Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions, 96th-114th Congresses




Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR):
Votes and Legislative Actions, 96th-114th
Congresses

Updated July 30, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL32838




Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Summary
The legislative history of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska
has been shaped in part by laws enacted in 1980 and 2017 related to energy development in the
refuge. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487), enacted in
1980, forbade the federal government from offering oil and gas leases or from al owing activities
leading to oil and gas development in ANWR, unless authorized by an act of Congress. Title II of
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97), enacted in 2017, established an oil and gas leasing
program in ANWR’s 1.57-mil ion-acre Coastal Plain. The Coastal Plain is viewed as an onshore
oil prospect, with a 2005 mean estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey of 7.7 bil ion barrels of
technical y recoverable oil on federal lands (10.4 bil ion barrels including Native lands and
adjacent waters). It also is a center of activity for caribou and other wildlife, with Native
subsistence uses and critical habitat for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
§§1531-1544). The enactment of P.L. 115-97 came after a decades-long debate over whether to
authorize development of the Coastal Plain’s mineral resources or to continue prohibiting
development to protect biological and subsistence values.
During the decades after ANILCA’s enactment, periods of active congressional consideration
were interspersed with periods of less activity and debate. In the 104th Congress (1995-1996),
floor votes related to ANWR development measures contained in budget reconciliation bil s
occurred in both chambers. These led, eventual y, to a presidential veto. The 107th Congress
(2001-2002) saw votes in both chambers in the context of measures to address energy resources.
Ultimately, no ANWR provisions were approved. In the 108th and 109th Congresses (2003-2006),
ANWR development provisions were considered as parts of bil s concerning energy programs,
budget resolutions, and defense authorization but were not approved. In the 112th Congress (2011-
2012), the House approved H.R. 3408, including a provision to open the Coastal Plain to energy
development, and the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 1826 to S. 1813, which would have expanded
dril ing into areas including the Coastal Plain. In the 114th Congress (2015-2016), the House
rejected an amendment (H.Amdt. 961) to designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness, and three
amendments to appropriations bil s would have blocked funds to implement a wilderness
recommendation in a refuge planning document. No related Senate floor votes occurred in the
114th Congress. For discussion of actions in the 115th Congress and beyond, including enactment
of P.L. 115-97 and subsequent developments, see CRS In Focus IF10782, Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) Provisions in P.L. 115-97, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
; and CRS Report RL33872,
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview.



Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 16 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Contents
Background and Analysis ................................................................................................. 1
Discussion of House and Senate Actions............................................................................. 5
96th-103rd Congresses ................................................................................................. 5
104th-106th Congresses ............................................................................................... 6
107th Congress .......................................................................................................... 6
108th Congress .......................................................................................................... 7
FY2004 Reconciliation ......................................................................................... 7
Comprehensive Energy Legislation ......................................................................... 8
109th Congress .......................................................................................................... 9
Budget Resolutions and Reconciliation Bills............................................................. 9
ANWR in the Defense Appropriations Bill ............................................................. 10
Omnibus and Other Energy Legislation ................................................................. 10

110th Congress ........................................................................................................ 11
111th-112th Congresses .............................................................................................. 11
113th-114th Congresses .............................................................................................. 12

Tables
Table 1. Votes in the House of Representatives on
Energy Development Within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) .......................... 2
Table 2. Votes in the Senate on Energy Development
Within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................... 4

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 13


Congressional Research Service

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Background and Analysis
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) consists of 19 mil ion acres in northeast Alaska. It
is general y administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the
Interior (DOI).1 Its 1.57-mil ion-acre Coastal Plain on the North Slope of the Brooks Range is
viewed by industry as one of the more likely undeveloped U.S. onshore oil and gas prospects.2 In
its last economic assessment in 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that, at
$55/barrel (bbl) in 2003 dollars ($74.73 in 2019 dollars),3 there is a 95% chance that 4.0 bil ion
bbl of oil or more could be economical y recovered and a smal (5%) chance that 10.9 bil ion bbl
or more could be recovered on the federal lands in the Coastal Plain; the mean estimate was 7.3
bil ion bbl.4 There is a smal chance that, taken together, the fields on this federal land could hold
as much economical y recoverable oil as the giant field at Prudhoe Bay, found in 1967 on the
coastal plain west of ANWR.5 To date, more than 12 bil ion barrels of oil have been produced at
Prudhoe Bay.
ANWR, and especial y its coastal plain, is home to a wide variety of plants and animals,
including caribou, polar bears (designated as threatened under the Endangered Species Act),6
grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and many other species, living in a relatively undisturbed
state. Several species found in the area (including polar bears, caribou, migratory birds, and
whales) are protected by international treaties or agreements.
The conflict between potential y large oil deposits and nearly pristine nature has been the subject
of congressional debate for decades: Should the area be available for oil and gas development, or
should its ecosystem be given permanent protection from development? If opened, how can
damages be avoided, minimized, or mitigated? To what extent should Congress legislate special
management of the area, and to what extent should federal agencies be al owed to manage the
area under existing law? For most of the past 40 years, Section 1003 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487), enacted in 1980, restricted
administrative actions with respect to energy development on the Coastal Plain. Section 1003
forbade oil and gas development unless authorized by an act of Congress. In 2017, Congress
provided this authorization in P.L. 115-97, which established an oil and gas leasing program for
ANWR’s Coastal Plain.

