FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 2010
KLMNO Washington FORUM
An energy bill that pays dividends
by Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins
here has been much talk recent- ly about whether Republicans and Democrats in Washington can produce a bipartisan clean-en- ergy and jobs bill. The answer is: We already have. We are leading a biparti- san effort to put a lid on carbon pollu- tion and in so doing unleash a mas- sive investment in clean-energy tech- nology. If we can tackle this issue in a predictable, transparent and free- market way, we can create millions of high-paying jobs while limiting the worst effects of climate change and reducing both our dependence on for- eign oil and the risk of another oil spill. We have authored a bill that takes on this challenge, empowering Amer- ica’s private sector to take the lead in the $6 trillion global energy market while shutting out Wall Street specu- lators and protecting low- and mid- dle-income families from associated price increases for energy. Those are the guiding principles be- hind the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act, or Clear Act, which we introduced in Decem- ber. We believe that when coupled with other new energy policies and tax incentives, this can be the basis for a clean-energy and job-creation package that can pass the Senate. The act takes a fresh approach to the per- sistent problem of how to end this country’s dangerous addiction to fos- sil fuels without harming our economy.
T
At only 39 pages, it contrasts stark- ly with other thousand-plus-page en- ergy and climate proposals, which are full of often confusing and bureau- cratic provisions, windfalls for special interests and higher energy costs for the American people. Our concept is simple: Instead of cap-and-trade, our approach is “cap- and-dividend,” with the dividends go-
Our bill would sell carbon shares through auctions, with 75 percent of the revenue returned to Americans.
ing where they belong: into the pock- ets of hardworking Americans. The legislation would set up a mechanism for selling “carbon shares” to the few thousand fossil fuel producers and importers through monthly auctions. Seventy-five per- cent of the auction revenue would be returned to every citizen and legal resident of the United States through equally divided rebate checks — aver- aging $1,100 for a family of four each year. The remaining 25 percent would finance clean-energy research and de- velopment; help reduce emissions in agriculture, forestry and manufactur- ing; and provide transition assistance for workers and communities in car- bon-intensive regions. The legislation aims to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions 20 percent by 2020 and 83 per- cent by 2050. Researchers at the New York Uni-
versity School of Law found that the legislation would generate good, “green jobs” in areas such as construc- tion, solar power and mass transit be- cause a predictable carbon price spurs investment in efficiency and cleaner-energy solutions. Our Senate colleagues understand
that the energy status quo threatens our economy, environment and na- tional security. But consensus can quickly break down when disputes among various regions take over, leading to hyperpartisanship, an overload of legislative giveaways and, ultimately, stalemate. The framework we propose all but eliminates regional disparities, ensur- ing that consumers are treated fairly even if they currently get most of their electricity from coal. Allocating pollution credits entire- ly by an auction with minimum and maximum prices — as opposed to giv- ing some of them away to selected emitters, as other legislation proposes — means that our legislation avoids picking winners and losers. We create a level playing field instead of provid- ing pollution credits to whichever en- tities have the best lobbyists. The act cuts out Wall Street specu-
lators and price manipulators. It min- imizes destructive price volatility. Our legislation can generate bipar- tisan support because it addresses our nation’s dangerous overreliance on fossil fuels while opening the door to vibrant economic growth. Instead of a behemoth bill designed to conceal backroom deals and giveaways, our framework is a straight path that all Americans can follow.
Maria Cantwell is a Democratic senator from Washington. Susan Collins is a Republican senator from Maine.
How to end gridlock: Mediation
by L. Michael Hager T
he major challenge of govern- ance these days lies with Con- gress — where stalemate is causing some members to flee in frus- tration. The United States faces many issues that require thoughtful, vi- brant leadership. Yet Congress has an approval rating below 25 percent, and a troubling amount of anger (and sometimes violence) increasingly ac- companies the articulation of politi- cal differences.
At its best, legislating is a difficult business. Diverse, conflicting inter- ests contend for the attention and support of legislators, who must per- suade party stalwarts and their oppo- nents to support particular bills. An adversary process has become ever more contentious over the past dec- ade. And the inherent political “noise,” the economic downturn, home foreclosures and joblessness have provoked a rage seemingly di- rected at Washington, especially toward Congress.
