SB 109-10: Federal ANWR Territorial Integrity Act (Tabled)

[Mr. Reactionary]

So we overturned the Kelo decision on eminent domain in the game years ago. That means the government can only eminent domain property to be used by the public. Selling oil rights to private developers is not allowable eminent domain. That means if the federal government sells the mineral rights to important lands we all want preserved to the Regions, the federal government cannot allow for oil drilling later. The only protection against drilling is a statute which can be repealed by a later government. This bill ensures the land is protected even if the federal government changes its position. And it does so by raising much needed money for federal welfare programs.

These are fair prices for the assets. Fremont is getting the ANWR rights for 60 cents on the dollar. Ditto for lincoln.

The bill gets:

From the South: $24.8 Billion 2022, $52.8 Billion total

From Fremont: $106.25 Billion 2022, $567.25 Billion total

From Lincoln: $51 Billion 2022, $102 Billion total

For a net gain of;

$182.05 immediately, and $722.05 over 5 years.

Thats 3 quarters of a Trillion dollars in free money and accomplishes the original bills purpose of protecting ANWR and other important lands. It is also voluntary.

[Joseph Cao]

Going to go ahead and give 24 hours to object to the amendment.

Lincoln: Vacant
Northeast: AGA – Abstain
Great Lakes: Cao – Aye

Frémont: Kuumo – Aye
Mountain West: AFE – Not voting
Pacific: Western Democrat – Not voting

South: Mr. R – Aye
Upper South: Yankee – Aye
Deep South: Muad'dib – Not voting

STV1: MB – Aye
STV2: Weatherboy – Abstain
STV3: Deadprez – Abstain
STV4: West_Midlander – Aye
STV5: Sestak – Not voting
STV6: OSR – Not voting
STV7: Blairite – Abstain
STV8: Adam – Abstain
STV9: Liam – Abstain

By a vote of 6-0-6-6, AFE is recognized as sponsor.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

[WD]

Objecting to Mr. R’a amendment

[West_Midlander]

Objecting to Mr. R’a amendment

Care to give a reason why you’re wasting the Senate’s time?

[Mr. Reactionary]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

Paying 60 cents on the dollar for oil during a period of high demand doesnt seem particularly unfair especially when the outcome is permanent protection of ANWR.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

Paying 60 cents on the dollar for oil during a period of high demand doesnt seem particularly unfair especially when the outcome is permanent protection of ANWR.

Both the federal government and region already have those protections in place.

[Mr. Reactionary]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

Paying 60 cents on the dollar for oil during a period of high demand doesnt seem particularly unfair especially when the outcome is permanent protection of ANWR.

Both the federal government and region already have those protections in place.

Merely by statute. That can be done away with by subsequent statute. If you own the mineral rights, that cannot be done away with by subsequent statute. We are talking a trillion dollar favor for Fremont here.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

Paying 60 cents on the dollar for oil during a period of high demand doesnt seem particularly unfair especially when the outcome is permanent protection of ANWR.

Both the federal government and region already have those protections in place.

Merely by statute. That can be done away with by subsequent statute. If you own the mineral rights, that cannot be done away with by subsequent statute. We are talking a trillion dollar favor for Fremont here.

It's hard to say much about the federal government and upcoming elections but I can't see Frémont overturning our protections any time soon. Just threatening to exploit currently protected areas unless the regions pay - and especially such absurd amounts - seems counterintuitive to regional rights, to me. As First Minister, I can only insist that the amount be much lower and not blow a hole in the budget or walk away and urge senators and the President to oppose this, because Frémont will not agree to $567 billion or anything close. Federal deficits can be quite large but having the states or regions carry that burden won't improve anything.

And again, forcing one region to pay an amount that high while the others pay peanuts in comparison is extremely unfair. I understand that some people don't like Frémont but we're not going to approve that amount for keeping things the way they are and I don't think we have to even if this proposal were to pass.

As far as the federal budget is concerned, I have expressed willingness to lower the threshold for CUBI and make reductions elsewhere. I am trying to compromise in good faith, but this, to be frank, feels less like a compromise than a punishment for Truman's antics.

[Mr. Reactionary]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

Paying 60 cents on the dollar for oil during a period of high demand doesnt seem particularly unfair especially when the outcome is permanent protection of ANWR.

Both the federal government and region already have those protections in place.

Merely by statute. That can be done away with by subsequent statute. If you own the mineral rights, that cannot be done away with by subsequent statute. We are talking a trillion dollar favor for Fremont here.

It's hard to say much about the federal government and upcoming elections but I can't see Frémont overturning our protections any time soon. Just threatening to exploit currently protected areas unless the regions pay - and especially such absurd amounts - seems counterintuitive to regional rights, to me. As First Minister, I can only insist that the amount be much lower and not blow a hole in the budget or walk away and urge senators and the President to oppose this, because Frémont will not agree to $567 billion or anything close. Federal deficits can be quite large but having the states or regions carry that burden won't improve anything.

