Oil and Republican has been bad for the Gulf
This is the Republican sponsored, bipartisan supported/passed legislation that allowed for a foreign owned company (BP), to put into production a unsafe Oil Producing Platform in United States waters and causing catastrophic environmental damage and 11 cases of homicide, and other charges which should be brought to bear as evidence will permit. Where are the Birthers and Tea Party Libertarians who want foreigners and government when you need them? You guys still think we should allow all businesses the freedom to cause the damage done by this foreign corporation in our waters?
109th Congress / House / 1st session / Vote 445
- Question: On Agreeing to the Conference Report
- Bill:H R 6
- Vote description: Energy Policy Act of 2005
- Vote type: Yea-and-Nay (Help)
A standard vote that requires a simple majority for approval or passage of the legislation.
- Result: Passed, 275-156, with 3 not voting.
- Date/time: July 28, 2005, 1:10 p.m.
- Republican majority opinion: Yes (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Republicans. “None” means an equal split between “Yes” and “No.”
- Democrat majority opinion: No (Help)
The position of more than 50 percent of voting Democrats. “None” means an equal split between “Yes” and “No.”
Key Vote Analysis
The Bush administration said this bill’s $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives would spur oil and gas companies to find innovative ways to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. Supporters also said the bill would lead to the creation of more oil refineries, new oil drilling projects and new nuclear power plants — arguing that all were necessary to meet the nation’s energy needs and reduce importation of foreign oil.
Opponents said the measure amounted to a give-away to large energy companies already flush with cash due to rising oil and gas prices and that it would do little to solve the nation’s energy-related problems. Opponents further argued that the bill could lead to drilling in coastal and other sensitive areas and damage the environment.
The bill called for increase use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and offered incentives for development of alternative energy sources (such as wind and solar), tax breaks for hybrid cars, construction of more energy efficient buildings. The bill did not include the controversial proposal to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling, but the proposal was added to a later bill, which was defeated.
The final version of the energy bill passed both the House and Senate in late July 2005 and was signed into law by the president on August 8, 2005.
See other key votes in the 109th Congress
Vote totals
| Yes | No | Not Voting | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 6 | 1 | |
| Alaska | 1 | ||
| Arizona | 5 | 3 | |
| Arkansas | 4 | ||
| California | 22 | 31 | |
| Colorado | 5 | 2 | |
| Connecticut | 2 | 3 | |
| Delaware | 1 | ||
| Florida | 3 | 22 | |
| Georgia | 11 | 2 | |
| Hawaii | 1 | 1 | |
| Idaho | 2 | ||
| Illinois | 14 | 4 | 1 |
| Indiana | 9 | ||
| Iowa | 5 | ||
| Kansas | 4 | ||
| Kentucky | 5 | 1 | |
| Louisiana | 7 | ||
| Maine | 2 | ||
| Maryland | 4 | 4 | |
| Massachusetts | 10 | ||
| Michigan | 12 | 3 | |
| Minnesota | 6 | 2 | |
| Mississippi | 3 | 1 | |
| Missouri | 6 | 3 | |
| Montana | 1 | ||
| Nebraska | 3 | ||
| Nevada | 2 | 1 | |
| New Hampshire | 1 | 1 | |
| New Jersey | 3 | 9 | 1 |
| New Mexico | 3 | ||
| New York | 10 | 19 | |
| North Carolina | 9 | 4 | |
| North Dakota | 1 | ||
| Ohio | 13 | 4 | |
| Oklahoma | 5 | ||
| Oregon | 1 | 4 | |
| Pennsylvania | 15 | 3 | 1 |
| Rhode Island | 2 | ||
| South Carolina | 6 | ||
| South Dakota | 1 | ||
| Tennessee | 8 | 1 | |
| Texas | 30 | 2 | |
| Utah | 3 | ||
| Vermont | 1 | ||
| Virginia | 10 | 1 | |
| Washington | 5 | 4 | |
| West Virginia | 3 | ||
| Wisconsin | 4 | 4 | |
| Wyoming | 1 |
| Yes | No | Not Voting | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 75 | 124 | 3 |
| Independent | 1 | ||
| Republican | 200 | 31 |