1 Although the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the primary refuge manager, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), also in the Department of the Interior (DOI), administers the oil and gas program for the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) established in P.L. 115-97.
2 T his report uses the term Coastal Plain to refer to land legally designated under Section 1002 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487) and under subsequent executive-branch rulings. In lower case
(coastal plain), the term is used in the geographic sense (i.e., the area north of the foothills of the Brooks Range, from
the Chukchi Sea in the west to the Canadian border in the east) .
3 Adjusted using the GDP Chained Implicit Price Deflator. As of February 2020, crude oil (Brent) was trading at about
$55/bbl in current dollars.
4 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Economics of 1998 U.S. Geological Survey’s 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An
Econom ic Update
, Open-File Report 2005-1217, T able 4 (Washington, DC: 2005). T he volume estimates include very
minor amounts of natural gas liquids, which would be produced along with any oil.
5 See DOI, Geological Survey, The Oil and Gas Resource Potential of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area ,
Alaska
, 1999, 2-CD set, USGS Open File Report 98-34; and DOI, Geological Survey, Econom ics of 1998 U.S.
Geological Survey’s 1002 Area Regional Assessment: An Economic Update
, USGS Open File Report 2005-1359,
Washington, DC, 2005. Note that on-site research on any oil resources in the Coastal Plain has not been carried out
since the mid-1980s. Additional modeling of older data, aided by results from exploration on nearby onshore or
offshore tracts, has produced new interpretations from time to time.
6 16 U.S.C. 1533.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5 link to page 7 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

This report provides a summary of legislative attempts to address issues of energy development
and preservation in ANWR between enactment of ANILCA in the 96th Congress and the end of
the 114th Congress, before ANWR energy development was authorized. The report focuses on
measures that advanced to a floor vote in the House or Senate. For discussion of actions in the
115th Congress and beyond, including enactment of P.L. 115-97 and subsequent developments,
see CRS In Focus IF10782, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Provisions in P.L. 115-97,
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; and CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An
Overview.
Table 1 and Table 2 show floor votes in the House and Senate from the 96th Congress through the
114th Congress. The subsequent discussion provides further detail on the history of congressional
actions on this issue, with a focus on the years since the 108th Congress.
Table 1. Votes in the House of Representatives on
Energy Development Within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
Voice/
Congress
Date
Roll Call
Brief Description
96th
5/16/1979
#152
Udal -Anderson substitute for H.R. 39 adopted by House (268-157);
included provisions designating al of ANWR as wilderness.

5/16/1979
#153
H.R. 39 passed House (360-65).

11/12/1980 voice
Senate version (leaving 1002 area development issue to a future
(unan-
Congress) of H.R. 39 passed House. H.R. 39 became P.L. 96-487 (Alaska
imous)
National Interest Lands Conservation Act).
97th


No floor votes.
98th


No floor votes.
99th


No floor votes.
100th


No floor votes.
101st


No floor votes.
102nd


No floor votes.
103rd


No floor votes.
104th
11/17/1995 #812
House agreed (237-189) to conference report on H.R. 2491 (H.Rept. 104-
350), FY1996 budget reconciliation (a large bil that included 1002 area
development provisions).
105th


No floor votes.
106th


No floor votes.
107th
8/1/2001
#316
House passed Sununu amendment (H.Amdt. 297) to H.R. 4 to limit
specified surface development of 1002 area to a total of 2,000 acres (228 -
201).

8/1/2001
#317
House rejected Markey-Johnson (CT) amendment (H.Amdt. 298) to H.R.
4 to strike 1002 area development title (206-223).

8/2/2001
#320
H.R. 4, an omnibus energy bil , passed House (240-189). Title V of
Division F contained 1002 area development provisions.
108th
4/10/2003
#134
House passed Wilson (NM) amendment (H.Amdt. 67) to H.R. 6 to limit
certain features of 1002 area development to a total of 2,000 acres (226-
202).

4/10/2003
#135
House rejected Markey-Johnson (CT) amendment (H.Amdt. 69) to H.R. 6
to strike 1002 area development title (197-228).
Congressional Research Service

2

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Voice/
Congress
Date
Roll Call
Brief Description

4/11/2003
#145
House passed H.R. 6, a comprehensive energy bil (247-175); Division C,
Title IV would have opened the 1002 area to energy development.
109th
3/17/2005
#88
House adopted (218-214) the concurrent budget resolution, H.Con.Res.
95, which included spending targets that would be difficult to achieve
unless ANWR development legislation was passed.

4/20/2005
#122
House rejected (200-231) Markey amendment (H.Amdt. 72) to strike the
ANWR provision in its omnibus energy bil (H.R. 6) al owing leases for
exploration, development, and production in ANWR.

4/21/2005
#132
House passed an omnibus energy bil (H.R. 6) with an ANWR
development title (249-183).

