PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 15, 1997
National Energy Security Act of 1997 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to repeal provisions relating to a limitation regarding the percentage depletion in the case of oil and gas wells. Amends provisions relating to an enhanced oil recovery credit to include hydro injection in the definition of "qualified enhanced oil recovery project." Allows an election to treat geological and geophysical expenses incurred in connection with the exploration for, or development of, domestic oil or gas as expenses which are not chargeable to capital account. Allows an election to treat delay rental payments (amounts paid for the privilege of deferring development of an oil or gas well) incurred in connection with the development of domestic oil or gas as payments that are not chargeable to capital account, allowing any payments so treated as a deduction. Requires, in the case of a tax shelter, treating economic performance regarding amounts paid during the taxable year for drilling an oil or gas well as having occurred within a taxable year if drilling commences before the close of the 180th (currently, the 90th) day after the close of the taxable year.
People & committees
Rep. Watkins, Wes [R-OK-3] · R–OK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1648 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1648 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1648 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1648 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.