Feinstein and Boxer Carve Distinct Niches in Senate : Politics: In their first year they diverge sometimes on issues, often in style. Some contrasts are surprising.

They entered the U.S. Senate as the self-dubbed “Thelma and Louise” political team--two Democratic women from the San Francisco Bay Area who campaigned side by side across California as progressive feminists.

One year after making history as the only women senators elected to represent the same state, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein emerged from their first legislative session distinctly dissimilar in style and ideology.

Consider the Senate proposal to end a 1950s-era federal subsidy for wool and mohair producers. Feinstein joined with Western sheep-state Republicans, fighting for the $190-million program on behalf of 1,400 California ranchers. Boxer viewed the largess as a classic example of wasteful government spending, voting with a majority of Democratic senators to kill it.

Or take recent threats by the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold $700 million in federal highway funds unless California complied with strict clean air standards. Feinstein sternly warned the Clinton Administration not to impose “Draconian measures” on the state and its service station owners; Boxer endorsed federal efforts to overhaul California’s auto Smog Check program.

These cases illustrate some of the differences: Feinstein often assessed federal policy affecting her state through a single prism--accommodating business and creating jobs; Boxer more often sympathized with concerns of environmentalists. Feinstein clashed several times with the Clinton Administration and Senate Democratic leaders; Boxer served as a loyal stalwart for the White House and her party.

While Feinstein was under pressure to keep a high profile as she focused on her reelection next year, Boxer enjoyed the security of starting a six-year term. Boxer developed social ties to the President and wrote an autobiography, “Strangers in the Senate.”

In some respects the differences that emerged during the year were to be expected. Feinstein was a pragmatic centrist throughout her nine years as San Francisco mayor, while Boxer was among the most liberal House members during a decade representing Marin County. They moved in different coalitions within the California Democratic Party, and for long periods they did not get along particularly well.

Yet some contrasts were surprising.

For a newcomer to Capitol Hill with no legislative experience, Feinstein demonstrated an extraordinarily deft touch by racking up several impressive achievements. She took advantage of her status as one of the first two women on the Judiciary Committee to unveil a sweeping immigration reform package and play a leading role in shaping the crime bill. Last month, the Senate narrowly approved her proposal to ban military-style assault weapons, landmark legislation that many colleagues advised was too contentious to even consider.

Boxer, regarded as a strident crusader who often sought headlines for her liberal causes in the House, did not approach Feinstein’s legislative record or notoriety. For the most part she worked behind the scenes and won praise from Senate Democratic leaders. In the mostly anonymous post as co-chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee Women’s Council, she helped raise huge sums of money for her party.

“Boxer is working very effectively inside the body,” said Anita Dunn, a Democratic political consultant and former top aide to Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). “She decided she did not want to come here and be looked at as an immediate opportunist.”

Neither senator is fond of the media coverage they have received thus far. They frequently assail the media, particularly The Times, for contrasting their performance in office. They contend that no two previous male senators from California were subjected to the same comparisons.

When asked about her working relationship with Boxer for this story, Feinstein snapped at a reporter: “Would you do this to two men? I find this thing ridiculous! It goes on and on. It’s been a year of this. It is as if you are trying to drive a wedge between us.”

In her book, Boxer writes: “The press kept waiting for us to turn on each other (during last year’s campaign)--and they still are. They write stories comparing our poll ratings, which I’ve never seen done for two male senators from the same state; they write stories that treat us as though we are joined at the hip. And when we differ, they act like it’s a big deal.”

As a team, Boxer, 53, and Feinstein, 60, reversed a trend within California’s Senate delegation that saw little cooperation between Democrat Alan Cranston and his Republican counterparts. Since 1976, Californians had chosen senators from opposing parties who frequently voted on opposite sides of issues vital to the state and the nation.

“You had two senators of different parties who rarely spoke, who didn’t work together,” Feinstein said. “Neither of us thinks it is healthy for one of us to cancel out the other.”

Indeed, Feinstein and Boxer voted the same on nearly 90% of Senate ballots this year. They agreed on many domestic issues, including a woman’s right to have an abortion, family and medical leave legislation, stricter handgun registration laws and President Clinton’s national service plan. Both voted for the $250-billion tax hike over five years contained in the Clinton economic plan and against the North American Free Trade Agreement.

As they vowed to do during the campaign, the two senators made California’s sputtering economy their top priority. They succeeded in pressuring the Clinton Administration to take California facilities off a proposed list of military base closures.