4/28/2005
#149
House adopted (214-211) the conference report on the concurrent
budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95; it contained assumptions predicated on
ANWR development.

12/18/2005 #669
House adopted (308-106) the conference report on the Defense
appropriations bil (H.R. 2863), which would have al owed oil and gas
leasing in ANWR.

12/22/2005 voice
House passed S.Con.Res. 74, which corrected the enrol ment of H.R.
2863, removing the ANWR development provision.

5/25/2006
#209
House passed H.R. 5429 to open ANWR to development (225-201).
110th
8/4/2007
#831
House rejected motion to recommit H.R. 3221 to the Energy and
Commerce Committee with instructions to report back with language
authorizing ANWR development (169-244).

5/14/2008
#321
House rejected motion to instruct conferees for S.Con.Res. 70 to adjust
budget levels to assume increased revenues from opening ANWR to
development (185-229).
111th


No floor votes.

112th
2/16/2012
#71
House passed H.R. 3408, which included a provision to open up a portion
of ANWR to oil and gas exploration and production and expand lease
sales (237-187). See text.
113th


No floor votes
114th
7/7/2015
voice
House passed H.Amdt. 577 by Rep. Young (AK) to H.R. 2822 (Interior
appropriations) to prevent use of funds to implement Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, which recommended that Congress
designate the Coast Plain as wilderness.

2/26/2016
#99
House rejected H.Amdt. 961 by Rep. Huffman to H.R. 2406 to designate
Coastal Plain of ANWR as wilderness (176-227).

7/13/2016
#460
House approved H.Amdt. 1355 by Rep. Young (AK) to H.R. 5538 to
prevent use of funds to implement Refuge Comprehensive Conservation
Plan, which recommended that Congress designate the Coastal Plain as
wilderness. (237-191).

7/14/2016
#477
House passed H.R. 5538, which included H.Amdt. 1355 (above) as Section
497 (231-196).
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service

3

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Table 2. Votes in the Senate on Energy Development
Within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Voice/
Congress
Date
Roll Call
Brief Description
96th
7/22-
#304
Motion to table Tsongas amendment in the nature of a substitute (which
23/1980
included a title to designate al of ANWR as wilderness) to H.R. 39 defeated
(33-64).

8/18/1980
#354
Senate adopted cloture motion on H.R. 39 (63-25).

8/19/1980
#359
Senate passed Tsongas-Roth-Jackson-Hatfield substitute to H.R. 39 (78-14),
leaving decision about any 1002 area development for a future Congress.
H.R. 39 became P.L. 96-487 (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act).
97th


No floor votes.
98th


No floor votes.
99th


No floor votes.
100th


No floor votes.
101st


No floor votes.
102nd
11/1/1991
#242
Cloture motion on S. 1220 failed; one title would have opened 1002 area to
development (50-44).
103rd


No floor votes.
104th
5/24/1995
#190
Senate voted to table Roth amendment (S.Amdt. 1150) to strip 1002 area
revenue assumptions from S.Con.Res. 13 (56-44).

10/27/1995 #525
Senate voted to table Baucus amendment to strip 1002 area development
provisions in H.R. 2491 (51-48).
105th


No floor votes.
106th
4/6/2000
#58
Senate voted to table Roth amendment to strip 1002 area revenue
assumptions from the FY2001 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 101) (51-49).
107th
12/3/2001
#344
Lott-Murkowski-Brownback amendment (S.Amdt. 2171) to Daschle
amendment to H.R. 10 included 1002 area development title in H.R. 4, as
passed by the House. A cloture motion on the amendment failed (1-94).

4/18/2002
#71
Senate motion to invoke cloture failed on Murkowski amendment (S.Amdt.
3132) to S. 517, an omnibus energy bil . It contained ANWR development
language similar to that in the House-passed version of H.R. 4 (46-54).
108th
3/19/2003
#59
Senate passed Boxer amendment (S.Amdt. 272) to delete certain revenue
assumptions from S.Con.Res. 23, the FY2004 budget resolution; floor
debate indicated that the amendment was clearly seen as a vote on
developing the 1002 area (52-48).
109th
3/16/2005
#52
Senate voted to reject Cantwel amendment (S.Amdt. 168) to strike
revenue assumptions from its FY2006 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18)
that would have given procedural protection to legislation authorizing oil
dril ing in part of the refuge (49-51).

11/3/2005
#288
Senate voted to reject Cantwel amendment (S.Amdt. 2358) to its FY2006
budget reconciliation bil (S. 1932) that would have deleted the provision
establishing an oil and gas leasing program in ANWR (48-51).
Congressional Research Service

4

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Voice/
Congress
Date
Roll Call
Brief Description

12/21/2005 #364
Senate motion to invoke cloture failed on the conference report on the
FY2006 Defense appropriations bil (H.R. 2863), which included provisions
to open ANWR to development (56-44).

12/21/2005 #365
Senate adopted a concurrent resolution (S.Con.Res. 74) that instructed the
Clerk of the House to strike provisions from the conference report to H.R.
2863 that would have al owed oil dril ing in ANWR (48-45).

