July 31, 2006: Debate Ends on Gulf Coast Drilling Bill

The Senate is back in session this week for a few days before taking off the rest of August for the Summer Recess. The topic today after morning business is the Gulf Coast Energy Bill, S.3711, which would open up eight million acres of offshore lands to drilling for oil and natural gas. Officially, S.3711 is described as, "A bill to enhance the energy independence and security of the United States by providing for exploration, development, and production activities for mineral resources in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes."

[15:10 est]
Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA) says that the price of natural gas must come down. It is a raw material for so many goods. She validates the revenue sharing (Gulf coast states would get 37 % of the revenues, putatively redirected for purposes of wetland restoration, etc.).

She is wearing a bright pink jacket with a bright pink blouse underneath. She is talking about devestation of the wetlands. She has said how the revenue sharing is justified because the Gulf States serve as the "platform" by which the federal government even has access to the offshore mineral wealth. The revenues will go a long way to restoring the wetlands, she says. 37% for these purposes; 15% shared for another similar purpose, The Land and Water Conservation Fund. So, Gulf States would get half of the revenue pulled in from selling the right to drill for oil and gas in these areas offshore.

Then, the other 50% goes to the Federal Treasury, to help reduce the deficit, etc. She believes we can minimize the environmental footprint, acknowledges past mistakes.
She yields the floor.

[15:16 est]

Now, Asst. Minority Leader Sen. Richard Durbin (IL). He speaks as if in morning business. Noting upcoming one-year anniversary of Katrina. Notes how much Sen. Landrieu has done to help the state to recover.

But his purpose is to introduce a bipartisan piece of legislation regarding Lebanon, the Lebanese Temporary Protection Status Act. Durbin speaks to the camera. He says he woke up in Springfield, IL, yesterday. Talking about the Qana bombing yesterday, the death of children.

Sen. Kit Bond (MO) is presiding this morning, colorful striped tie.

[15:25 est]

Sen. John Warner (VA) is offering an amendment. He's talking about coastal states, and asserting rights to mineral wealth out on the outer continental shelf. How coastal states can help the country meet its energy crisis. He knows he can't actually offer the amendment, but he still wants to talk about it. More must be done than will be done on the bill before us, he says. He wants coastal states to be allowed to open up areas on the outer continental shelf for exploration. Each state would have a choice under his amendment as to whether it participated.

A vote for cloture is scheduled for 17:30 est. Repeat, cloture vote at 17:30 tonight.

Warner still supports the bill before the Senate, and he will vote for it. But more must be done, he says. We must diversify our geographic supply. The Gulf of Mexico is vulnerable to weather, e.g. platforms being shut down for long periods of time. He calculates potentially 350 million acres opened under his amendment.

[15:39 est]

Warner suggested the absence of a quorum so the Senate is now in a quorum call. Mr. Akaka...

[15:41 est]

Sen. Edward Kennedy (MA) gets time from Sen. Landrieu. But he is not talking just about the energy bill but about the important upcoming week. He wants to talk about the pension bill and the minimum wage/estate tax bill. Said how conference on pensions went till one o'clock in the morning on Thursday night. He strongly supports the pensions legislation.

But also coming over is an estate tax bill with a minimum wage increase attached. Sen. Kennedy has long been a champion of a minimum wage increase. Seven Republicans voted for an increase in the minimum wage last time it was voted on in the Senate, but it has not come to a vote in the senate in nine years. There appears to be a discoloration in the skin on Senator Kennedy's right cheek. It is white colored while his skin is ruddy.

The American people support an increase in the min. wage. He is now putting up a graphic. He is talking about how the estate tax issue has been attached to the min. wage legislation and he is going to fight it, he says. It is a staining and a dishonoring of hard-working Americans. Only 22% of Americans support reducing estate tax, while min. wage increase gets 86% support. Estate tax will benefit 8,200 of richest heirs, some call it the Paris Hilton Tax Giveaway. Compared to a very modest increase in the minimum wage.

