PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 26, 2010
Oil Pollution Wildlife Protection Act - Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to direct the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to publish in the Federal Register and make electronically available to the public the Secretary's decision to approve, deny, or modify any geological and geophysical exploration, development, or production plans.
Repeals the exemption of the Gulf of Mexico from oil and gas development and production requirements for the outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Prohibits the Secretary from approving any geological and geophysical exploration, development, or production plan, or any significant plan revision, or from granting any license or permit unless the Secretary certifies that: (1) such plan is in compliance with specified statutes, regulations, and legal authorities; and (2) all requisite authorizations have been issued for activities to be conducted under the plan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to consult with the Secretaries of Commerce or of the Interior regarding any endangered species or fisheries that occur in the proposed area of activity.
Requires the Secretaries of Commerce or of the Interior to incorporate in environmental studies of areas or regions included in an oil and gas lease sale or other lease any takings of marine mammal species or stock from any other reasonably foreseeable activities when determining whether takings from specified OCSLA activities will have a negligible impact on a marine mammal species or stock, and not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.
Permits citizen suits against the United States and any other subject instrumentality or agency that is alleged to have approved a leasing program, lease sale, exploration plan or permit, or development and production plan, without having prepared an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment, or without having complied with other related requirements.
Authorizes a person to commence a civil action on the person's own behalf to enjoin any person alleged to have failed to obtain proper authorization pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972.
People & committees
Rep. Polis, Jared [D-CO-2] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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 14, 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.5863 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.5863 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.5863 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.5863 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.