And again, forcing one region to pay an amount that high while the others pay peanuts in comparison is extremely unfair. I understand that some people don't like Frémont but we're not going to approve that amount for keeping things the way they are and I don't think we have to even if this proposal were to pass.

As far as the federal budget is concerned, I have expressed willingness to lower the threshold for CUBI and make reductions elsewhere. I am trying to compromise in good faith, but this, to be frank, feels less like a compromise than a punishment for Truman's antics.

The price is based on the amount of mineral wealth in ANWR. Its not punitive or unfair. Its not a made up number. Its based on a heavily discounted price for much needed oil that would benefit working Atlasians. If a Region wants to dictate federal land policy they should have to pay. Its crazy that we are currently giving 10s of thousands in welfare benefits to people making what like $80K a year, a trillion dollar welfare bill, a near trillion dollar social housing bill, none of which we can pay for and a 100% tax rate on the highest brackets, and we just leave hundreds of billions in free revenue to help pay for the welfare boondoggle on the table because of a few carribou. Thats a trillion dollar favor to fremont. A trillion on new welfare for the rich, a trillion on new social housing, and now a trillion dollar earmark to Fremont just to NOT expand the gas supply with federal owned oil on federal owned land? Where does it end?

This is free revenue that doesnt involve tax increases on workers or welfare cuts. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by not adopting the amendment and passing the bill. Like what price per barrel do you think Fremont should be privileged with paying?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

Paying 60 cents on the dollar for oil during a period of high demand doesnt seem particularly unfair especially when the outcome is permanent protection of ANWR.

Both the federal government and region already have those protections in place.

Merely by statute. That can be done away with by subsequent statute. If you own the mineral rights, that cannot be done away with by subsequent statute. We are talking a trillion dollar favor for Fremont here.

It's hard to say much about the federal government and upcoming elections but I can't see Frémont overturning our protections any time soon. Just threatening to exploit currently protected areas unless the regions pay - and especially such absurd amounts - seems counterintuitive to regional rights, to me. As First Minister, I can only insist that the amount be much lower and not blow a hole in the budget or walk away and urge senators and the President to oppose this, because Frémont will not agree to $567 billion or anything close. Federal deficits can be quite large but having the states or regions carry that burden won't improve anything.

And again, forcing one region to pay an amount that high while the others pay peanuts in comparison is extremely unfair. I understand that some people don't like Frémont but we're not going to approve that amount for keeping things the way they are and I don't think we have to even if this proposal were to pass.

As far as the federal budget is concerned, I have expressed willingness to lower the threshold for CUBI and make reductions elsewhere. I am trying to compromise in good faith, but this, to be frank, feels less like a compromise than a punishment for Truman's antics.

The price is based on the amount of mineral wealth in ANWR. Its not punitive or unfair. Its not a made up number. Its based on a heavily discounted price for much needed oil that would benefit working Atlasians. If a Region wants to dictate federal land policy they should have to pay. Its crazy that we are currently giving 10s of thousands in welfare benefits to people making what like $80K a year, a trillion dollar welfare bill, a near trillion dollar social housing bill, none of which we can pay for and a 100% tax rate on the highest brackets, and we just leave hundreds of billions in free revenue to help pay for the welfare boondoggle on the table because of a few carribou. Thats a trillion dollar favor to fremont. A trillion on new welfare for the rich, a trillion on new social housing, and now a trillion dollar earmark to Fremont just to NOT expand the gas supply with federal owned oil on federal owned land? Where does it end?

This is free revenue that doesnt involve tax increases on workers or welfare cuts. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by not adopting the amendment and passing the bill. Like what price per barrel do you think Fremont should be privileged with paying?

What earmark? When was Frémont obligated to pay for protecting its own land? This is long-standing policy. I don't recall us changing the status of the ANWR since reset or doing anything besides strengthening protections.

I've already said that I support stricter means-testing on some of the new programs. But transferring the deficit from the federal government to mostly one region is not on the table here.

[Mr. Reactionary]

With a surplus of $35,235,307,600 (I'm not going to bother going through Truman's fuzzy math) this would put Frémont at a deficit of $532,014,692,400 over 5 years. The initial payment alone puts us at a $71,014,692,400 deficit. Frémont pays the lion's share of this bill.

Drilling in the ANWR is already banned regionally as well as federally. I'm not willing to plunge Frémont into its own budgetary crisis just to maintain the status quo on environmental protection. I am willing to contribute, but the terms of this proposal are very unfair to Frémont.

Paying 60 cents on the dollar for oil during a period of high demand doesnt seem particularly unfair especially when the outcome is permanent protection of ANWR.

Both the federal government and region already have those protections in place.

