Its 1.5 million 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. What factors should determine whether to open the area? 96-487 . Legislative History of the Refuge, 1957-2000

			The Early Years

The energy and biological resources of northern Alaska have raised controversy for decades, from legislation in the 1970s to a 1989 oil spill from the Exxon Valdez at the southern terminal of the pipeline that would carry ANWR oil to markets to more recent efforts to use ANWR resources to address energy needs or to help balance the federal budget. The 1980s

In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, P.L. From 1990 to 2000

There were several attempts to authorize opening ANWR to energy development in the 1990s. In the 106 th Congress, bills to designate the 1002 area of the Refuge as wilderness and others to open the Refuge to energy development were introduced. Only three recorded votes relating directly to ANWR development occurred from the 101 st through 106 th Congresses. All were in the Senate:
In the 104 th 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. In the 107 th Congress, for the FY2003 Interior appropriations bill, 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 bill "for activity related to potential energy development within [ANWR]" ( H.Rept. If the House language had been adopted, ANWR development language might have been considered as part of a reconciliation measure to achieve the savings. In the end, the conferees on the budget resolution included no instructions to the House Resources and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees. After many weeks of debate in the Senate, as prospects of passage seemed to be dimming, Senators agreed to drop the bill they had been debating and to go back to the bill passed in the Senate of the 107 th Congress, when the Senate was under control of the other party. Senator Cantwell offered a floor amendment ( S.Amdt. ANWR was a major issue in conference. The Senate bill contained no ANWR development provisions. Legislative History of the Refuge, 2009-2010

No bills on the Refuge received floor consideration in the 111 th Congress in either the House or the Senate. 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 Call #71). On March 13, 2012, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. Similarly, in the second session, the House approved H.Amdt. 961 to designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness. The Senate took no floor votes on the Coastal Plain during the 114 th Congress. CRS Report RL31115, Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) , by Pamela Baldwin.
Current law forbids the federal government from offering energy leases or from allowing activities leading to energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) in northeastern Alaska. For several decades, a major energy debate has been whether to approve energy development in ANWR, and if so, under what conditions, or to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological resources. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and commercial oil potential. Its development has been debated for more than 50 years, and the level of debate fluctuates with gasoline and natural gas prices, terrorist attacks, infrastructure damage from hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and turmoil in the Middle East.
This report provides a summary of legislative attempts to address issues of energy development and preservation in the Refuge from the 95th Congress (1977-1978) onward. (The substance of the issue is covered in other CRS reports.) There have been several periods of active congressional consideration, punctuated by periods of less activity and debate. In the 96th Congress (1979-1980), multiple floor votes occurred in the House and Senate, leading ultimately to the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (P.L. 96-487). In the 104th Congress (1995-1996), floor votes related to ANWR development measures contained in budget reconciliation bills occurred in both bodies. These led, eventually, to a presidential veto. The 107th Congress (2001-2002) saw votes in both bodies in the context of measures to address energy resources. Ultimately, no ANWR provisions were approved. In the 108th and 109th Congresses (2003-2006), multiple floor votes occurred in both the House and the Senate, in some cases over amendments that were identical in each Congress. The ANWR development provisions were considered as parts of bills concerning energy programs, budget resolutions, and defense authorization.
Although no floor votes on the Refuge occurred in the House or the Senate during the 111th Congress, in the 112th Congress, the House approved H.R. 3408 on February 16, 2012. The measure included a provision to open the 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain to energy development. On March 13, 2012, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 1826 to S. 1813, which would have expanded drilling into areas including the ANWR Coastal Plain. No House or Senate floor votes related to the Refuge occurred in the 113th Congress.
In the 114th Congress, there were House floor votes that related to the Coastal Plain, either directly or indirectly. One amendment (H.Amdt. 961) to designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness was rejected by the House; three amendments would block funds to implement a wilderness recommendation in a Refuge planning document. No related Senate floor votes occurred in the 114th Congress.