Now a new graphic. More Americans living in poverty under Bush Administration. More children in poverty. And the list goes on, Mr. President. Decrease in purchasing power of minimum wage. Disparity. The Senate is not given the opportunity to vote on a pure minimum wage bill he says. You either take both or you get neither. Contemptuous, he says. Men and women of dignity, you can't have what ought to be a right in the richest country in the world. Raising his voice, getting red. A contemptuous attitude, Mr. President.

Now, getting to the Tips issue. The idea under the bill coming from the House is, People making $5.25/hr in tips only need a salary of $2.13 to reach the new minimum wage level. What some states have done is refuse to count tips toward minimum wage, i.e. a tip is a tip. The min. wage bill now before the Senate prohibits states from requiring that a minimum salary meet the federal minimum wage. The Congress will pre-empt the states as to that point under this bill. Effectively, a person making the minimum wage in tips need receive a salary only of $2.13/hr. The Republican Party says, We know better, We know better. Wonderful Republican ingenious concept tied on to this proposal. We'll get to this in greater detail, he says.

[16:20]

Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND) is talking about allowing States to import drugs from Canada. He supports it. He wants to offer this legislation as an amendment on the current bill. He knows it will be rejected but he still wants it considered. Apparently, the "tree is filled" when it comes to the current bill. For any new amendment to be added, one of the two amendments on the current bill would need to be set aside. He asks permission but a voice from the floor objects, sufficient to knock it away for the moment.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) is a co-sponsor of the amendment with Dorgan. It's an enormous savings in all respects, she says, not just for consumers but also for the government.

[17:49 est]

The cloture motion to end debate on the Gulf of Mexico drilling bill will pass. Plenty of Democrats have voted to end debate, including Sens. Levin, Stabenow, Lincoln, Carper, etc. Now debate will end on the bill. A final vote on the bill could come tomorrow.

Indeed, the cloture motion passed 72 in favor to 23 opposed. Cloture motions needs 60 votes to pass.

After ending of debate, Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) spoke about the bill. She voting against it, along with Sens. Feinstein (CA) and Feingold (WI). Her opposition was twofold:

First, she pointed out that the House version of the bill was much more broad. It was not limited to the Gulf of Mexico but pertained to the entire coast of the United States. It says that States have their say up to 100 miles from the coast; past that, the federal government can lease drilling rights. Sen. Boxer is adamantly opposed to such a measure because she is fearful that California's coast could be threatened by exploration activity.

Second, she thinks the revenue sharing proportion favors the Gulf coast states too heavily. She cites the billion or so dollars that would otherwise go to the Treasury but instead will go to the Gulf State coffers. She doesn't understand why such a high percentage 37 to 50% would go to the Gulf States when it is federal lease rights that are being freed up with the bill.


Miscellaneous
Sen. Chuck Hagel implored President Bush to call for an immediate cease-fire in the Israeli/Lebanese conflict.

July 21, 2006—Net Neutrality

No votes Today in the Senate. Speeches as if in morning business.

[10:18 est]

Senator Ron Wyden (OR) is speaking about potential telecommunications reform. This reform would mean certain web sites would be favored by speed. Wyden says he is in favor of net neutrality and will use all procedural maneuvers under his power to prevent discrimination on the internet, i.e. keep things the way the are. Big telecommunications interests are lobbying heavily for a telecommunications overhaul that would allow telecommunications companies (the owners of the infrastructure, the wires, etc.) to extract fees from internet service providers. Whether the additional costs assessed to the ISPs will be passed on to consumers is unclear (although why wouldn't it be passed on? i.e. just like energy costs are passed on). It is large phone and cable companies that want to deviate from net neutrality.

What this means is that certain websites you like to visit will not load as fast if the hosts of these websites have not paid extra fees to ensure that their site is favored by speed, i.e. receiving favortism when it comes to bandwith.

It is not clear to me (J Rand) which senators will defend net neutrality (the status quo) and which senators will favor a telecommunications overhaul discriminating among websites by speed.

