mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to the castle-markey amendment , and i wanted this behind me . 
i do not oppose this at all except that the color is burnt orange , which is the university of texas , and this is aggie muster day , april 21 , when sam houston and his texans routed the mexicans at the battle of san jacinto and won independence for my great state . 
so this is a sacred day in aggie history , and that is the only thing i object to . 
when i look at this , what i see is energy for america , i see security for america , and i also see safety . 
admittedly , it is a big boat and it looks threatening , i will grant that ; but we already have existing provisions in law to make sure that these terminals that are already in existence are as safe it is possible to be . 
i am not aware of any major accident , and i would stand corrected if the gentleman from delaware ( mr. castle ) xz4000700 or the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. markey ) xz4002530 says there has been , but i am not aware of that . 
this particular section of the bill that is before us simply says that we are going to need more lng facilities , which is shorthand for liquefied natural gas ; and we have tried to craft in the guarantee that the state has a stronger role , not a weaker role . 
we do not preempt any state permit . 
if the state of massachusetts or delaware or california or any other coastal state , if through their own permitting process they make the decision that the terminal should not be built , it will not be built . 
what this provision does is , if a state agency has not made a decision , has refused to make a decision , and one of the parties goes into the district court here in washington , d.c. , and asks that a decision be made , that will expedite the decision-making process . 
for the first time , if this provision of the bill were to become law , we would give the states a guarantee to actually go in and inspect these facilities under federal law , not under state law , but under federal law . 
they do not have that right now . 
i have told the gentleman from delaware , and i will tell the gentleman from massachusetts , if we defeat this amendment and we go to conference with the existing language and we need to in some way strengthen the states ' rights end of this provision , i am going to be for that . 
i come from a coastal state . 
i come from a coastal state . 
i want the safest possible . 
that is why we have the increased state guarantee in the bill , because i insisted upon it ; but we can not stick our heads in the sand and say we do not need more lng facilities . 
we need more energy for america . 
i wish we could produce it within our shores , but it does not look like that is going to be possible . 
we are going to have to go offshore . 
we have about 30 pending permits for lng facilities right now under consideration , and what this language does in the bill is give an expedited provision that the federal energy regulatory commission is the lead agency to expedite the federal part of it . 
i believe this actually strengthens the state role . 
so i would respectfully ask for a `` no '' vote on the castle-markey amendment , and then what we need to work on in the conference we will work on . 
