MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2019
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Carbon
bill: Yes,
it’s back
Oregon Republicans most likely understood at the
end of the last session that the controversial carbon
emission issue wasn’t going to go away.
Already, one of the architects of the carbon emis-
sion reduction bill that failed during the last session
is hard at work crafting a new proposal.
Readers probably remember that Senate Republi-
cans walked out of the 2019 session, a decision that
destroyed hopes by Democrats to push their favored
carbon emission blueprint into law.
The bill was designed to slash the state’s green-
house gas emissions and generate funds to use on a
host of environmental programs.
There is also, apparently, a push by an environ-
mental group to put a carbon emission reduction
measure before voters.
Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, the lawmaker
who led the effort for the carbon emission reduction
legislation, is working to simplify a new bill and that
should be good news for everyone, especially voters.
That’s because the original piece of legislation was
a confusing tome that created a host of questions
from critics.
A more narrowly tailored piece of legislation is
needed because there isn’t any doubt — or shouldn’t
be — that climate change is real and we all need to
discover a way to address it.
But we can’t develop a solution on the backs of the
rural residents of Oregon. Nor barge ahead with a
solution that ignores the valid concerns of those of us
who live and work and play in the great rural areas
of Oregon.
Dembrow and his Democratic supporters on a new
carbon emission bill must fi nd a middle ground with
Republicans on this issue, and that is going to be a
pretty tall order.
The well between the two parties on this issue
has, indeed, been poisoned. But that shouldn’t mean
lawmakers throw up their hands and walk away.
This is an important issue, and just because it was
bungled in the last session doesn’t mean it should
be discarded. What must be avoided is another long,
drawn-out political battle that ends with the minor-
ity party walking away from the capital.
No one is going to say fi nding a solution will be
easy. It won’t be. Democracy is a messy business
sometimes, and the last session’s battles over the
carbon reduction initiative clearly reinforce that
scenario.
The Democrats staked their legislation success last
session on a bill that was essentially a prototype on
political overreach. They must work with their politi-
cal brethren in both the House and Senate to fi nd a
viable solution.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald.
Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions
of the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald.
Letters to the editor
• We welcome letters on any issue of public interest.
Customer complaints about specifi c businesses will not be
printed.
• The Baker City Herald will not knowingly print false
or misleading claims. However, we cannot verify the
accuracy of all statements in letters to the editor.
• Letters are limited to 350 words; longer letters will be
edited for length. Writers are limited to one letter every 15
days.
• The writer must sign the letter and include an address and
phone number (for verifi cation only). Letters that do not
include this information cannot be published.
• Letters will be edited for brevity, grammar, taste and
legal reasons.
Mail: To the Editor, Baker City Herald,
P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814
Email: news@bakercityherald.com
Impeach: Focusing on facts
An anonymous whistleblower’s com-
plaint about President Trump’s July 25
phone call with new Ukrainian Presi-
dent Volodymyr Zelenskiy teed up two
questions for lawmakers in September:
What exactly did Trump do, and how
bad was it?
It has taken weeks, but now the
House may be able to focus its attention,
and the public’s, on just those two issues.
House Democrats had leaped on the
whistleblower’s complaint as soon as
the administration (belatedly) turned it
over, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
instructing a number of committees to
begin an impeachment inquiry. Three of
those panels — the committees on intel-
ligence, foreign relations and govern-
ment oversight — started summoning
witnesses and requesting documents.
But from the start, the process was
fraught with fi ghts over how it was be-
ing conducted. The administration fl atly
refused to cooperate, saying the process
was illegitimate because the full House
hadn’t voted to authorize it. Never mind
that there’s no such requirement in the
Constitution, or that the investigations
that led to the impeachment efforts
against Presidents Nixon and Clinton
started before the House voted to au-
thorize a formal inquiry. Trump and his
allies have devoted countless tweets and
on-camera comments to Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff
and the bias he has allegedly shown
against Trump.
After witnesses started complying
with subpoenas compelling them to give
depositions, Trump and GOP lawmak-
ers shifted tacks, complaining that the
JON HEALEY
testimony was being taken in private
and that Trump wasn’t able to send
his lawyers or confront his accusers.
Although that misconstrued the process
— the House impeachment process
isn’t a trial, it’s more like an indictment
— Republicans were correct that the
leaks coming out of the private sessions
seemed one-sided and damaging to the
president.
There was so much noise about the
process, the public hasn’t been able to
sink its teeth into the substance. That
should change now, thanks to the reso-
lution the House adopted Thursday on
a largely party-line vote. The measure
gives the GOP much of what it wanted,
putting the House on record authorizing
the inquiry, opening more of it to public
view, giving Republicans the same
subpoena powers the minority party
had in previous impeachment inquiries,
and giving the president the right to
participate when the House Judiciary
Committee considers potential articles
of impeachment.