3/16/2006
#74
Senate passed the FY2007 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83) with a
reconciliation instruction (§201) directing the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources to reduce budget authority by an amount equal to
assumed revenues from development in ANWR (51-49).
110th
5/13/2008
#123
Senate rejected McConnel amendment (S.Amdt. 4720) to S. 2284 to open
ANWR to energy development (42-56); earlier unanimous consent
agreement had raised majority for adoption of amendment to 60 votes.
111th


No floor votes.
112th
3/13/2012
#38
Senate rejected Roberts amendment (S.Amdt. 1826) (41-57; 60-vote
threshold) to S. 1813, which would have opened Coastal Plain of ANWR to
oil and gas dril ing.
113th


No floor votes.
114th


No floor votes.
Source: CRS.
Discussion of House and Senate Actions
96th-103rd Congresses
In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L.
96-487, 94 Stat. 2371), which redesignated the former Arctic National Wildlife Range as the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and expanded the unit, mostly southward and westward, to
include an additional 9.2 mil ion acres.7 Section 702(3) of ANILCA designated much of the
original range as a wilderness area but did not include the Coastal Plain.8 Section 1002 of
ANILCA directed that a study of the Coastal Plain (which therefore is often referred to as the
1002 area) and its resources be completed within five years and nine months of enactment. The
resulting 1987 report was cal ed the 1002 report or the Final Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement (FLEIS). Section 1003 of ANILCA prohibited oil and gas development in the entire
refuge, or “leasing or other development leading to production of oil and gas from the range”
unless authorized by an act of Congress.9

7 T he range had been established in 1960, following statehood, by the Secretary of the Interior (Public Land Order
2214). In addition to the expansions enacted in ANILCA, additional land was added to ANWR in later years, bringing
the current total to 19.3 million acres. Portions of the refuge added in 1980 and later were not included in the
wilderness system.
8 For more on wilderness designation, see CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview, Management, and Statistics,
by Katie Hoover.
9 For more information, see CRS Report RL33872, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview, by Laura B.
Comay, Michael Ratner, and R. Eliot Crafton .
Congressional Research Service

5

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

104th-106th Congresses
There were several attempts to authorize opening ANWR to energy development in the 1990s. In
the 104th Congress, the FY1996 budget reconciliation bil (H.R. 2491, §§5312-5344) would have
opened the 1002 area to energy development, but the measure was vetoed. President Clinton cited
the ANWR sections of the bil as one of his reasons for the veto.
While bil s were introduced, the 105th Congress did not debate the ANWR issue. In the 106th
Congress, bil s to designate the 1002 area of the refuge as wilderness and others to open ANWR
to energy development were introduced. Revenue assumptions about ANWR were included in the
FY2001 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 101) reported by the Senate Budget Committee on March
31, 2000. An amendment to remove this language was tabled. However, conferees rejected the
language. The conference report on H.Con.Res. 290 did not contain these budget assumptions,
and the report was passed by both chambers on April 13. S. 2557 was introduced May 16, 2000; it
included a title to open ANWR to development. Hearings were held on the bil , but a motion to
proceed to consideration of the bil on the Senate floor did not pass.
Only three recorded votes relating directly to ANWR development occurred from the 104th
through 106th Congresses. Al were in the Senate:
 In the 104th Congress, on May 24 1995, a motion to table an amendment that
would have stripped ANWR development titles from the Senate version of H.R.
2491 passed (Roll Cal #190). (See above.)
 In the same Congress, on October 27, 1995, another motion to table a similar
amendment to H.R. 2491 also passed (Roll Cal #525).
 In the 106th Congress, the vote to table an amendment to strip ANWR revenue
assumptions from the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 101; see above) was passed
(April 6, 2000; Roll Cal #58).
107th Congress
In the 107th Congress, action on ANWR development followed a complex legislative path, with
similar or identical language appearing multiple times in different bil s. H.R. 4, an omnibus
energy bil containing ANWR development provisions, passed the House on August 2, 2001 (yeas
240, nays 189; Roll Cal #320). The text of H.R. 2436 (H.Rept. 107-160, Part I) was incorporated
in H.R. 4 as Title V, Division F. The measure would have opened ANWR to exploration and
development. The previous day, an amendment by Representative Sununu to limit specified
surface development to a total of 2,000 acres was passed (yeas 228, nays 201; Roll Cal #316).
Representatives Markey and Johnson (CT) offered an amendment to strike the title; this was
defeated (yeas 206, nays 223; Roll Cal #317). The House appointed conferees on June 12, 2002.
(See below for action after Senate passage of H.R. 4.)
In the first session of the 107th Congress, Senator Lott (on behalf of himself and Senators
Murkowski and Brownback) offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 2171) to an amendment on pension
reform (S.Amdt. 2170) to H.R. 10. Their amendment included, among other energy provisions,
the ANWR development title in H.R. 4, as passed by the House. A cloture motion was filed on the
Lott amendment, and the motion failed (yeas 1, nays 94; Roll Cal #344) on December 3, 2001.
Instead, the Senate voted the same day in favor of invoking cloture on the underlying amendment
(S.Amdt. 2170), (yeas 81, nays 15; Roll Cal #345). Because cloture was invoked on the
underlying amendment, Senate rules required that subsequent and pending amendments to it be
germane. The Senate’s presiding officer subsequently sustained a point of order against the Lott
Congressional Research Service

