CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Allen's Immigration Vote Differentiates His Presidential Candidacy

Virginia Republican Senator George Allen, differentiated himself from the other Senate presidential wannabees on immigration reform, likely to be a major issue in the 2008 election. Allen is the only Senatorial presidential candidate to vote against the Senate immigration reform bill.

The Senate’s remaining 10 presidential wannabees, Democrats and Republicans alike, all voted for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006:

Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) Joseph Biden (D-Del.) Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) John Kerry (D-Mass.) John McCain (R-Ariz.) The roll call vote is available here.

Allen, by voting no, further distinguished himself from Senator Clinton:

Allen told The Hill that he would vote against the Senate bill:

“It rewards illegal behavior,” he said in a short interview, emphasizing that the borders need to be secured first.

Senator Clinton similarly told the Daily News legalization should wait until after the border is more controlled:

In an exclusive interview with Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin, Clinton said that she envisions a two-stage plan in which border security is beefed up, followed by legalization efforts in a year or two.

But Senator Clinton voted for the Senate bill.

Senate Approves Immigration Reform Act

The Senate passed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 by a 62-36 vote.

The Senate bill creates a new guest-worker program and, like the failed 1986 Immigration Reform Act, provides a means to legalize most of 12 million immigrants in the country illegally. The bill a hodgepodge of many proposals. There is no authoritative and up to date summary of all the provisions. The Thomas summary hasn't been updated since early April and there have been numerous amendments since then.

The Senate bill must now be reconciled with the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act approved by the House last December. The House bill was designed to regain control of the border and slow the flow of illegal immigrants across the border and does not provide for a guest worker program or legalization of the 12 million illegals.

House Again Approves Oil Drilling In Arctic Refuge

The House, for the fifth time, approves drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The vote was 225-201 to direct the Interior Department to open oil leases on 2,000 of the 1.5 million acres of ANWR's 19 million acres that is thought likely to hold about 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil:

Drilling proponents contend that the refuge on Alaska’s North Slope would provide 1 million barrels a day of additional domestic oil at peak production and reduce the need for imports.

But opponents to developing what environmentalists argue is a pristine area where drilling will harm caribou, polar bears and migratory birds, said Congress should pursue conservation and alternative energy sources that would save more oil than would be tapped from the refuge.

According to MSNBC, the House vote may once again be futile because the Senate has repeatedly been unable to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

I just don't get it.

This proposal is to drill in only 2,000 acres, a very small piece of a very big coastal plain in a very big wildlife refuge in the biggest state in the Union. The vast majority of ANWR will be completely unaffected by drilling. It would occur only on a small part of the coastal plain where there already is some human habitation. Alaska has 141 million acres of protected lands, an area equal to the size of California and New York combined.

The statute creating ANWR contemplated future oil production on the coastal plain, subject to congressional approval. It is worth noting that another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.

In addition to Kenai, Prudhoe Bay, only 55 miles west of ANWR, has produced more than 10 billion barrels of oil since the 1970s. This oil which has been transported through the Alaska pipeline to the domestic market in the Lower 48 states. Decades of studies show this oil production has affected the environment negligibly. Environmental opponents of drilling cannot cite a single species driven toward extinction or even a decline in numbers attributable to Prudhoe Bay. That drilling also was done with decades-old technology and methods far less environmentally sensitive than ANWR would require.

Flowing at 1 million barrels a day -- equal to 20 percent of today's domestic oil production -- ANWR oil would almost equal America's daily imports from Saudi Arabia.

George Will lays out the best argument I've seen for harvesting ANWR’s oil:

Area 1002 is 1.5 million of the refuge's 19 million acres. In 1980 a Democratically controlled Congress, at the behest of President Jimmy Carter, set area 1002 aside for possible energy exploration. Since then, although there are active oil and gas wells in at least 36 U.S. wildlife refuges, stopping drilling in ANWR has become sacramental for environmentalists who speak about it the way Wordsworth wrote about the Lake Country.

Few opponents of energy development in what they call "pristine" ANWR have visited it. Those who have and who think it is "pristine" must have visited during the 56 days a year when it is without sunlight. They missed the roads, stores, houses, military installations, airstrip and school. They did not miss seeing the trees in area 1002. There are no trees.

Opponents worry that the caribou will be disconsolate about, and their reproduction disrupted by, this intrusion by man. The same was said 30 years ago by opponents of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which brings heated oil south from Prudhoe Bay. Since the oil began flowing, the caribou have increased from 5,000 to 31,000. Perhaps the pipeline's heat makes them amorous.

Ice roads and helicopter pads, which will melt each spring, will minimize man's footprint, which will be on a 2,000-acre plot about one-fifth the size of Dulles Airport. Nevertheless, opponents say the environmental cost is too high for what the ineffable John Kerry calls "a few drops of oil." Some drops. The estimated 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil -- such estimates frequently underestimate actual yields -- could supply all the oil needs of Kerry's Massachusetts for 75 years.

Let’s do this already.

Shame On Us

According to the Associated Press, after five years a "National Moment of Remembrance" hasn't caught on. How could there be such a general lack of interest in adding a moment of remembrance, a 30-second pause, to think about the people who sacrificed to make this a great country."

The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated the minute beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance.

Surely we can all take at least a moment on Monday to pause, sigh, say a prayer and contemplate those that have defended our way of life.

I join President Bush in asking "all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3 p.m., local time, on Memorial Day."

Spanish-American War Tax To End

After losing five appellate cases in the last year, the government has decided to end the 3 percent federal excise tax on long-distance telephone service:

The U.S. Treasury Department said it would end its litigation to defend the tax and taxpayers will be able to reclaim the money on their 2006 tax returns filed next year.