Boxer supported programs that gave the state an economic boost even when it meant abandoning positions she had held in the past. A foe of expanded defense spending during the 1980s, Boxer joined with Feinstein in winning $6.5 billion for the 1994 fiscal year to produce the B-2 bomber and other military aircraft. These projects will provide about 57,000 high-wage jobs for California’s ailing aerospace industry. She also voted with Feinstein to salvage the NASA space station, despite railing against the project as a House member. About 5,000 Californians work directly on the space station and tens of thousands of other jobs depend on it.

Still, Feinstein was far more vigorous than Boxer in accommodating industry in California. She relentlessly lobbied for government programs--no matter how controversial--on behalf of business interests that promised jobs for the state.

Feinstein threatened to vote against Clinton’s economic plan unless California oil companies were exempted from a proposed energy tax. She also bucked the Administration, California House Democrats and environmentalists by opposing legislation to more than double fees charged to ranchers who graze livestock on federal lands.

“When economic times are tough and people can’t put bread on their table, a lot of ideology goes out the window,” Feinstein said.

Feinstein “cannot be relied on” to fight industry on issues such as clean air and water, worker safety and consumer protection, said consumer advocate Ralph Nader. He called Boxer “very good” in these areas.

Nader’s point was driven home recently when the state was set to approve a low-level nuclear waste dump near the desert community of Needles. Boxer called a news conference to accuse government officials of “covering up” evidence of potential contamination to Southern California’s water supply, then prodded the Clinton Administration last month into postponing the project.

“Frankly, this was something of tremendous urgency that had to be done,” Boxer said.

Feinstein, appearing uneasy at challenging the biotechnology industry, which needs such a site to dispose of its waste, remained conspicuously silent throughout the months-long controversy and still has not taken a stand. “My position at this stage is that I’m waiting for it all to get sorted out,” she said.

The Ward Valley episode revealed differences in their level of sympathy with environmental concerns, but it also contrasted their style of action.

“As political animals, they are diametric opposites,” said Michael Dieden, political director of Americans for a Safe Future, a Santa Monica-based environmental group created to oppose the Ward Valley dump. “Feinstein is cautious, she is cerebral and weighs things very, very carefully. Boxer is a gut-instinct politician who just will instinctively jump on an issue and go for it.”

Perhaps no episode better underscored these differences than the case against Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), who stands accused of sexually harassing about two dozen women.

Boxer was the first senator to call on Packwood to resign, back in January; Feinstein issued a carefully worded statement that said he is “entitled to due process.”

When the Ethics Committee sought Senate approval to seek Packwood’s personal diaries in court, Feinstein did not utter a word during two days of floor debate. She stressed in interviews that the Senate hearing dealt solely with the question of whether to issue a subpoena, not on Packwood’s guilt or innocence.

Conversely, Boxer chastised the Senate for getting hung up on legalese and glossing over Packwood’s alleged misconduct. She accused some Republican senators of portraying Packwood as a victim.

Such partisan attacks have been a longtime Boxer trademark. In the Senate, she has reveled in going toe-to-toe against some GOP lawmakers. “Every time I turn around there’s a Jesse Helms or a Bob Dole or a Phil Gramm standing on the other side ready to filibuster or resort to ugly political tactics,” Boxer wrote supporters in July.

Feinstein, on the other hand, occasionally startled Senate observers by taking on powerful Democratic chairmen in committee and during floor debates. In general, she worked easily with Republican colleagues--a trait that dates to when she held nonpartisan offices as mayor and supervisor in San Francisco.

When it came to courting the White House, Boxer developed a friendly social relationship with the President while Feinstein was often a critic.

Boxer has been among Clinton’s most supportive Democrats in the Senate--a fact that has not escaped the attention of White House aides who say she has stored up her share of political chits.

At the start of the months-long debate over Clinton’s budget package, Boxer announced she was solidly in the President’s corner. She warmly greeted Clinton in July when he passed through San Francisco en route to Japan and thanked him profusely in August when he unveiled his defense conversion proposals at the hard-hit Alameda Naval Base.

Boxer also has a personal connection to the White House--her daughter, Nicole Boxer, is engaged to Tony Rodham, brother of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Boxers spent Thanksgiving Day with the Clintons at Camp David.

Boxer said the “defining moment” of her first year in office occurred aboard Air Force One in February when she traveled to California with Clinton. In a private chat, Boxer said, she urged the President to release up to $1.4 billion in unspent defense conversion money that had been approved by Congress. After landing in Los Angeles, Clinton announced the program with much fanfare.

