PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 19, 2006
Instructs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to require an applicant for approval under the Natural Gas Act of the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of a liquefied natural gas facility to identify each employee or agent engaged in activities to persuade communities of the benefits of such approval.
Requires the Commission to maintain a publicly available database listing all such employees and agents.
People & committees
Rep. Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [D-MD-2] · D–MD
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 Energy and Air Quality.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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: Jan 15, 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.6110 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.6110 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.6110 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.6110 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.