The following has been proposed as an amendment has been seconded.

To Strike section 3

The removed section is in bold

Mr. Speaker,

I moved to strike this section because it is outside of the scope of the rest of the bill.

Regardless of whether you are for or against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, we can have a clean debate about that another day.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I oppose this amendment for the fact that if it is passed, MRAA would become a meaningless bill.

I move to restore the original version of the bill and re-title the bill the "Mining Resource Assistance and ANWR Act"

I yield

Mr. Speaker,
I second Mr. Webb's amendment.

I yield.

Mr. Chair

Does anyone have the text of the section 3143?

I yield

Mr. Speaker,

I have that information:

I would also like to ask the gentleman who objected to the amendment while he feels that the two should be tied together.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I'd note two things.

First, it would not be meaningless if we made this amendment. The main thrust of the bill -- that any amendment to the Mining Rights law require a 2/3rds vote -- would still be intact.

Secondly, it is not in order to "restore the original bill and retitle it," as the gentleman from Missouri has proposed. The motion under discussion is a motion to amend the main motion.

We can either presume that the gentleman's motion is intended to amend the main motion, in which case this is NOT the place to make it; or, we can presume it is intended to amend the motion to amend in a way that simply negates the amendment, which is, I think, abusive and also not permitted under the rules of order, if I remember correctly.

Mr Speaker,
The most recent estimates of recoverable reserves in ANWR are, and have been since the region hit the media in roughly 2000 are paltry.

ANWR Recoverable Crude: 8 billion bbls.
US Annual Consumption: 4 billion bbls.

Colleagues should bear in mind that NOT EVERY last drop fo crude oil can even be converted into usable products. These numbers are even more absurd than the ones I quoted from memory earlier today on the house floor.

On this basis, I would be perplexed and appalled at any of my colleagues supporting ANWR drilling in the long term. I urge adoption of the amendment and the ultimate defeat of the remainder of the bill.

Mr. Webb, I can honor your request to rename the bill. However, If this amendment passes I can not honor your second request to revert back to the original bill as stated.

The following second degree amendment has passed

To Rename the Mining Resources Assurance Act to the Mining Resource Assistance and ANWR Act"

Mr SPT,
At least now with the renaming of this bill, its true intentions have been revealed a bit more. Regarding the amendment to strike Section 3, I rise in unmitigated support for 2 broad reasons.

First: The premise that ANWR contains any significant amounts of crude is decidedly false.

Second: The US refining industry completely lacks the ability to handle any added crude oil and produce finished products.

Therefore: Section 3 of this bill is completely without merit, and betrays our responsibility to base policy on fact.

In the hope that facts will illustrate this to my colleagues, I offer the following:

Some members would have us believe that we are indeed in a position to drill our way to energy independence. The cornerstone of this logic is the idea that we are blessed with added reserves of crude oil that are simply untapped, and that these reserves can be turned into finsihed products. The major area under consideration in recent years has been the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, (ANWR).

This position is incorrect for the 2 reasons cited above and explained below.

Recoverable Reserves in ANWR are Meaningless
Estimates of recoverable crude in ANWR vary, but the literature shows that 2 billion to 10.3 billion barrels are common numbers. Compare this against the 4 billion-barrel current annual demand of the United States, and the impact of ANWR on the total energy picture is obvious. The logic of this bill quickly unravels. The USGS, an agency of the federal government occupies the low end here. By any analysis, ANWR provides anywhere from 6 month, to 2.5 years of crude demand.

The US Refining Industry Lacks the Capacity to Handle ANWR Production
Between 1992 and the present, total domestic refining operations have operated at or near capacity. The numbers have varied somewhat, as a result of weather, refinery damage and other factors, but US refining utilization rates have averaged more than 95% of capacity since the year 2000. These kinds of rates represent theoretical full capacity. The industry simply lacks the equipment to produce finished products in any greater volumes than at present.

To put such an area into environmental peril, for such paltry returns, while disregarding the facts is irresponsible legislation. We owe the American people a more thorough analysis than slogans which sound like steps to energy policy.

I challenege my colleagues to rise above the rhetoric and the ideological divides of "right/left", or "environmentalist/capitalist" and to do the right thing by striking Section 3.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

Regarding Mr. Plawinski's statement:

I humbly ask Mr. Plawinski where he is pulling his data from.

I yield.

This post has been edited by Crysnia on Dec 11 2004, 02:56 PM

Mr SPT,
To respond to my colleague from LA.

I believe that the meaning of that statement is contained in the full text of my remarks. In summary however:

ANWR estimates I have found indicate 2 billion to 10.3 billion barrels. The USGS is at the low end. The high is from the World Resources Institute. Other sources for my white papers and my remarks here include the Council for Environmental Literacy, and the American Petroleum Institute, Platts' Oilgram and Price Report, and my own 17 years in the industry. (OOC, the last assetion is IRL).

With domestic consumption of 4 billion barrels annually, ANWR recoverable reserves are indeed paltry.

I yield.

This post has been edited by tompea on Dec 11 2004, 03:10 PM