PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 169.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 22, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 21, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007 or NOPEC - Amends the Sherman Act to declare it to be illegal and a violation of the Act for any foreign state or instrumentality thereof to act collectively or in combination with any other foreign state or any other person, whether by cartel or any other association or form of cooperation or joint action, to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product (petroleum), to set or maintain the price of petroleum, or to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for petroleum, when such action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of petroleum in the United States.
Denies a foreign state engaged in such conduct sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction or judgements of U.S. courts in any action brought to enforce this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
States that no U.S. court shall decline, based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under this Act.
Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action in U.S. district court to enforce this Act.
Makes an exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state in an action brought under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 169.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 345 - 72 (Roll no. 398). (text: CR H5556-5557)
House roll call 398 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 345 - 72 (Roll no. 398).(text: CR H5556-5557)
House roll call 398 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5581-5582)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2264.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5556-5560)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 96.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-160.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-160.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1028)
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 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.2264 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.2264 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.2264 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.2264 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.