Granted, Republicans will continue
to complain about the process. But
the move to public hearings will allow
lawmakers and voters to see how much
evidence Democrats such as Schiff have
amassed on how the Trump administra-
tion pressured Zelenskiy to conduct two
investigations aimed at helping Trump’s
reelection prospects, including one into
a Ukrainian energy company that em-
ployed the son of former Vice President
Joe Biden.
Judging just by the leaked opening
statements from witnesses and com-
ments by lawmakers who’ve attended
the depositions, Democrats have as-
sembled a persuasive case that people
supposedly speaking for the president,
including his lawyer Rudy Giuliani,
insisted that Zelenskiy publicly commit
to those investigations before Zelens-
kiy would be granted a coveted White
House visit and, possibly, nearly $400
million in badly needed military aid. But
that’s a fi ltered view of the proceedings
thus far; the open hearings will give a
fuller picture.
Once the facts are established, then
lawmakers have to decide what they
mean. If Trump abused the power of
his offi ce to pressure a foreign govern-
ment to conduct investigations aimed at
helping Trump win reelection, how bad
is that? Trump has said repeatedly that
his actions were “perfect.” His acting
chief of staff tried to shrug off the idea of
a quid pro quo, saying presidents do this
sort of thing all the time (before walking
back his comments later in the day). Top
congressional Republicans have insisted
that Trump was simply trying to root
out corruption, and that’s completely
appropriate.
The many Democrats who’ve been
eager to impeach Trump, meanwhile,
have to consider this issue from a dif-
ferent angle. After they lay out the case
against Trump’s handling of Ukraine,
will voters say, “Is that all you’ve got?”
Jon Healey is the Los Angeles Times’ deputy
editorial page editor.
OTHER VIEWS
What we can learn from the raid
that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Editorial from Newsday:
There is much to say about the raid
that killed Islamic State leader Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi, and even more to
learn.
Begin with congratulations to the
unknown military and intelligence
personnel who pulled it off. The skill
and bravery of the planners and the
troops on the ground were essential
to the success of the mission. It was
extremely risky, like the surprise
attack in 2011 that resulted in the
death of Sept. 11 mastermind Osama
bin Laden. The eight helicopters faced
gunfi re on their way to al-Baghdadi’s
compound in northern Syria. And
President Donald Trump was right to
prioritize the pursuit of the mur-
derous al-Baghdadi. His extreme
brutality in beheading captives and
setting others on fi re, all captured on
video, was an effective recruiting tool
for jihadists to join his caliphate and a
stark warning to Western powers.
But while the world can fi nd relief
in his demise, we all must understand
the many lessons that emerged from
the raid.
Its success doesn’t mean the fi ght
against ISIS is over. Cells of fi ght-
ers, large and small, lurk all over the
world. Our nation must stay vigilant
and continue to pursue any future
leaders of ISIS. A positive sign: The
day after the raid that killed al-Bagh-
dadi, another American attack appar-
ently killed his likely successor.
We need allies. Going it alone
doesn’t work. American intelligence
offi cials worked closely with their
Kurdish and Iraqi counterparts to
pinpoint al-Baghdadi’s location. The
Kurds, in particular, provided es-
sential information, despite Trump’s
decision earlier this month to pull U.S.
troops out of Syria and abandon the
Kurds.
We need strong, effective intelli-
gence agencies. Trump has attacked
them incessantly and tried to weaken
them, but it was information gleaned
by the CIA about al-Baghdadi’s
whereabouts that set in motion the
planning for the raid.
Trump should not have kept House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the dark
about the raid. The idea that she
would have leaked that information is
absurd. She was on the House Intel-
ligence Committee for years, has no
record of divulging classifi ed material
and is second in the line of presiden-
tial succession. If Trump excluded her
and other Democratic leaders because
of the impeachment inquiry, it’s an-
other unfortunate example of politics
infecting national security.
Our Middle East policy is still
unclear. While the raid succeeded,
pulling out from Syria earlier this
month forced the Pentagon to speed
up the attack before the military’s
ability to control spies on the ground
and reconnaissance in the air was
compromised. And Trump decided
to leave some troops in Syria, after
the blowback from his own party on
the pullout, to protect oil fi elds there.
That’s a good goal; ISIS funded itself
with oil exports from wells it seized.
But Trump also suggested that the
United States would take some of the
oil. That’s illegal. Language is impor-
tant; it feeds perceptions the world
has of our nation. The president must
be more careful.