A bill requiring all Democrats be shot on sight would pass 51-49 also. No amount of appeasing or cowardice surprises me anymore.

Why would Inouye and Akaka from Hawaii vote for this?

Is there some really obvious reason that is escaping me?

Bastards. Now they have to come up with a budget, of course, but they will probably find some way to make this happen.

Problem is, this won't have any impact on oil or gas prices. Except for possibly increasing them! That's right, as this signals the continued US intransigence on refusing to consider efficiency this signals no change in demand for oil. In the short term, this idiocy actually perpetuates the power the OPEC states have over us.

And what else do they have to offer to consumers who are getting soaked at the pump now? Nada. One more example of the complete lack of actual leadership from this administration.

can we trade inoue and akaka for collins and snowe?

My guess about the Hawaiians' vote is that expensive oil would eventually produce expensive airplane flights and scuttle the tourism-based economy of the islands. It would also substantially increase the cost of importing anything to the islands, making everything more expensive and making their constituents unhappy.

If they are under the (false) impression that ANWR drilling will lower oil prices and contribute a large amount of oil to domestic supply, it would make sense. We may be on the (slow) road to non-petroleum based car/land transport technology, but Princess Cruise Lines and Boeing aren't exactly on the renewable energy source cutting edge.

re: Why would Inouye and Akaka from Hawaii vote for this?

As an former Alaskan I'd guess that they get support from Stevens/Murkowski. Usually native, government funding, frontier issues, etc have the same significance in each state.

And of course there are monies for highway, telecom, and the military that you don't want to go away.

Well this piece seems to go a long way to explaining the complicity of the Hawaii delegation in opening up ANWR.

While it's no surprise that Mary Landrieu is crossed the aisle, I'd like to know why Senators Akaka and Inouye voted against the amendment. Though Republicans have made some gains recently, the last time I checked Hawaii was a blue state, and neither of the Senators had any strong opposition. What gives? I hope the two Senators are looking forward to the pillaging of Waikiki Beach or Diamond Head, or even Waimea Canyon. They could be next.

BOYCOTT HAWAII - DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS OR VISIT THE ISLANDS.

Muckcat's link solves the puzzle. Its Politics, friends. To keep being elected, the Hawaiians cut a deal so when their bill to create an indiginous government comes up, the GOP will support them (and garner Hawaiian votes). We all know what Bush has in store for Dems who cooperate with him, now the two Hawaiians will reap what they sow.

Why no filibuster on this?

There is a constant refrain of "The senate Democrats have to pick their fights." I agree, but how bad does it have to get before they pick a fight?

Is Social Security the only issue that they consider worth a fight?

Why not make the Republicans pick their fights?

Excellent job o' research, Muckcat.

I'd like to take credit but it could hardly have been simpler to find.

Google Hawaii & ANWR.

Gotta love the internets.

With world oil consumption approaching 84 million barrels per day and growing steadily, the amount of oil in Anwar is not of much consequence. It is also much more energy intensive to harvest oil in that inhospitable environment, which further reduces the net energy available from ANWAR.

Reducing demand is the single most effective way to lower energy costs. Are any politicians pushing for conservation? Uh.....no. Unless demand can be reduced, our economy is in deep sh*t as the imbalance between world oil production and world oil consumption continues to widen and energy costs continue to rise.

The price of oil broke the $56.00 per barrel mark today. (Just a glimpse of what is to come) Can you say $80.00 per barrel?....how about $100.00? Producers can absorb these increase in costs for only so long. Look for prices of everthing to increase steadily in the future.

I tell you, folks. The time has come for economic warfare. Its the only way we will get through to these people. Stop buying anything labelled "Made in USA". Buy foreign made vehicles, or least foreign nameplate vehicles where the profits are exported. Change will only come when unemployment is 30%.

I tell you, folks. The time has come for economic warfare. Its the only way we will get through to these people. Stop buying anything labelled "Made in USA". Buy foreign made vehicles, or least foreign nameplate vehicles where the profits are exported. Change will only come when unemployment is 30%.

ha!
paraphrase: the bad things we thought were going to happen under bush really aren't going to happen. so boycott america and then we can blame the resulting hardships on bush. sure, 30% unemployment would cause a lot of people to suffer but it's worth it to be able to say we told you so.

the left is getting desperate.

No filibuster was possible, because rules prohibit filibustering budget resolutions/bills, from what I understand.

The bad things are happening under Bush. You just refuse to see them "Mr. Noname". My opinion just reflects the majority of world opinion right now. Go read what President Hugo Chavez is saying right now. He wants to cut off oil shipments to the USA if we keep trying to destabilize his country. I say Chavez should do it now. $5 a gallon gasoline would be the best thing for this country. We'd finally get an alternative fuels program. This is a country of people who run via crisis management. So let's have the crisis...