The tax was enacted during the Spanish-American War of 1898 as a "luxury" tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones.

European Governments Paying Ransoms In Iraq

The Times of London reports in spite of public denials France, Italy and Germany paid $45 million in deals to free nine hostages abducted in Iraq:

All three governments have publicly denied paying ransom money. But according to the documents, held by security officials in Baghdad who have played a crucial role in hostage negotiations, sums from $2.5 million to $10 million per person have been paid over the past 21 months.

WHAT THEY PAID

FRANCE $25 million

Florence Aubenas: held for 157 days, freed June 2005. Ransom $10 million Christian Chesnot and Georges Malbrunot: freed December 2004. Ransom $15 million

ITALY $11 million

Giuliana Segrena: taken February 2005, freed March 2005. Ransom $6 million Simona Pari and Simona Torretta: taken September 2004, freed 20 days later. Ransom $5 million.

GERMANY $8 million

Susanne Ostloff: taken November 25, 2005, and freed three weeks later. Ransom $3 million

Rene Braunlich and Thomas Nitzschke: taken January 24, 2006, and freed on May 2. Ransom $5 million.

WHAT THEY SAID

FRANCE

When Florence Aubenas was freed in June 2005 a government spokesman, Jean-François Cope, said: “There was absolutely no demand for money. No ransom was paid”

ITALY

On January 30 this year Gianfranco Fini, then Italian Foreign Minister, denied that Italy paid between $6m and S10m to free Giuliana Sgrena. “Italy did not pay any ransom to obtain the freedom of Giuliana Sgrena in Iraq or any other hostage. There is never a quid pro quo”

GERMANY

Frank Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, was asked if paying a ransom for Susanne Osthoff had compromised the security of other German hostages. He replied: “The problem is not ransom payments, but the reporting of them.” That was seen in Germany as indirect confirmation that ransoms were paid

This is so outrageous. At best the ransom payments can only encourage more kidnappings.

GM Caps Gasoline Prices

General Motors will cap gas prices at $1.99 for customers in California and Florida who buy certain vehicles by July 5:

The offer is good for 2006 and 2007 model year vehicles. In California, eligible vehicles are the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban sport utility vehicles and Impala and Monte Carlo sedans; the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL SUVs; the Hummer H2 and H3 SUVs; the Cadillac SRX SUV; and the Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick LaCrosse sedans. In Florida, eligible vehicles are the Impala, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and LaCrosse.

Customers must buy or lease an eligible vehicle between May 25 and July 5 and enroll in the OnStar diagnostic service, which automatically runs checks on the vehicle and sends e-mail notices to owners each month.

Each month for one year, GM will give drivers a credit on a prepaid card based on their estimated fuel usage. Fuel usage will be calculated by the miles they drive, as recorded by OnStar, and the vehicle's fuel economy rating.

GM will credit drivers the difference between the average price per gallon in their state and the $1.99 cap.

I don't think many people will buy a car for one year of two dollar gas.

In Florida Giuliani And Clinton Are 08 Frontrunners

A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Florida Republican voters prefer former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, 46 percent, to Arizona Senator John McCain, 25 percent, for the 2008 presidential nomination.

Florida Democrats prefer New York Senator Hillary Clinton, 44 percent, followed by former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 17 percent, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, 10 percent, and Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, 8 percent.

In head-to-head matchups, Giuliani leads Clinton 49 - 42 percent, while McCain tops the Democrat 48 - 42 percent.

The poll was conducted May 15 - 22 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.

Does the Giuliani advantage demonstrate a preference for executives over legislators?

Allen Opposes Senate Immigration Reform Bill

Virginia Republican Senator George Allen is the only Republican presidential candidate to opposing the Senate immigration reform bill.

Allen told The Hill that he will vote against the Senate bill.;

“It rewards illegal behavior,” he said in a short interview, emphasizing that the borders need to be secured first.

Allen has differentiated himself from the other Senate presidential wannabees on what is likely to be a major issue in the 2008 election.

The Hill lines up the rest of the Senates presidential candidates:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) yesterday indicated he is leaning toward voting for the pending immigration reform bill — even though it is significantly different from his own legislation.

[. . .]

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who played major roles in crafting the bill, will vote yes.

Sen. Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican from Kansas, told The Hill that he would vote for the immigration overhaul as long as no amendments are approved that would significantly expand the number of immigrants coming into the country or reduce the level of enforcement.

“I think good work has been done here in the Senate, and I would support it,” he said.

Top Democratic contender Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said, “We will have to see how it turns out,” referring to a number of amendments that still required a vote until the bill is ready for final passage.

Meanwhile, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) said he would vote for the legislation to send it to conference with the House. “I would be inclined to vote on something that would go to a conference committee,” he said, but he pointed out that amendments can change the nature of the bill.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said, “I would vote for it.”

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) could not be reached for comment by press time.

A.C.L.U. Considers Censorship Of Its Board

The New York Times reports the American Civil Liberties Union may discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration:

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

According to the Times, former A.C.L.U. board members were shocked by the proposal and some former board members and A.C.L.U. supporters said the proposal was an effort to stifle dissent:

"It sets up a framework for punitive action," said Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University who served on the board for four years until 2004.

[. . .]

Ms. Kaminer and another board member, John C. Brittain, charged that the proposal threatened free speech. "I find it quite appalling that the A.C.L.U. is actively supporting this," Ms. Kaminer told The Sun.

Imagine that, the A.C.L.U. trying to stifle free speech. Whose going to sue the A.C.L.U.?