“This said to me: ‘Barbara Boxer, you are going to be able to go to this man (and) go to this Administration. They are going to look at what you are saying and they are going to listen to it,’ ” Boxer said.

From the beginning of her term, Feinstein admonished the Administration repeatedly for not doing enough to bail out the economically troubled Golden State.

Feinstein held out against the Clinton economic plan until the very end, extracting concessions for California along the way. She skipped Clinton’s July appearance in California--a gesture some White House aides perceived as a snub. And, far from saluting Clinton for his conversion announcement in August, Feinstein voiced her displeasure with the Administration’s handling of the base closure process.

But Feinstein has not had to pay a political price for her defiance. Clinton was the guest of honor at a San Francisco fund-raiser last month that netted $700,000 for Feinstein’s campaign, and the White House is committed to her reelection.

“She has not publicly challenged the Administration in a way that has left any lasting scars,” said Thomas S. Epstein, special assistant to the President for California affairs. “For all of the ulcers she gave the Administration with her equivocation on supporting our budget, politically that was an appropriate thing to do.”

For all of their differences, the senators appeared to work well together.

After they were elected, Feinstein and Boxer revealed that they had agreed to set aside one night each week for dinner to discuss their legislative menu for California. Overwhelming demands on their time, however, prevented them from dining together except on rare occasion. They said they speak nearly every day, usually on the Senate floor between votes or by telephone.

Their partnership, Feinstein said, was instrumental in breaking through a six-year logjam that tied up the California desert protection bill in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Californians each personally lobbied Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), the committee chairman and an avid sportsman, to create a national park that would prohibit hunting in the East Mojave Scenic Area, the most contested component of the legislation.

“Here were two U.S. senators from the area saying, ‘If you want parks in Louisiana with hunting that is up to you. But we don’t in California,’ ” said Feinstein, who introduced the desert bill. “That was very helpful.”

Perhaps most impressive about their relationship has been Boxer’s willingness to shun the media limelight she coveted so much as a House member to allow Feinstein the favorable publicity she needs to successfully win reelection next year.

Feinstein, who appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Dec. 12, is a regular on the national TV news circuit. She has been a repeat guest on “Larry King Live,” “Nightline” and “This Week With David Brinkley”--programs that Boxer has not appeared on since taking office.

“Boxer is allowing Feinstein to have the stage when she needs it for reelection,” said Lawrence F. O’Donnell Jr., staff director of the Senate Finance Committee. “That is very generous and very useful.”

When Boxer is up for reelection in 1998, O’Donnell said, she will need Feinstein “as that kind of senator.”

Senate Disagreements

For the first time since 1976, California has two Democrats in the U.S. Senate. In their first year, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein voted alike on nearly 90% of Senate ballots. But they disagreed on a range of major policy issues. Below is a sampling of some areas in which they differed:

* U.S. military role in Somalia

Boxer said troops should limit their involvement to humanitarian aid.

Feinstein supported a military mission, saying the United States “can’t turn tail and run.”

* Clean air standards in California

Boxer supported Administration efforts to overhaul the state’s auto Smog Check program.

Feinstein criticized the Administration proposal.

* Sen. Bob Packwood

Boxer was the first senator to call on Packwood to resign in January.

Feinstein has refused to demand his resignation, saying Packwood is entitled to due process.

* Domestic spending

Boxer opposed the proposed across-the-board cuts, saying such reductions do not prioritize domestic programs.

Feinstein supported a 3% cut to eliminate retroactive income taxes in Clinton economic plan.

* Line-item veto

Boxer opposes giving the President authority to cut specific spending programs.

Feinstein supports the proposal.

* GATT fast-track extension

Boxer voted for extending Administration’s authority to negotiate until April, 1994.

Feinstein voted against the President’s request to lengthen international trade talks.

* Welfare

Boxer voted against requiring recipients to immunize their children to receive benefits.

Feinstein voted for mandatory immunization.

* Wool and mohair subsidy program

Boxer voted in favor of eliminating $190-million program, calling it wasteful spending.

Feinstein voted against, siding with California ranchers.

* Superconducting super collider

Boxer voted in favor of killing the $13-billion project.

Feinstein voted against ending the progam.

* Carjacking

Boxer voted against making the crime a federal offense and authorizing the death penalty if the crime results in death.

Feinstein voted for federal designation.

* Prohibit death penalty for juveniles

Boxer voted in favor.

Feinstein voted in opposition.

* Political action committees

Boxer voted in favor of banning them in congressional campaigns.

Feinstein was one of only 12 senators who voted no.

Sources: Congressional Quarterly, interviews