Interestingly, it appears that the internet service providers and the search engines are opposed to any telecomm overhaul because these entities will have to pay the telecomm companies in order to have their sites load faster when viewed by surfers. For example, says Wyden, imagine if Travelocity does not pay to have their site favored. A trip that took five minutes to book before could now take, e.g., ten minutes to book. If Travelocity wants to preserve the speed at which its site loads, it will have to pay a telecomm company (the owner of the infrastructure) a fee.

Wyden says, under this scenario, "Those who own the pipes exercise their power to the detriment of the American people." The Internet would change, he says.

7.17.2006

The senators are debating stem cell research. The big bill is HR 810. Harkin (IA) and Specter (PA) co-sponsor this bill and Majority Leader Frist (TN) also backs more stem cell research. This bill would open up more "lines" to research, and would relax prohibitions on research involving embryonic stem cells.

13:02 est

Frist, Specter, and now Harkin have spoken. Harkin is saying that the medical community supports expanding stem cell research. The debate is what we will use federal funds (taxpayer money) to do. Harkin has a big sign saying "Stem Cell Research Should Be Expanded." He is stating that even the lines that are open to research are "contaminated by mouse cells" and afflicted with other problems, too. So, more lines.

The House has already approved this initiative. However, President Bush said he would veto any bill expanding research to embryonic stem cells. He opposes the notion of "killing life to save life."

13:27

Sen. Coburn (OK) is speaking against embryonic stem cell research. He says put aside the ethical problems, there are scientific problems with embryonic stem cell lines. Coburn is a doctor and is speaking scientifically. He says stem cell lines can yield positive results without destroying stem cells. Germ cell lines and adult stem cell lines.

The Alternatives bill is S2754. It limits NIH to research stem cells not derived from embryos.

Now, Sen. Brownback (KS) enters the debate. He opposes using embryonic stem cells. Compares destruction of bald eagle's egg and destruction of human embryos ("young human life") Says, you could be fined up to $500k for destrowing a bald eagle's egg. If you destroy the egg, you don't get the eagle. He has big boards with pictures of them. First the eagle and its egg. Now fertilized human eggs. These eggs lead to Mother Teresa, JFK, MLK, and Ronald Reagan. Picture of egg pointing to head shot of person. If you destroy the embryo, you don't get the person. We're not talking theology, we're talkin basic biology. He is looking right at the camera. Not all senators will do this. Most don't. Most look at the president pro tem, or whoever is sitting in the president pro tem's seat. He is saying we should put the money instead into adult stem cell research.

16:36 est

Sen. Coburn (OK) makes a couple of important points. First, it's not true that you can't do embryonic stem cell research. He says, There is no prohibition against doing embryonic stem cell research. Rather, the debate concerns whether the federal government should FUND embryonic stem cell research. Sen. Coburn notes that the federal government does in fact spend money to fund embryonic stem cell research, in the amount of $40m last year. The thing is: out of 400 embryonic stem cell lines, the federal gov't is limited to funding only 21 of these lines. He says, embryo destruction occurs in the private sector. He's also saying, it is possible to take adult stem cells and "move them backwards" with an enzyme called "reversase" in order to make them similar to embryonic stem cells, also called pleuripotent stem cells. Meaning, they can develop into a wide array of cell types (and are therefore more versatile, more useful).

Coburn probably is the best Senator on the science of it.

16:42 est

Robert Byrd is on the floor! Mr. President, Mr. President...he wants to speak for five minutes on another matter, if there is no objection, Sen. Dorgan reserves the right to object, he doesn't object provided that after Sen. Byrd, he be recognized for his ten minutes. Sen Harkin says we are on strict time limits...someone's gonna lose time. It sounded like Kennedy just gave up some time. My true friend from MA, says Byrd, Sen. Kennedy. Byrd is talking about it being the 219th anniversary of the constitutional convention. He holds the microphone with his left hand and his hand shakes as he holds the microphone to his breast. He doesn't sound real good. He is looking down at his notes. He is recounting the convention....