6

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

amendment, which was stil pending, on the grounds that it was not germane to the underlying
amendment on pension reform, and thus the amendment fel .
The next vehicle for Senate floor consideration was S. 517, which concerned energy technology
development. On February 15, 2002, Senator Daschle offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 2917), an
omnibus energy bil . It did not contain provisions to develop ANWR, but two amendments
(S.Amdt. 3132 and S.Amdt. 3133) to do so were offered by Senators Murkowski and Stevens,
respectively, on April 16. The language of the two amendments was, in most sections, identical to
that of H.R. 4 (Division F, Title V). Key differences included a requirement for a presidential
determination before development could proceed, an exception to the oil export prohibition for
Israel, and a number of changes in al ocation of any development revenues, as wel as al owing
some of those revenues to be spent without further appropriation. On April 18, the Senate
essential y voted to prevent dril ing for oil and gas in ANWR. The defeat came on a vote of 46
yeas to 54 nays (Roll Cal #71) on a cloture motion to block a threatened filibuster on Senator
Murkowski’s amendment to S. 517, which would have ended debate and moved the chamber to a
direct vote on the ANWR issue.
Lacking a provision to develop ANWR, the text of S. 517, as amended, was substituted for the
text of the House-passed H.R. 4, and passed the Senate (yeas 88, nays 11; Roll Cal #94) on April
25, 2002. Conferees attempted to iron out the substantial differences between the two versions in
the time remaining in the second session. The conference committee chairman, Representative
Tauzin, indicated that the ANWR issue, as one of the most controversial parts of the bil , would
be considered toward the end of the conference, after less controversial provisions. In the end, no
conference agreement was reached, and H.R. 4 died at the end of the 107th Congress.
108th Congress
Work began on FY2003 Appropriations for Interior and Related Agencies in the 107th Congress
but was not completed until the 108th Congress. (A series of continuing resolutions provided
funding for DOI into the 108th Congress.) In the 107th Congress, for the FY2003 Interior
appropriations bil , the House Committee on Appropriations had agreed to report language on the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) energy and minerals program in general, and stated that no
funds were included in the FY2003 funding bil “for activity related to potential energy
development within [ANWR]” (H.Rept. 107-564, H.R. 5093). But §1003 of ANILCA prohibited
“development leading to production of oil and gas” unless authorized by Congress. Thus, the
committee’s report language was viewed by some as barring the use of funds for pre-leasing
studies and other preliminary work related to oil and gas dril ing in ANWR. The report of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations did not contain this prohibition.
Conferees on the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7), which
incorporated Interior appropriations, included language in the joint explanatory statement stating
that they “do not concur with the House proposal concerning funding for the [BLM] energy and
minerals program.” This change from the House report language was interpreted by some as
potential y making available funds for preliminary work for development in ANWR. However, as
noted, the prohibition contained in ANILCA remained in effect, so the ability to use money in the
bil for particular pre-leasing activities was not clear.
FY2004 Reconciliation
During the 108th Congress, development proponents sought to move ANWR legislation through
the FY2004 budget reconciliation process to avoid a possible Senate filibuster later in the
Congressional Research Service

7

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

session.10 The House agreed to the FY2004 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95) on March 21 (yeas
215, nays 212; Roll Cal #82). The resolution contained reconciliation instructions to the House
Resources Committee for reductions, but did not specify the expected source of the savings. If the
House language had been adopted, ANWR development language might have been considered as
part of a reconciliation measure to achieve the savings. S.Con.Res. 23, as reported by the Senate
Budget Committee, stated:
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall report a reconciliation bil not
later than May 1, 2003, that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to
decrease the total level of outlays by $2,150,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2004 through
2013.
To meet this directive, the committee would have to choose between cuts of that magnitude or
reporting legislation to open ANWR to development. On March 19, 2003, Senator Boxer offered
S.Amdt. 272 to delete this provision. Floor debate indicated that the Boxer amendment was
clearly seen as a vote on whether to develop ANWR. The amendment passed (yeas 52, nays 48;
Roll Cal #59). The amended Senate version of the resolution was ultimately accepted by both
House and Senate. As a result, while the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources could stil
have reported legislation to authorize opening ANWR, such legislation would not have been
eligible for inclusion in a reconciliation bil . Without the procedural protections associated with
reconciliation, a filibuster could have been used to prevent a vote on an authorization bil .11 In the
end, the conferees on the budget resolution included no instructions to the House Resources and
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees.
Comprehensive Energy Legislation
The House passed H.R. 6, a comprehensive energy bil , on April 11, 2003. Division C, Title IV
would have opened the 1002 area to energy development. On April 10, the House had passed the
Wilson (NM) amendment to H.R. 6 to limit certain features of development to a total of 2,000
acres (yeas 226, nays 202; Roll Cal #134), without restricting the total number of acres that could
be leased. As in the 107th Congress, Representatives Markey and Johnson (CT) offered an
amendment to strike the title; this was defeated (yeas 197, nays 228; Roll Cal #135). H.R. 4514
was identical to the ANWR title of the House version of H.R. 6 except in one provision on
revenue disposition. In addition, one bil (H.R. 39) was introduced to open the 1002 area to
development, and two bil s (H.R. 770 and S. 543) were introduced to designate the 1002 area as
wilderness.
The initial version of the Senate energy bil (S. 14) had no provision to open ANWR, and then-
Chairman Domenici stated that he did not plan to include one. After many weeks of debate in the
Senate, as prospects of passage seemed to be dimming, Senators agreed to drop the bil they had
been debating and go back to the bil passed in the Senate of the 107th Congress, when the Senate
was under control of the other party. On July 31, 2003, they substituted the language of that bil
for that of the House-passed H.R. 6. There was widespread agreement that the unusual procedure
was a means of getting the bil to conference. Some Members, including Chairman Domenici,
indicated at the time their expectation that the bil that emerged from conference would likely be
markedly different from the version of H.R. 6 that had just been passed by the Senate. One of the
key differences between the two bil s was the presence of ANWR development language in the