Ono / James E. Powell -
Indeed, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling provision was put in the budget reconciliation bill because it is immune from the filibuster.

Steve, I'd recommend changing the title, as "ANWR" sounds like it's already an industrial area. Democrats should be using Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (or at least Arctic Refuge for title purposes) to frame the issue.

CA Pol Junkie:

DO NOT drop the "Wildlife" off the title, people might just think, "hey, it's the arctic, what the hell lives up there, just go ahead and drill!!! WE NEED THE OIL!!" The point is that it's a REFUGE (and yes I did note that you included that in your shortened suggestion) for WILDLIFE!! If you must shorten it, call it the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

can we trade inoue and akaka for collins and snowe?

Hell, no. Akaka and Inouye, despite this vote which I strongly disagree with, are committed progressives, and deserved to be recognized as just that.

I think trying to oust Akaka and Inouye on this vote, while I strongly disagree with it -- is extremely shortsighted. There is so much else that I very strongly agree with both senators.
Other than this issue (and a 1999 missile defense vote), Akaka has a better record than almost every other Democratic Senator, and cast difficult and unpopular votes when he was called to rise to the occasion. Akaka was one of 23 Senators voting against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution (as was Inouye). One of the few Senate Democrats to favor gay marriage, Akaka was one of 14 Senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (as did Inouye). Akaka was one of 12 senators in 1995 to vote against the welfare "reform" bill. The junior senator from Hawaii also voted against the 1996 law that President Clinton signed (as did the senior Hawaii senator). Akaka also was one of 24 senators to vote against the bankruptcy "reform" bill passed last week. An opponent of capital punishment, Akaka (and Inouye) was one of 25 senators in 1993 voting to replace all capital crimes in the Clinton crime bill with life without parole. Saving our nation from suppressed dissent, the junior Senator from Hawaii also voted against the flag desecration amendment (as did the senior senator). Akaka (and Inouye) also voted against the Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, which would have made judges, not Congress, write legislation, when it was one vote from passage. A fully pro-choice senator, Akaka (and Inouye) voted against the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Akaka (and Inouye) also voted against repealing the inheritance tax when Bill Clinton was President (and Abercrombie voted for repeal). According to National Journal, Akaka was rated the most liberal senator in 2004.

Dan Inouye co-sponsored the Wellstone single-payor health care bill in 1991 and 1993. Both Inouye and Akaka co-sponsored the Clinton health care plan.

Litmus tests are a bad idea. When we vote, we don't vote for the ideal candidate -- we voted for the candidate who most closely matches our ideals. Dan Akaka and Dan Inouye are very proud progressives who deserve to be recognized in that category and should remain in the Senate as Democrats.

While I think Inouye's vote for a totally corrupt bankruptcy bill with no rational justification is enough of a reason to vote him out of office (assuming he runs again in six years), both he and Akaka are native Hawaiians and supported this measure because native populations in Alaska petitioned them to do so. I happen to think it is not a good idea to sell out a native population's long-term physical and financial health for short-term economic benefit even if the native population asks for it (the Navajo-Peabody Coal history is a good example), but I can understand why Inouye and Akaka could be swayed. It is not like the federal government is doing much to help native Americans. Landrieu, on the other hand, is just a corporate shill representing Louisiana oil interests. With 95% of the North Slope open to development it seems unnecessary and ridiculous to demand drilling in a key wildlife refuge needed for the breeding and transit of numerous species. I only wish Inouye and Akaka valued its importance more.

I feel sick.

America hates itself!

TUNE IN TURN ON DROP OUT!

I think Democrats are opposed to drilling in ANWR because they're supposed to be, and not because they have any legitimate gripe about the technology or the actual effects on the wildlife there.

The house in which my father died almost ten years ago was situated at the edge of a huge tract of supposedly untouchable land here outside of Austin. Now the entire fucking area is getting paved over and a giant shopping mall (a "galleria") is to be built on it within the next two years.

I hate to see this sprawl. I hate to see the beautiful Texas Hill Country sold off to nouveaux riche assholes who literally deform entire hills so that they can plant their $5 million mansions on top of them.

But what is any of us going to do about it? It's just the outrage du jour.

Fuck 'em all.

While you might not like this vote - any progressive Democrat should love having Akaka and Inouye in the Senate. OK, maybe you don't like this single action - but on the whole they are among the very best of the best from a progressive perspective. I think they've been among the best senators of recent years and that it's going to be a loss for the country when they leave that chamber (probably in the not too distant future since they are both 80).