GERALD HERBERT/ASSOCIATED PRESS Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Vice President Biden talk in the Oval Office last year. Hillary for vice president Clinton is also young enough to be the Democratic nominee by Sally Quinn H
illary Clinton and Joe Biden should switch jobs. Really. It makes sense for the Democrats, actually. Clinton has done an incredible job as secretary of state. First of all, she has worked harder than anyone should ever be expected to. She has managed to do the impossible: She is the ambassador of the United States to the world, maintaining her credibility while playing the bad guy to President Obama’s good guy, such as with North Korea, Iran and Israel, and still looking good. She has been a true team player. If Clinton is dissatisfied with her role, you would never know it. She has been loyal and sup- portive to the president and has maintained a good relation- ship with him and with others in the White House. If she is be- ing left out of the policymaking, or being sent on trips to keep her out of town, she has not shown it. She is cheerful, thought- ful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many antici- pated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life. In short, the arguments against Hillary Clinton being Oba-
ma’s vice president have pretty much evaporated. So, what kind of running mate would she be? We’ve seen the team player. Now consider Hillary the Democratic campaign- er. She is tireless and relentless. Given the combination of votes that she and Obama got in the 2008 primary campaign, they would be a near-unbeatable team. Clinton also appeals to independents, but importantly, she would neutralize the effect of Sarah Palin. Whatever Palin came up with, Hillary could best her — and the Tea Party crowd as well. The Republicans would lose their “year of the woman” argument. And based on experience alone, Hillary is far more qualified to be president than any of the Republicans being considered today, including Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Palin.
at the end of an Obama second term; she will be in her late 60s in 2016 but still younger than Ronald Reagan was when he was inaugurated in 1981 (just shy of 70) and younger than John McCain, who was 72 when he ran in 2008. Most impor- tant, were she vice president and Obama were for some reason not able to fulfill his term, she would be ready to step in. True, Joe Biden has been rehabilitated. A recent profile in
The Post portrayed him as a successful and intelligent man whose foreign policy advice is valued by the president. The gaffe-prone former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seems to have worked out the kinks. Clearly, he is aware that he is no longer an independent voice but, rather, a representative of the president. But Biden has no intention of running for president in six years. His passion is foreign pol- icy. He would have been an ideal choice for secretary of state had he not been Obama’s running mate. And those who know him have said that secretary of state is his dream job. It would not be out of the question for Clinton and Biden to switch jobs sometime after the midterm elections. After the president announced the switch, majorities in both houses of Congress would have to confirm Clinton to her new position, following the rules laid out in the 25th Amendment. She could then immediately begin campaigning for Obama for 2012, and she would also have at least two years in the White House as vice president to give her unassailable experience, clout and credibility. For his part, Biden would simply need Senate con- firmation to get to work in Foggy Bottom. Another scenario is that Obama could wait and choose Hil-
lary as his running mate for 2012 and then have her step down as secretary of state so she could start campaigning. The catch with that plan, however, is that it would make Biden a lame duck and Obama would probably have to appoint an interim secretary of state. Take it seriously.
The writer is a moderator, with Jon Meacham, of On Faith, an online conversation on religion at
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith.
Both Republicans and Democrats need help reaching across the aisle to engage in meaningful debate and to turn bills into sound laws. The presi- dent needs a creative Congress that will enact effective and sometimes even transformative legislation. The American people need a government that addresses the critical issues of the day. Across America we need a civil discourse to strengthen our dem- ocratic governance. We also need a strong, fair methodology to surmount what have become roadblock issues. The pathway that individuals use to reach a decision is often as impor- tant as the decision itself. The meth- odology can spell the difference be- tween a good decision and a poor one — or between one that succeeds and one that fails. Wise process can deter- mine the sus- tainability of a decision, while poor process can sow the seeds of rever- sal.
POLARIZING POLITICS
A case in point is health- care reform. Consider the process used by the Clinton and Obama ad- ministrations, respectively; the dis- tinguishing (and perhaps decisive) el- ement is transparency. The Clinton team toiled in relative secrecy and lost; President Obama, by contrast, worked in a fishbowl. Notwithstand- ing the political machinations of a de- termined opposition and numerous miscalculations by proponents, trans- parency prevailed and a historic bill became law. Process matters. What is needed is a framework for
tenure and base pay increases on test-score improvement; al- though Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed that attempt, legislatures in Colorado, New York, Oklahoma and other states have also modi- fied regulations regarding tenure with an eye toward Race to the Top. Teachers protest, but they are dismissed as union hacks with lousy skills, intent on protecting their cushy tenured jobs because they could never cut it in the real world. I’m a first-year, second-career high school teacher, a “highly
The right way to assess teachers T
by Michele Kerr
he Obama administration’s Race to the Top program de- mands that teachers be evaluated by student test scores. Florida’s legislature passed a bill in April to end teacher
qualified” teacher of math, English and social science, a stand- ing I achieved by passing rigorous tests. I’m not a union fan, nor am I in favor of pay increases based on seniority or added educa- tion. Like many new teachers throughout the country, I was pink-slipped and am looking for work, so I don’t have a cushy job to protect. I’m not your typical teacher. But I believe I speak for many teachers when I say I’m willing to be tested on student perform- ance, provided certain conditions are met. So let’s negotiate. I propose that: (1) Teachers be assessed based on only those students with 90 percent or higher attendance.
