Share

Boxer Faces "Challenge of a Lifetime" on Climate Change Bill

by: Rob Hotakainen   |  McClatchy Newspapers

photo
Sen. Barbara Boxer faces the challenge of her career as she works to pass historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions. (Photo: Getty)

    Washington - If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

    She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children.

    Boxer is engaged in her biggest sales job ever. The stakes couldn't be higher as she faces one of the toughest high-profile acts of her lengthy career: getting Congress to sign off on historic legislation to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

    "For Barbara Boxer, it's both the opportunity and a challenge of a lifetime," said Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch.

    As the Senate's top-ranked environmentalist, Boxer heads the influential committee that began hearings on the issue this week. She's aiming to get her panel to pass a bill by the end of September. For months now, she's been meeting with senators one on one and hosting a group of about 30 senators for "Tuesday at 12" meetings to develop a strategy to win 60 votes, enough to overcome a Republican filibuster.

    With a House of Representatives bill already approved, all eyes are on Boxer, who must overcome plenty of skepticism on Capitol Hill among her fellow Democrats.

    "It's going to be a tough slog, but I'm excited about it. . . . I know that my Republican colleagues are going to try to do everything to stop it and distort it," Boxer said Friday in an interview.

    Last year, Boxer's standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat, but there's a new strategy this year that will make it harder for senators to reject it. Six committees — Environment and Public Works, which Boxer heads, Finance, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture and Foreign Relations — will have jurisdiction over the bill. Those committee heads have been meeting for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who'll help combine their work into one massive bill this fall.

    Boxer said the approach was unlike any she'd experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993, and she predicted that it will simplify passage.

    "It's a different dynamic, and it will make it easier," she said in the interview. "There will be so much in this bill. There will be investments in transportation. There will be great opportunities for agriculture. There will be great incentives for energy efficiency. There will be so much in there. There will be help for areas that need flood control. It should have a broader appeal. Having said that, it's all difficult."

    While vote counts vary, most observers say that the bill's fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates, many of whom fear that a vote for climate-change legislation could hurt their re-election chances. Boxer is trying to round up some Republican votes to offset opposition from the likes of Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

    Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act, and that it will. After years of battling with the Bush administration, Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law.

    It still won't be easy, however.

    Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top-ranked Republican on the environment committee, predicts that Boxer will fail. He said the public would see the legislation as a large tax increase once people understood that they'd ultimately bear the costs of any bill that forced companies to reduce global-warming emissions.

    "Once the American public realizes what this legislation will do to their wallets, they will resoundly reject it," Inhofe said Tuesday at a hearing.

    Boxer said the legislation wouldn't include any new taxes, and she's portraying Republican opponents as obstructionists.

    "This is consistent with a pattern of 'No. No, we can't. No, we won't,' " Boxer said. "I believe that this committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our president's attitude, which is 'Yes, we can, and yes, we will.' "

    Aides say that Boxer, who's spent her political career focused on environmental issues, is keenly aware that this is her big moment, a chance to cement a legacy that would include passage of legislation with a worldwide impact. Three more committee hearings are set for next week, and a vote by the full Senate could come as early as October.

    Boxer has been working closely with top White House aides and Reid, a close ally, to figure out a way to pass the bill. To reach out to farm-state and coal-state senators, she's enlisted a team of lieutenants: Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Thomas Carper of Delaware, among others.

    While Boxer has yet to introduce specifics of her bill, it's expected to build on a House plan that was approved 219-212 last month, which would set the first enforceable limits on global warming pollution. The cap on emissions would reduce them by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Among other things, it also would require that the nation get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable energy in 2020 and set energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances and industries.

    The Obama administration is expected to lobby hard on Boxer's behalf, as was evidenced by this week's hearings. The administration sent four of its top-level appointees to make the case for the bill: Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Boxer has plenty of support from most environmental groups, but she's bound to feel the heat as she begins compromising to win votes. Greenpeace, for example, and others opposed the House bill, saying that it had been weakened too much to appease farm-state interests.

    O'Donnell said that Boxer would face those same pressures.

    "That is going to be one of the real challenges for Boxer," he said. "How do you ensure the integrity of the program while bringing along farm-state senators to your side?"

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

"Moderate" Democrats should

"Moderate" Democrats should know that their heel-dragging on viable climate legislation will absolutely diminish to zero their chances of re-election. My own Congresspeople, all Democrats of that sort, have already felt the brunt of my non-support. As for Inhofe's statement that the climate legislation will increse taxes - What about the big hunks of tax money going to war profiteering? Let's get our priorities in right order for a change.

You can pay to have

You can pay to have government and industry become less polluting or you can pay through damaged health of your family and higher food and other costs as the environment degrades. In either case the House-passed bill is a mockery of what needs to be done. If Boxer is only able to pass what the House did, it isn't much of a legacy to her or the earth.

I'm with you Barbara Boxer!

I'm with you Barbara Boxer! As so many are. Greenpeace must join you too. The best way to get global warming incentives progressive is to work for acceptance from the opposition with some compromise. But see David Brower's quote below.... "Compromise is often necessary, but it ought not to originate with environmental leaders. Our role is to hold fast to what we believe is right, to fight for it, to find allies, and to adduce all possible arguments for our cause."  David Brower Respectfully, Pat Bartholomew 1112 Judd Creek Hamilton, MT 59840

I don't believe in man made

I don't believe in man made global warming. But even if I did, this bill puts the actual changes so far off into the future that it looks like a scam. One of the real effects of the 1500 page bill (that no one has read) is carbon credit trading, which will funnel more money into the hands of the wall street bankers who brought us this global financial collapse. We will be creating a new global currency that the big money boys can inflate and deflate with more complicated schemes. Does anyone really think that the people who brought us Enron and the housing bubble are going to cool off the planet?

From your article, Barbara

From your article, Barbara Boxer appears to be so focused on ”getting a bill through the Senate” that she may be in danger of losing sight of what is in the Bill. If it is even faintly similar to the Waxman-Markey House bill it is almost surely worse than nothing. If you have nothing, you know you have nothing. With Waxman-Markey the Bill has a nice Title, and that is about all you can say for it. It actually removed EPA’s existing responsibility for monitoring carbon dioxide emissions: It is thus a step backwards. Greenpeace, Friend of the Earth, Friends Committee on National Legislation and several other environmental groups regretfully asked that Waxman-Markey be rejected by the house as too weak. Minimal requirements for a worthwhile climate Bill are: • Upstream control of fossil fuel production at the mine, well-head or port-of-entry: Not at the point of emission. • No offsets. • Sale or auction of all permits, with revenue (a) going to the government for (b) 100% return to consumers on an equal per-capita basis. • A Carbon Tariff on all imports from countries with less aggressive carbon control programs than the U.S. • EPA to retain responsibility for setting and monitoring carbon dioxide levels. Waxman-Markey violates all of these requirements with the possible exception of the tariff. Barbara Boxer needs to turn her attention to the contents of her Bill, rather than its prospects for passage: Surely she does not want her life’s work, to be a totally ineffective bill?