Merely by statute. That can be done away with by subsequent statute. If you own the mineral rights, that cannot be done away with by subsequent statute. We are talking a trillion dollar favor for Fremont here.

It's hard to say much about the federal government and upcoming elections but I can't see Frémont overturning our protections any time soon. Just threatening to exploit currently protected areas unless the regions pay - and especially such absurd amounts - seems counterintuitive to regional rights, to me. As First Minister, I can only insist that the amount be much lower and not blow a hole in the budget or walk away and urge senators and the President to oppose this, because Frémont will not agree to $567 billion or anything close. Federal deficits can be quite large but having the states or regions carry that burden won't improve anything.

And again, forcing one region to pay an amount that high while the others pay peanuts in comparison is extremely unfair. I understand that some people don't like Frémont but we're not going to approve that amount for keeping things the way they are and I don't think we have to even if this proposal were to pass.

As far as the federal budget is concerned, I have expressed willingness to lower the threshold for CUBI and make reductions elsewhere. I am trying to compromise in good faith, but this, to be frank, feels less like a compromise than a punishment for Truman's antics.

The price is based on the amount of mineral wealth in ANWR. Its not punitive or unfair. Its not a made up number. Its based on a heavily discounted price for much needed oil that would benefit working Atlasians. If a Region wants to dictate federal land policy they should have to pay. Its crazy that we are currently giving 10s of thousands in welfare benefits to people making what like $80K a year, a trillion dollar welfare bill, a near trillion dollar social housing bill, none of which we can pay for and a 100% tax rate on the highest brackets, and we just leave hundreds of billions in free revenue to help pay for the welfare boondoggle on the table because of a few carribou. Thats a trillion dollar favor to fremont. A trillion on new welfare for the rich, a trillion on new social housing, and now a trillion dollar earmark to Fremont just to NOT expand the gas supply with federal owned oil on federal owned land? Where does it end?

This is free revenue that doesnt involve tax increases on workers or welfare cuts. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by not adopting the amendment and passing the bill. Like what price per barrel do you think Fremont should be privileged with paying?

What earmark? When was Frémont obligated to pay for protecting its own land? This is long-standing policy. I don't recall us changing the status of the ANWR since reset or doing anything besides strengthening protections.

I've already said that I support stricter means-testing on some of the new programs. But transferring the deficit from the federal government to mostly one region is not on the table here.

ANWR is federal land not Fremont land.

If the federal government sells the federal oil under the federal land the federal government gets close to a trillion dollars needed by the federal government.

Fremont is telling the federal government that the federal government cannot sell the federal oil under the federal land because Fremont says so.

Thus Fremont is depriving the federal government of a trillion dollars.

Even though Fremont seeks to deprive the federal government of a trillion dollars, this amendment fairly and graciously allows Fremont to get Fremont's way forever at half the price Fremont is costing the federal government.

I personally dont give a damn what Fremont thinks the federal government should do with federal oil under federal land, and yet I have offered a compromise to allow Fremont to get Fremont's way despite Fremont having no entitlement to this, for significantly less than Fremont should actually be paying.

If Fremont expects the federal government to not sell the federal oil under federal land, Fremont owes the federal government fair compensation.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

ANWR is federal land not Fremont land.

If the federal government sells the federal oil under the federal land the federal government gets close to a trillion dollars needed by the federal government.

Fremont is telling the federal government that the federal government cannot sell the federal oil under the federal land because Fremont says so.

Thus Fremont is depriving the federal government of a trillion dollars.

Even though Fremont seeks to deprive the federal government of a trillion dollars, this amendment fairly and graciously allows Fremont to get Fremont's way forever at half the price Fremont is costing the federal government.

I personally dont give a damn what Fremont thinks the federal government should do with federal oil under federal land, and yet I have offered a compromise to allow Fremont to get Fremont's way despite Fremont having no entitlement to this, for significantly less than Fremont should actually be paying.

If Fremont expects the federal government to not sell the federal oil under federal land, Fremont owes the federal government fair compensation.

And with respect, Frémont will be invoking the Truman Doctrine, as you have done so in the South, the moment the federal government decides to sell it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

ANWR is federal land not Fremont land.

If the federal government sells the federal oil under the federal land the federal government gets close to a trillion dollars needed by the federal government.

Fremont is telling the federal government that the federal government cannot sell the federal oil under the federal land because Fremont says so.

Thus Fremont is depriving the federal government of a trillion dollars.

Even though Fremont seeks to deprive the federal government of a trillion dollars, this amendment fairly and graciously allows Fremont to get Fremont's way forever at half the price Fremont is costing the federal government.

I personally dont give a damn what Fremont thinks the federal government should do with federal oil under federal land, and yet I have offered a compromise to allow Fremont to get Fremont's way despite Fremont having no entitlement to this, for significantly less than Fremont should actually be paying.