Without the missing students, the tests won’t yield a complete
picture of learning. But the tests’ purpose is to yield a picture of teaching, which isn’t the same thing as learning. Teachers can’t teach children who aren’t there. Results will reveal that many students miss this attendance requirement. Put that problem on the parents’ plates. Leave it out of the teaching assessment. (2) Teachers be allowed to remove disruptive students from their classroom on a day-to-day basis. Two to three students who just don’t care can easily disrupt a class of strugglers. Moreover, many students who are consistent- ly removed for their behavior do start to straighten up — sitting in the office is pretty boring. Yes, teachers could misuse this authority. But if teachers are
evaluated by student learning, they must have control over class- room conditions. Then the administration can separately decide what to do with constantly disruptive students or those teachers who would rather remove students than teach them. But keep the issue away from measuring student performance; leave it as a personnel call.
(3) Students who don’t achieve “basic” proficiency in a state
test be prohibited from moving forward to the next class in the progression.
Students who can’t prove they know algebra can’t take geom-
etry. If they can’t read at a ninth-grade level, they can’t take sophomore English — or, for that matter, sophomore-level his- tory or science, which presumes sophomore-level reading ability. Not only is it nearly impossible for these students to learn the
new material, but they also slow everyone else as the teacher struggles to find a middle ground. By requiring students to re- peat a subject, we can assess both the current and the next teach- er based on student progress in an apples-to-apples comparison. If Race to the Top is to have meaning, we have to be sure that students are actually getting to the top, instead of being stalled midway up the hill while we lie to them about their progress. (4) That teachers be assessed on student improvement, not an absolute standard — the so-called value-added assessment. I suspect that my conditions will go nowhere, precisely be- cause they are reasonable. Teachers can’t be evaluated on stu- dents who miss 10 percent of the class or don’t have the prereq- uisite knowledge for success. Yet accepting these reasonable conditions might reveal that common rhetorical goals for educa- tion (everyone goes to college, algebra for eighth-graders) are, to put it bluntly, impossible. So we’ll either continue the status quo at a stalemate or the states will make the tests so easy that the standards are meaningless. Yes, some students are doing poorly because their teachers are terrible. Other students are doing poorly because they simply don’t care, their parents don’t care, their cognitive abilities aren’t up to the task or some vicious combination of factors we haven’t figured out — with no regard to teacher quality. No one is eager to discover the size of that second group, so serious testing with teeth will go nowhere. That’s too bad. We need to know how many students are fail- ing because they don’t attend class, how many students score “below basic” on the algebra test three years in a row, how many students fail all tests because they read at a fourth-grade level. We need to know if our education rhetoric is a pipe dream in- stead of an achievable reality blocked by those nasty teachers unions. And, of course, if it turns out that all our problems can be solved by rooting out bad teachers, we need to find that out, too. So if we’re going to evaluate teachers based on student results,
let’s negotiate some reasonable terms — and let’s not flinch from whatever reality those terms reveal.
The writer, a Stanford teacher program graduate, taught geometry, algebra and humanities at Oceana High School in Pacifica, Calif.
a substantive, and better, process. Roger Fisher, author of the 1991 book “Getting to Yes,” showed how ne- gotiators often fail to reach agree- ment because they lack a process for exploring and meeting the essential interests of both (or all) parties. He called this “win-win” approach “prin- cipled negotiation.” The same negotiation techniques apply to mediation, which is the basis for alternative dispute resolution. Un- like arbitration, in which an arbitra- tor (like a judge) determines out- come, mediation by a neutral party is simply “assisted negotiation.” The mediator assists the parties to under- stand their respective interests and helps them devise solutions that sat- isfy those interests — but only the parties can decide the ultimate outcome.
When senators or representatives
find themselves locked into irrecon- cilable positions on issues of national importance, third-party mediation could help overcome a stalemate. What if Congress were to establish a politically neutral service for legisla- tive mediation, organized along the lines of the Congressional Budget Office?
By highlighting information in a
nonpartisan manner, legislative me- diation could even enrich the policy debate in Congress by strengthening the platform for that debate. Media- tion would provide an instrument for promoting agreement in a divided Congress. Neutral legislative media- tors employing alternative dispute resolution techniques would assist legislators at their request to find common ground. We must discover more construc- tive processes for building consensus in the halls of Congress and other public policy forums. What we need now is policy research to ascertain whether and how legislative media- tion could be a practical tool for re- solving congressional gridlock.
The writer, president emeritus of the Education for Employment Foundation, served as director general of the International Development Law Organization in Rome from 1983 to 2000.
R
A27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128