Btw, is there some sort of traditional alliance between the Alaska and Hawaii delegations? I'm trying to think of why they did vote this way, and I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason.

As for the brave Republicans who bucked the trend, most of them are sensible moderates who can (sometimes) be relied upon to do the right thing like here when it was particularly egregious.

Except for Norm Coleman. He is nothing but a crass opportunist with absolutely no scruples whatsoever. He is by no means a moderate Republican, but by voting against this high-profile vote while representing a blue state like Minnesota, he will attempt to portray himself as "bucking the White House" when he's up for re-election in 2008. Be warned ...

My question for Norm would be -- how would he have voted if the Hawaii Senators had not cut this deal -- leaving his individual vote to be meaningless?

No legitimate reason to "gripe"?

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/factsheets.asp

http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/artechinx.asp

Why should anyone not getting Alaska oil revenues support a drilling measure that would yield less oil than America consumes in a year and would take 10 years to develop? With minmal changes in the CAFE standards we could recoup this amount of oil within a few months. Why is it worth furthering the dangerous precedent of allowing development inside wildlife refuges? Why is it worth harming breeding and migratory grounds? Let's not even mention the 'misleading' facts offered by supporters of drilling who show their contempt for democratic values like transparency and good governance. While I dislike many of the senators from both parties, I do believe that those who oppose drilling do so with valid information and good reason, not because they are 'supposed to'. If it were that simple, the Dems would have voted against the bankruptcy bill.

My Repbulicans certainly have been busy in their continuing onslaught and efforts subverting responsible (fiscal) government lately. They are now officially on the record as not supporting a..Paygo system. Crank up the adds juxtaposing them with their votes advocating and supporting deep cuts to social security benefits and of massive increases in budget deficits. Now they don't want to try to balance the budget either. Republicans can't manage your money and are on the record as not wanting to be personally responsible to do so either. Especially hypocritical since they just ran on idea "personal responsibility" but only for the middle class, medically ill, veterans, and poor as noted their unified Corporate Loan Shark protection bill. Plus today they prove they enjoy ruining the environment for big corporate oil too.

Come on and we can't win against these bastards.

Leads me to continue to suspect there is some truth to the fact...it's more important who counts the votes than just who votes.

Considering that Alaska has had only GOP senators for a long time and Hawaii has had only Dems. for a long time, this 'alliance' must go all the way back to their territorial days.
Well, Japan invaded the Aleuitian Islands shortly after Pearl Harbor. Also, they sort of came into the union together in 1959.

Or maybe being physically seperated from the other states has something to do with it. It would be interesting if residents of one or both of them could tell the tale.

What frustrates me is that there aren't enough Democrats in Congress who understand the value of defeating Bush on issues like ANWR, or the Bolton or Gonzales nominations, or the bankruptcy bill. The GOP jihad needs to be stopped in its tracks; the momentum needs to be halted, and the way to do that is to circle the wagons and oppose the fuckers on everything.

gator,
the dems are corporate whores like the bushies. look at the bankrupcy vote. they are not the opposition - the dems are part of the problem, just like the GOP.

jj is right.

Landrieu sold out to the Big Oil interests in her state. Understandable. Any oil out of ANWR, 10 years or so down the road, will most probably be sold to Japan. Oil going to Japan, and possibly China, will route through the Hawaiian islands. Follow the money.

Now we'll need some more refining capacity. Another opportunity to peel away a Senate democrat.

As someone who has been closely involved in Hawaiian issues for years, and who is also a regular reader of this and other progressive blogs, I believe it is important for folks here to know that many Native Hawaiians and progressives in Hawaii do NOT support the Akaka/Stevens bill for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.

For more background the connections to arctic refuge drilling, see:

http://hawaiiislandjournal.com/stories/8a03a.html

http://cnhaexposed.org

For an introduction to the bill, and an overview of why it is opposed, see this diary I posted recently on dKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/7/121659/8499

I have been tracking the bill here at my blog:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.info/C608676235/index.html

We in Hawaii would very much appreciate the support of the progressive community in preventing this bill from passing.

toby, i'm sorry the austin area is being ruined. sounds like a beautiful place

But what is any of us going to do about it?

Those hippies in portland enacted greenbelt legislation - it kept the sprawl from getting out of hand. other than that, i got no ideas.

Now we'll need some more refining capacity.

ANWR won't produce a drop of oil for ten years. why not just build another useless missile defense system? graft is graft, hey?

Dear Left Coaster, I appreciate your picking up the article at the Hawaii Island Journal and want to alert you to the fact that the original of that article was published in the Journal with great effort and risk by a Native Hawaiian activist/writer/filmmaker, Keala Kelly on October 15, 2003. I hope you will go and look at it. She put an enormous amount of risk and hard work into researching and getting the article published by a reluctant press here. The url to search the archives for that article is www.hawaiiislandjournal.com.

