What: All Issues : Justice for All: Civil and Criminal : H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Provision to Alter States' Roles in Relation to That of Federal Government Regarding the Location of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals. (2005 house Roll Call 131)
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

H.R. 6. Energy/Vote on Amendment to Strike from Energy Bill Provision to Alter States' Roles in Relation to That of Federal Government Regarding the Location of Liquefied Natural Gas Terminals.
house Roll Call 131     Apr 21, 2005
Progressive Position:
Yea
Progressive Result:
Loss

In this vote, the House defeated an amendment offered by Michael Castle (R-DE) to H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005, that would have altered the role of the states in relation to that of the federal government regarding the determination of where to locate liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. LNG terminals are facilities for receiving and distributing LNG. As LNG can cause explosions, supporters of this amendment argued that states ought to have the right to ensure that these facilities were established in locations sufficiently distant from dense populations, or to meet other state interests. The language of H.R. 6, they maintained, would remove the requirement that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) base its decision on whether to locate an LNG facility on a particular site "on community support or opposition, which it does now." (Castle.) But state and local governments, amendment supporters argued, would be the ones to deal with the consequences of any accident or terrorist attack on an LNG facility; thus, the ability of those governments to have a say in the decision was critical. Amendment supporters further argued that amendment opponents simply wanted to "wall out" individual state interests so that the federal government and oil industry would be free to place these facilities in densely populated areas, which are often the most easy to access. (Edward Markey (D-MA).) Those who opposed the Castle amendment and supported the language in H.R. 6 countered that importation of LNG was a necessary means of obtaining additional fuel supplies for the U.S. and thus, consequently, of checking the undesirable rise in electricity and other prices. Moreover, they insisted that states would still have a role in determining the sites for LNG facilities and that safety was being ensured. The House defeated the Progressive position and this amendment by a vote of 194 to 237, with 43 Democrats and 35 Republicans crossing party lines to vote. Thus, language arguably diminishing the role of states in deciding where to locate volatile liquefied natural gas facilities was left in the energy bill.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name