If Fremont expects the federal government to not sell the federal oil under federal land, Fremont owes the federal government fair compensation.

And with respect, Frémont will be invoking the Truman Doctrine, as you have done so in the South, the moment the federal government decides to sell it.

Knock yourself out. The South will respond by issuing more drilling permits for the continental shelf off its coasts.

[Joseph Cao]

Whew.

Correct me if I'm wrong but under any reasonable iteration of this plan Frémont would be paying the lion's share anyway, simply by virtue of having more energy reserves in general but more relevantly having more of them on federal territory? It wouldn't be "fair" no matter how many other regions' federal lands are put on the table (and there are obviously plenty of Frémontian reserves not included in the amendment).

[Joseph Cao]

Anyway, a vote is open on the R amendment:

AN ACT
To protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other cherished lands while raising revenue for federal programs


Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled;

Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Federal ANWR Territorial Integrity and National Parks Preservation Act.[/b]

Section 2. PreservationRecognition of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as Frémont territory and other federal lands

It shall be policy of the Republic of Atlasia that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is under the joint administration of the Commonwealth of Frémont and the federal Fish and Wildlife Service.

Upon the passage of a Regional law to accept, the government of Atlasia hereby offers the Regional governments the opportunity to purchase the subsurface mineral rights, geothermal rights, and wind energy rights of the following federal lands at the following prices to better protect and preserve the land from development. The federal government shall maintain fee ownership of the land upon or under which the mineral, geothermal, and wind rights being conveyed is located.

A. The Commonwealth of Fremont may purchase all mineral rights in the Alaska National Wilderness Reserve (ANWR) for a purchase price of $530 Billion, which may be paid in five (5) annual payments of $106 Billion until the debt is retired.

B. The Commonwealth of Fremont may purchase all mineral rights in Grand Canyon National Park for a purchase price of $250 Million.

C. Lincoln may purchase all mineral rights in the Great Lakes for a purchase price of $102 Billion total which may be paid in two (2) annual payments of $51 Billion until the debt is retired.

D. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights in Everglades National Park for a purchase price of $3.5 Billion.

E. The Southern Region may purchase all geothermal energy rights in Hot Springs National Park for a purchase price of $1 Billion.

F. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights and wind energy rights in Biscayne National Park for a purchase price of $500 Million.

G. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights and wind energy rights in Dry Tortugas National Park for a purchase price of $500 Million.

H. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights and geothermal energy rights in Dry Big Bend National Park for a purchase price of $500 Million.

I. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights in Appalachian National Park for a purchase price of $500 Million.

J. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights in Mammoth Cave National Park for a purchase price of $100 Million.

K. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights in Congaree National Park for a purchase price of $100 Million.

L. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights in Guadalupe Mountain National Park for a purchase price of $100 Million.

M. The Southern Region may purchase all mineral rights in Great Smoky Mountains National Park for a purchase price of $100 Million.

Section 3. Prohibition on leasing for oil exploration Sale of surplus federal property

Distribution of any federal oil and gas leases for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge shall be prohibited under Federal law.

A. The Southern Region may purchase Mount Weather for a purchase price of $3.5 Billion. An easement shall be reserved over the air rights for radio propagation.

B. The Southern Region may purchase the SSN-785 John Warner and the SSN-795 Hyman G Rickover for a purchase price of $7 Billion.

C. The Southern Region may purchase the Tennessee Valley Authority and all of its assets for a purchase price of $35 Billion, which may be paid in five (5) annual payments of $7 Billion until the debt is retired.

Section 4. Enactment

This act shall take effect ninety (90) days after passage.

This offer shall become valid immediately and remain firm and open through December 31, 2022 at which time it shall it expire.

72 hours to vote, but ideally get your vote in before Thursday evening. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[WD]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Whew.

Correct me if I'm wrong but under any reasonable iteration of this plan Frémont would be paying the lion's share anyway, simply by virtue of having more energy reserves in general but more relevantly having more of them on federal territory? It wouldn't be "fair" no matter how many other regions' federal lands are put on the table (and there are obviously plenty of Frémontian reserves not included in the amendment).

Perhaps, but the federal government already owns most of the West and that's hardly fair to begin with.

In any case, the South can drill where it wants within its territory. If they want to open the Everglades up for drilling, I'm willing to allow that as long as Frémont is allowed to continue protecting environmental preserves in its own territory. There will not be a single oil rig on the ANWR or the Grand Canon and we're not going to be blackmailed for keeping things the way they are.

I think I've said my piece on this bill and continuing this conversation serves no further purpose.

[Sestak]

Nay.

[Saint Milei]

Aye

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Perhaps, but the federal government already owns most of the West and that's hardly fair to begin with.

Would you like to buy some of it? I think its outrageous that 90% of Nevada is federally owned.

[AGA]

Aye