10 Reconciliation bills in the Senate are considered under special rules that do not permit filibusters. See CRS Report
98-814, Budget Reconciliation Legislation: Development and Consideration , by Bill Heniff Jr., and CRS Report
RL30862, The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”, by Bill Heniff Jr.
11 See CRS Report RS20368, Overview of the Congressional Budget Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service

8

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

House version, and its absence in the Senate version. Conference Chairman Domenici included
the House title on ANWR in his working draft, but in the end, the conference committee deleted
ANWR development features in the conference report (H.Rept. 108-375); the conference report
was agreed to by the House on November 18, 2003 (yeas 246, nays 180; Roll Cal #630); the
Senate considered the measure, but a cloture vote failed (57 yeas, 40 nays; Roll Cal #456) on
November 21, 2003.
In the second session, the Senate turned to a more narrowly focused energy bil (S. 2095) that
might have then gone to a second conference with the House; like the Senate’s version of H.R. 6,
this new bil did not contain ANWR development provisions. No scenario for energy legislation
that was discussed publicly included provisions that would have opened the refuge to
development. However, the President’s proposed FY2005 budget assumed legislation would be
passed that would open ANWR and would therefore produce revenues. The President’s proposal
would have assisted efforts to assume ANWR revenues in a budget resolution, and therefore
aided its inclusion in a reconciliation package, as was attempted in the first session.
109th Congress
As explained below, the ANWR debate took two basic legislative routes in the 109th Congress: (1)
budget resolutions and reconciliation bil s (S.Con.Res. 18, H.Con.Res. 95, S. 1932, H.R. 4241,
S.Con.Res. 83, and H.Con.Res. 376), which cannot be filibustered; and (2) other bil s (H.R. 6, an
omnibus energy bil ; H.R. 2863, Defense appropriations; and H.R. 5429, a bil in the second
session to open the refuge to development), which can be subject to filibusters. In none of these
measures did Congress reach agreement to al ow development.
Budget Resolutions and Reconciliation Bills
The budget resolution and reconciliation were a focus of attention, particularly in the Senate.12
The FY2006 Senate budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18) passed by the Senate Budget Committee
included instructions to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to “report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce outlays by $33,000,000 in FY2006, and
$2,658,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.” The resolution assumed that
the committee would report legislation to open ANWR to development, and that leasing would
generate $2.5 bil ion in revenues for the federal government over five years. Senator Cantwel
offered a floor amendment (S.Amdt. 168) on March 16, 2005, to remove these instructions. The
amendment was defeated (yeas 49, nays 51; Roll Cal #52). The FY2006 House budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-17), while instructing the House Resources Committee to provide
somewhat smal er reductions in outlays, did not include specific assumptions about ANWR
revenues.
In the end, the conference agreement (H.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 109-62) approved by the House
and Senate on April 28, 2005, contained reductions in spending targets of $2.4 bil ion over
FY2006 to FY2010 for the House Resources and Senate Energy Committees that would have
been difficult to achieve unless ANWR development legislation were passed. The inclusion of the
Senate target particularly set the stage for including ANWR development legislation in a

12 For more on the budget process and budget enforcement, see CRS Report RS20368, Overview of the Congressional
Budget Process
, by Bill Heniff Jr., and CRS Report 98-815, Budget Resolution Enforcem ent, by Bill Heniff Jr. For
more on ANWR and reconciliation, see out -of-print CRS Report RS22304, ANWR and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation
Legislation
, available to congressional clients upon request.
Congressional Research Service

