Madam Enforcer
The first woman to chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is the enforcer of a new world order. When the previous chairman, Republican Sen. James Inhofe, frequently interrupted former Vice President Al Gore during his recent testimony on climate science, Sen. Barbara Boxer intervened. "You're not making the rules," she said, and brandished the gavel. "You used to. Elections have consequences." Gore supporters burst into applause; even Inhofe gave a smile. A U.S. senator since 1993, Boxer was re-elected in 2004 with 6.9 million votes, the most of any senator in history. With Democrats in control, the dedicated environmentalist now runs the committee with jurisdiction over global warming legislation and charged with oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency. She has accused the Bush White House of rolling back environmental regulations and is promising a U-turn from Inhofe, who calls global warming a hoax. A new world order, indeed. Recently, she spoke to U.S. News.
One of your first actions as chair was to create new subcommittees. Why?
I tried not to be held back by any particular tradition, because we have so much work to do and so little time to do it. I've divided up the responsibilities for global warming among two subcommittees simply because I knew we could get more done. Sen. Joe Lieberman held a very important hearing on the threats to wildlife. And I've done several others.
You are cosponsor of a "gold standard" bill that would slash greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Will you support other measures?
I don't think any bill is going to get through as written. I think what will happen-because I want it to happen-is we'll have a confidence-building measure first that will deal with low-hanging fruit: increasing energy efficiency in public buildings. If the government becomes a model of energy efficiency, this could take hold in our communities and show people that they can save money.
Would you rather have a weak bill or no bill?
I want a bill that gets us on the right path as soon as possible. Any bill has to have look-backs. It can't be permanent. We're going to have to keep passing new bills. So anything we pass, whether it's the gold-standard bill or a weaker bill, will have to have a look-back. Maybe the strong bill is too strong. Maybe the weak bill is too weak. Maybe the strong bill is too weak! Any bill I support will have continual look-backs so we can stay in tune with the science.
When will we see a global warming bill from your committee?
As soon as I get the votes. I haven't counted noses yet, but I'm sitting down with colleagues to start the process of who are possible votes on the Republican side and what the needs are in order to get a vote for such a bill. If I have the votes tomorrow, I'll move the bill tomorrow.
Does that mean that Democrats, as a bloc, are ready?
I think so. I don't want to speak for every Democrat, but I want to say that's my strong impression.
What's it going to take to get the 60 votes necessary to override a filibuster?
I think senators have to come to grips with the issue. And I think it's happening. This isn't something that happens overnight. This is an inconvenient truth. Al Gore is right. We're sending around articles. We're featuring scientists in private briefings with colleagues. My staff has briefed other staffs. This is one of the greatest challenges of our generation. It's going to take a realization on the part of a majority of senators, and maybe a supermajority, to understand that we have to take strong action, or we're going to fail our grandchildren.
You're promising tough oversight of the EPA, which you've accused of a number of environmental rollbacks. What do you feel is EPA's No. 1 problem?
You've got to go to the top. This president has the worst record of any president in terms of utilizing the EPA as a watchdog agency and a proponent for making our environment as healthy as it can be. As someone who cares deeply about public health, I can tell you it's been a disaster.
Shouldn't environmentalists be pleased that the White House has promoted a career scientist, Stephen Johnson, to the agency's top post?
My own view is if you're serious about the environment, you do two things. You make it a cabinet-level post, and you pick someone who has a real profile in environmental issues. When I called him to task on the environmental rollbacks, he gave a speech on how wonderful everything is. He doesn't get it, or he doesn't want to get it.
But isn't it true that air quality standards are tougher than ever before?
The problem is there is more pollution. The standards are higher, but how high does it have to be to protect the people? In my state, 9,000 people a year are dying of air-related illness.
Do you expect a battle with the White House over the EPA and its budget?
This latest budget request from the president is so underfunded that even my Republican colleagues, to my happy surprise, have said they cannot stand by and watch this.
This story appears in the April 30, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.