The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) consists of 19 million acres in northeast Alaska. It is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI). 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. In its last economic assessment in 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that, at $55/barrel (bbl) in 2003 dollars ($72.26 in 2016 dollars), there is a 95% chance that 5.0 billion bbl or more could be economically recovered and a small (5%) chance that 10.9 billion bbl or more could be recovered on the federal lands in the Coastal Plain; the mean estimate was 7.3 billion bbl. (For comparison, U.S. oil consumption from all sources was about 7.1 billion bbl in 2015.) There is a small chance that, taken together, the fields on this federal land could hold as much economically recoverable oil as the giant field at Prudhoe Bay, found in 1967 on the coastal plain west of ANWR. That state-owned portion of the coastal plain is now estimated to have held 11 billion-13 billion barrels of oil at the time. The Refuge, and especially its coastal plain, is home to a wide variety of plants and animals. The presence of caribou, polar bears (designated as threatened under the Endangered Species Act), grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and many other species in a nearly undisturbed state has led some to call the area "America's Serengeti." The Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada have been proposed for an international park, and several species found in the area (including polar bears, caribou, migratory birds, and whales) are protected by international treaties or agreements. The analysis below covers the history of congressional actions on this issue, with a focus on the years since the 108 th Congress. See Table 1 and Table 2 for votes in the House and Senate from the 96 th Congress through the 114 th Congress. The conflict between potentially large oil deposits and nearly pristine nature creates a dilemma: Should Congress open the area for oil and gas development, or should the area's ecosystem be given permanent protection from development? What factors should determine whether to open the area? If it is opened, how can damages be avoided, minimized, or mitigated? To what extent should Congress legislate special management of the area (if it is developed), and to what extent should federal agencies be allowed to manage the area under existing law? If Congress takes no action, the Refuge remains closed to energy development, as provided in Section 1003 of P.L. 96-487 . Basic information on the Refuge can be found at the FWS website, http://arctic.fws.gov/ . A presentation of some arguments in favor of development can be found at http://www.anwr.org , sponsored by Arctic Power, a nonprofit coalition of most groups supporting ANWR energy development. Some opponents' arguments can be found at http://www.alaskawild.org/places-we-protect/arctic-refuge/ , supported by the Alaska Wilderness League , or at http://www.protectthearctic.com/ , supported by the National Audubon Society. Maps of the coastal plain showing existing oil development areas on state and federal land can be found at http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/GIS/Maps.htm . 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. In November 1957, DOI announced plans to withdraw lands in northeastern Alaska to create an "Arctic National Wildlife Range ." The first group actually to propose to Congress that the area become a national wildlife range, in recognition of the many game species found in the area, was the Tanana Valley (Alaska) Sportsmen's Association in 1959. On December 6, 1960, after statehood, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land Order 2214 reserving the 9.5 million-acre area as the Arctic National Wildlife Range. In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA, P.L. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688) to resolve all Native aboriginal land claims against the United States. ANCSA provided for monetary payments and also created Village Corporations that received the surface estate to approximately 22 million acres of lands in Alaska. Village selection rights included the right to choose the surface estate (surface rights, as opposed to rights to exploit any energy or minerals beneath the surface) in a certain amount of lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Under §22(g) of ANCSA, the chosen lands were to remain subject to the laws and regulations governing use and development of the particular refuge. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC, the local Native corporation created under ANCSA, and headquartered within ANWR) received rights to three townships along the coast of the Refuge. ANCSA also created Regional Corporations, which could select subsurface rights to some lands and full title to others. Subsurface rights in national wildlife refuges were not available, but in-lieu selections to substitute for such lands were provided. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, P.L. 96-487 , 94 Stat. 2371), which included several sections about ANWR. The Arctic Range was renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and was expanded, mostly southward and westward, to include an additional 9.2 million acres. Section 702(3) of ANILCA designated much of the original range as a wilderness area, but did not include the coastal plain. ANILCA defined the Coastal Plain as the lands on a specified map—language that was interpreted as excluding most Native lands, even though these lands are geographically part of the coastal plain. 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 called 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. There were several attempts to authorize opening ANWR to energy development in the 1990s. In the 104 th Congress, the FY1996 budget reconciliation bill ( H.R. 2491 , §§5312-5344) would have opened the 1002 area to energy development, but the measure was vetoed, as many observers had expected. President Clinton cited the Refuge sections as one of his reasons for the veto. While bills were introduced, the 105 th Congress did not debate the ANWR issue. 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. 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 the Refuge to development. Hearings were held on the bill, but a motion to proceed to consideration of the bill on the Senate floor did not pass. 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. 2491 passed (Roll Call #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 Call #525). In the 106 th 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 Call #58). In the 107 th Congress, action on ANWR development followed a complex legislative path, with similar or identical language appearing multiple times in different bills. H.R. 4 , an omnibus energy bill containing ANWR development provisions, passed the House on August 2, 2001 (yeas 240, nays 189; Roll Call #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 Call #316). Representatives Markey and Johnson (CT) offered an amendment to strike the title; this was defeated (yeas 206, nays 223; Roll Call #317). The House appointed conferees on June 12, 2002.