9

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

reconciliation bil , since reconciliation bil s cannot be filibustered (i.e., they require only a simple
majority, rather than 60 votes to stop a filibuster).
Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA, Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344, as amended, 2
U.S.C. §§601-688), while the target reductions of the budget resolutions are binding on the
committees, the associated assumptions are not. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee chose to meet its target by recommending ANWR legislation, and the Budget
Committee incorporated the recommendation as Title IV of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005. There was some question procedural y as to whether Senate rules would permit ANWR
legislation to be part of a reconciliation bil .13 The House Resources Committee included ANWR
legislation, and other spending reductions and offsetting collections, thereby more than meeting
the Committee’s targets. These measures were incorporated by the House Budget Committee into
an omnibus reconciliation bil (H.R. 4241). However, before the House bil came to the floor,
considerable opposition to the ANWR provision developed among a number of Republicans, 24
of whom signed a letter to the Speaker opposing its inclusion. The provision was removed before
floor consideration; S. 1932 (with the text of H.R. 4241 inserted in lieu—i.e., minus an ANWR
provision) passed the House on November 18, 2005 (yeas 217, nays 215; Roll Cal #601). ANWR
was a major issue in conference. In the end, the conference report (H.Rept. 109-362) omitted
ANWR development provisions. The President signed the measure on February 8, 2006 (P.L.
109-171).
The Senate passed the FY2007 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83; yeas 51, nays 49; Roll Cal #74;
no written report) on March 16, 2006. Its sole reconciliation instruction (Section 201) directed the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to reduce budget authority by an amount equal to
predicted bonus bids, royalties, and rental revenues from ANWR development. The FY2007
budget resolution as passed by the House on May 18, 2006, did not include any such instruction
(H.Con.Res. 376, H.Rept. 109-402; yeas 218, nays 210; Roll Cal #158). The Senate and House,
however, did not complete action on the FY2007 budget resolution, and therefore neither
chamber developed or considered any subsequent reconciliation legislation.
ANWR in the Defense Appropriations Bill
As Congress moved toward the December recess, and the chance of an agreement on
reconciliation with an ANWR provision seemed to fade, Senator Stevens (then-Chair of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee) added an ANWR development title to the “must-pass”
FY2006 Defense appropriations bil (H.R. 2863) during conference. Senators opposing ANWR
development faced a choice between filibustering the popular measure or acquiescing to opening
the refuge. Some Members began a filibuster, and a cloture motion failed (yeas 56, nays 44; Roll
Cal #364). While the conference report was approved, the relevant two Divisions (C and D) were
removed through House and Senate passage of S.Con.Res. 74, correcting the enrollment of the
bil (P.L. 109-148).
Omnibus and Other Energy Legislation
The House Resources Committee considered and marked up its portion of the omnibus energy
bil on April 13, 2005, before the bil was introduced. The provisions, including an ANWR
development title, were approved by the committee and incorporated into the House version of
H.R. 6 and introduced by Representative Barton (then-Chair of the Energy and Commerce
Committee) on April 18. During House consideration on April 20, Representatives Markey and

13 See CRS Report RL30862, The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule”, by Bill Heniff Jr.
Congressional Research Service

10

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Johnson offered an amendment (H.Amdt. 73) to strike the title; it was rejected (yeas 200, nays
231; Roll Cal #122). The House passed H.R. 6 on April 21 (yeas 249, nays 183; Roll Cal #132).
The Senate passed its version of H.R. 6 on June 28, 2005 (yeas 85, nays 12; Roll Cal #158). The
Senate bil contained no ANWR development provisions. The ANWR title was omitted in the
final measure (P.L. 109-58).
On May 25, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5429, to open ANWR to development (yeas 225, nays
201; Roll Cal #209). In nearly al respects, the bil was similar to the ANWR title in the House
version of H.R. 6. The bil was not taken up by the Senate.
110th Congress
The President’s FY2008 budget proposed enacting legislation to open the Coastal Plain to oil and
gas exploration and development.14 The budget proposed that the first lease sale be held in
FY2009. Under the proposal, this and subsequent sales were estimated to generate $7.0 bil ion in
revenues over the following five years, to be divided evenly between the U.S. Treasury and the
state of Alaska.
As in the 109th Congress, there was an effort in the second session to assume ANWR revenues in
the budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 70). The vehicle was a motion to adjust budget levels to
assume increased revenues from opening ANWR to leasing and exploration. However, on May
14, 2008, the House rejected the motion (yeas 185, nays 229; Roll Cal #321). In the Senate,
during debate on S. 2284 (a bil original y concerning flood insurance) on May 13, 2008, the
Senate rejected the McConnel amendment (S.Amdt. 4720) to open ANWR to energy
development (yeas 42, nays 56; Roll Cal #123). In addition, rising gasoline prices during 2008
intensified interest in opening ANWR to development, and a number of bil s to open the Coastal
Plain to development were introduced during the second session. As the session closed, fal ing
energy prices tended to reduce interest.
111th-112th Congresses15
No bil s on ANWR received floor consideration in the 111th Congress in either the House or the
Senate.
In the 112th Congress, House consideration of ANWR legislation was complex from a
parliamentary standpoint. First, the Committee on Natural Resources reported its version of H.R.
3407, providing for oil dril ing on the Coastal Plain, on February 9, 2012. Then, on February 15,
the House adopted H.Res. 547, a complex special rule proposed by the Committee on Rules to
specify how the House would consider the proposals embodied in H.R. 3407 and several other
bil s. The resolution provided that the House would first take up H.R. 3408 (on development of
shale oil resources), as amended with a substitute for the entire text of the measure, in advance of
floor consideration. The substitute, specified by the Committee on Rules, included not only H.R.
3408 itself as reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, but also a version of H.R. 3407
(on ANWR development); H.R. 3410 (on the further development of outer continental shelf oil