All best, Gabrielle Welford

Thank you Gabrielle Welford. I went to www.hawaiiislandjournal.com and was greeted by a nice picture of marijuana. Great article by Kelly on that site explaining the connections between federal money, Hawaiian natives, and Alaskan oil. As the saying goes, follow the money...

The GOP estimates 10.4 billion barrels of oil under that land. Given their propensity for receiving donations from the oil industry, I'd say that figure is probably suspect, but we'll go with it for argument's sake.

According to the CIA World Factbook (likely a neutral publication, I would imagine), the US consumed 10.65 million barrels of oil PER DAY in 2001.

Now, if that trend continues (and as cars get bigger, consumption will probably only increase), we'll see the oil from ANWR for about 530 days before it's all gone. Keep in mind that much of this will be for non-vehicular operations like power plants.

And that's if we keep and use every drop. Odds are good that a lot of it will be sold to other countries, lining the pockets of the oil industry further. With the dollar the way it is, they'd get more money by selling it to...um, anyone else. Then we'll just have torn up land with dead caribou. In either case, using the oil ourselves or getting money from its sale, the question is the same: what have we gained except time?

There is a finite amount of oil on this planet. Eventually it will be all gone, no matter how much we conserve, and our industrial/military/technological superiority will be over. Without oil, we can't move large objects around or even build windmills or solar panels. It takes oil to build those too: shipping, welding, etc.

Here's what a world that has exhausted the oil supply without developing an alternative might look like:
- There will initially be anarchy as people can't fill up and commute to work - unemployment ridiculously high

(if that passes and we survive that...)

- It will be cold (I'll be living in Michigan, so I'm scared)
- There will be food shortages (no shipping trucks to get it to the cities, tractors can't till the land)
- We will be defenseless - can't build a rifle without oil, and cars won't go anywhere (and neither can tanks).
- Education will fall apart (moreso) as kids can't take a bus to school. Sure, we can do the ol' grandpa thing and hike 15 miles in the snow (uphill, both ways...with no clothes on, right?), but that will only discourage attendance.
- Far-scattered families such as mine will be separated by mass distances previously surmountable with vehicles...no longer.
- Total collapse of world trade; ships and planes won't go anywhere. Sure, there's the US Navy's nuclear-powered ships, but they have more important things to do than ship over ten million crates of widgets.
The list goes on, probably with much worse than this.

Prepare for the Second Dark Ages with the evaporation of oil. I may sound like an armageddying doomsayer, but there is hope: renewable energy. We just have to find out how to do it. I think nanotechnology or biotechnology both hold the most promise. Chemistry has had enough time by now, so forget that.

Senator Kerry said it best: "We can't drill our way out of this...we need to invent our way out of it."

Sorry, made a mistake with my math: the oil in ANWR would last 970-something days: about two and a half years. But so what? What if it lasted five years? TEN years? In the end, it makes no difference; it'll be gone eventually.

Me a stupid liberal.

I had it right the first time: ~530 days.
Last post, I swear. This comment box needs some kind of editing tool.

Following up on Gabe's post, I also agree that Keala Kelly deserves huge credit for compiling the research that exposed the Hawaii-Alaska connection, but also for struggling with various supposedly liberal and independent papers to get it published as they were pressured by to spike it. For those who don't want to search the archives, here is her original article, upon which Jack Kelly's article was based, which has more detail about the connection.

http://hawaiiislandjournal.com/stories/8a03a.html

The additional refining capacity is needed NOW, all refineries are running at capacity and there has been no new refinery built in the US in ~30 years. Additional domestic production will require refining capacity HERE, so a move to produce some excess capacity would be timely.

To speak of the reserves in ANWR as only providing our needs for a few years is disengenuous. This will not be the only source of petroleum that we will be using, so its exploitation will be over a number of years rather than two or three. As for the amount of oil produced, bear in mind that just a few million barrels per unit of time cause a marked softness in the market price.

Also the USGS says that the reserves are possibly the largest in the western hemisphere, rather than the paltry amount cited by those who oppose its use.

The reason Akaka and Inouye voted for the drilling is simple. Quid pro quo. Akaka needed votes from Republicans regarding the Akaka Bill which requires certain segments of land to be transferred over to Native Hawaiians. Basically, it paves the way for Hawaiians being able to have Reservations, just as Native Americans.
I can see no other justification for such an outlandish vote by the most liberal of Senators. I wonder just how intelligent Akaka and Inouye would feel if oil was discovered off the coast of Hawaii and exploitation would come full circle.