PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · May 1, 2024
Alaska’s Right to Produce Act of 2023
This bill provides for oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Specifically, the bill nullifies any order or action by the President or the Department of the Interior that places a moratorium on, suspends, or otherwise pauses leasing in ANWR's 1002 Area. It also ratifies and approves all authorizations and permits issued for the establishment and administration of the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The Environmental Protection Agency and other applicable federal departments and agencies must process, reinstate, or continue to maintain such authorizations and permits.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Within 30 days of the bill's enactment, Interior must accept bids for certain ANWR leases that were canceled and reissue the leases. The bill states that the reissued leases must be considered to meet the requirements of specified existing laws, such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
By December 22, 2024, Interior must also conduct a second lease sale. Further, the bill limits the authority of the President and Interior to cancel future leases issued under the program.
The bill also directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to withdraw its Notice of Availability of the Draft Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. It also nullifies (1) BLM's final rule based on the proposed rule titled Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), (2) Section 4 of Executive Order 13990, and (3) Secretarial Order 3401.
In addition, BLM must obtain congressional approval prior to designating any new protected Special Areas, adding resource values to existing Special Areas, or expanding existing Special Areas in the NPR-A.
Finally, the bill limits judicial review of approvals of leases under the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
People & committees
Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 214 - 199, 2 Present (Roll no. 174). (text: CR H2804-2805)
House roll call 174 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 214 - 199, 2 Present (Roll no. 174). (text: CR H2804-2805)
House roll call 174 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 201 - 211 (Roll no. 173).
House roll call 173 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2814-2816)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 6285, the Chair put the question on the motion to recommit and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Castor (FL) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
Ms. Castor (FL) moved to recommit to the Committee on Natural Resources. (text: CR H2813-2814)
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1173, the House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Stauber amendment No. 1.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 6285.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, H.R. 6285 and H.R. 6090. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, and H.R. 6090 under a closed rule, and H.R. 6285 under a structured rule. The rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1173. (consideration: CR H2804-2814)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1173 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, H.R. 6285 and H.R. 6090. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 615, H.R. 2925, H.R. 3195, H.R. 764, H.R. 3397, and H.R. 6090 under a closed rule, and H.R. 6285 under a structured rule. The rule provides for one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 384.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-463.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 118-463.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
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.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.6285 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.6285 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.6285 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.6285 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.