14 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2008
(Washington, DC), p. 279. T he proposed authorization for exploration and development would be separate legislation,
rather than part of the Interior appropriations bill. (T he proposal was not part of the FWS Budget Justification fo r
FY2008.)
15 T his section was prepared with the assistance of Richard S. Beth, former CRS Specialist on Congress and the
Legislative Process.
Congressional Research Service

11

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

and gas); and H.R. 3548 (authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline, from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce).16
After adopting H.Res. 547, the House proceeded to consider H.R. 3408 in the form specified by
the resolution (which included ANWR development), and on February 16, 2012, after considering
several floor amendments, passed it (yeas 237, nays 187; Roll Cal #71). Pursuant to additional
provisions of H.Res. 547, however, the House did not transmit its version of H.R. 3408, as
amended (with the provisions on ANWR development and other subjects), to the Senate for
action. Instead, H.Res. 547 provided that the House would consider first a version of H.R. 3813
(increasing the contributions of federal employees to their retirement program) and then a version
of H.R. 7 (reauthorizing federal highway and transportation programs, as amended by inclusion
of a version of H.R. 3864, which would have funded the programs through revenues from, among
other things, offshore leasing and any federal share of ANWR revenues). H.Res. 547 did not
provide for final action by the House on H.R. 7. Action on H.R. 7 would have occurred under
some future special rule, to be adopted later. H.Res. 547 provided, however, that if the House had
passed H.R. 3813 and H.R. 7, as wel as H.R. 3408, the provisions of al three bil s as passed
would have been incorporated into H.R. 7, which would then have been transmitted to the Senate
in that form. However, the House did not take up H.R. 3813 or H.R. 7 under the provisions of
H.Res. 547. As a result, H.R. 3408 (including the ANWR development provisions and other
matters) did not move forward.
On March 13, 2012, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 1826 (Roberts, Kansas) to S. 1813 that would
have opened up the Coastal Plain to oil and gas dril ing (yeas 41, nays 57; Roll Cal #38). Under
the Senate agreement of March 7, 2012, approval of the amendment would have required 60
votes in the affirmative.17
113th-114th Congresses
There were no floor votes in either chamber during the 113th Congress.
On April 3, 2015, the Obama Administration issued a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
for ANWR.18 Although the CCP outlined management plans for the entire refuge, controversy
focused on the plan’s recommendation that the Coastal Plain be designated as wilderness. Such
designation would require passage of legislation by Congress and signature by the President.
Given the remoteness of the refuge and the existing prohibitions on energy development in
Section 1003 of ANILCA, the recommendation had little effect on existing refuge management.
However, concern over any possible future effects resulted in legislative efforts to ensure no
effect. On July 7, 2015, the House approved H.Amdt. 577 by Representative Young (AK) on a
voice vote. The amendment prevented the use of funds provided in H.R. 2822 to implement the
CCP.

16 T he text of all the bills covered by H.Res. 547, as the Committee on Rules proposed for them to be considered by the
House, was specified by Committee’s print no. 112-14, available as of March 20, 2012, on the website of the
Committee on Rules at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20120213/CPRT-112-HPRT-RU00-HR7RCP.pdf. T he
Committee on Rules stated that the pertinent provisions of its substitute were substantially similar to the bills as
reported by the committees. One purpose of linking H.R. 3407 on ANWR and H.R. 7 on surface transportation was to
provide a non-tax revenue source to supplement other revenues supporting transportation programs. For a press report
of this linkage, see, for example, Energy and Environm ent Daily, February 19, 2012, available at
http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2012/02/09/2.
17 S. 1813, without any ANWR provisions, passed the Senate on March 14, 2012 (yeas 74, nays 22; Roll Call #48).
18 T he document was published a few days later: Fish and Wildlife Service, “Record of Decision for the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement; Fairbanks, Alaska,”
80 Federal Register 19678-19685, April 13, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

12

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Votes and Legislative Actions

Similarly, in the second session, the House approved H.Amdt. 1355, again prohibiting the use of
funds provided in H.R. 5538 to implement the CCP (yeas 237, nays 191; Roll Cal #460). The
House then approved the bil containing the amendment (yeas 231, nays 196; Roll Cal #477) on
July 14, 2016.
On February 26, 2016, during consideration of H.R. 2406, Representative Huffman offered
H.Amdt. 961 to designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness. The amendment was rejected (yeas
176, nays 227; Roll Cal #99).
The Senate took no floor votes on the Coastal Plain during the 114th Congress.


Author Information

Laura B. Comay

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy


Acknowledgments
This report was originally written by M. Lynne Corn, CRS Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (retired).

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL32838 · VERSION 25 · UPDATED
13