested issues.

California Democrats head eight House committees, including some of the most powerful ones such as the Budget, Public Works and Transportation and Education and Labor panels. They also head subcommittees on health and environment, family issues, water and power, military installations and agriculture. Along with the state’s Republican members, they control five votes--more than any other state--on the House Appropriations Committee, which decides how much money will go to federal programs.

Republicans are also strategically placed on major House committees. Beyond Lewis, Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R-Coronado) heads the House Republican Research Committee, which conducts seminars and hearings on strategic GOP issues, and Dornan heads the Republican Study Committee, which briefs conservative activists.

“Person for person, the California delegation is better represented on key House committees than any other state,” said Washington political scientist Norman Ornstein. “There’s really not one issue affecting the state I can think of where they are not poised to act.”

Popular, Personable

Moreover, said Paul Sweet, a lobbyist for the University of California, “If you asked, you’d find that California members are fairly popular. They’re personable. They’ve built up a lot of good will with other colleagues.”

Still, that influence rarely translates into action by the delegation as a whole. Indeed, major intra-party rifts sometimes erupt.

Among the Republicans, for example, several members said there is a growing split between conservatives who believe in “process,” or getting legislation through Congress, and those who believe in “substance” and refuse to compromise their beliefs to accommodate liberal opponents.

“Why should we roll over and play dead for (House Speaker) Wright?” said one of the “substance” conservatives. “There’s no percentage in that, because we get nothing but crumbs from the majority.”

Delegation members are resigned to disagreements on volatile issues such as abortion and aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, but most legislation is not so controversial and some Californians believe they should work together more often on issues that affect their state.

Meetings Endorsed

“It would help if we could meet as a delegation, if we could at least get together and talk about things that impact the state,” said Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City). “I’m not talking about major points of division, because we can clear them off the table. Let’s talk about what helps California.”

Republicans make similar comments, suggesting that the delegation should meet as a whole regularly. It would be “a big step in the right direction, even if we only met socially,” said Rep. Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad).

That goal seems more elusive than ever. What happened last year when several members tried to establish a California think tank on Capitol Hill is a case in point.

In the aftermath of losing the super collider and other projects, California business leaders and political officials explored the idea of opening a research institute in Washington to advise the delegation and help it compete more effectively. The new office, to be supported by private money, would have been strictly nonpartisan.

Sponsors--who included Republican Moorhead and Democrat Edwards--pointed out that other states and regions had similar institutes. Some of these represent a group of 12 Southern states, a coalition of 19 Northeastern and Midwestern states and an office serving 16 Sun Belt states.

Idea Fizzles

“The idea has been to give us a more competitive edge,” Edwards said. “This kind of institute would be staffed with first-rate professionals. It would look ahead and anticipate state problems to be addressed by a congressional delegation and the governor.”

Few members disputed the value of such an office, but getting it started was another matter.

Some Democrats were concerned that the institute would be too heavily slanted toward business. Republicans feared that it would become a tool of the Democratic majority. Questions about the role of the office were also raised by the governor’s representatives and the state’s two senators, Democrat Alan Cranston and Republican Pete Wilson.

The idea finally was withdrawn, although sponsors said they would try again this year.

In the meantime, with a new Administration and a new Congress, the next cycle of projects on the government’s wish list is beginning to take shape. Several of the Californians have begun mapping out a campaign for landing a multimillion-dollar supercomputer project for San Diego, but the delegation as a whole has not yet plunged into that fray or any other.

Will the Californians find a way to unite?

“That’s the big question, isn’t it?” said Rep. Lewis. “If we could find a way to bring the Republicans and the Democrats together . . . to communicate more regularly, it would be the best thing we ever did for California. But I don’t have any easy answers.”