[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5676-H5683]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DOMESTIC PROSPERITY AND GLOBAL FREEDOM ACT
General Leave
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 6.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 636 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 6.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1610
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 6) to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural
gas to World Trade Organization countries, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Harris in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, America's natural gas output has been rising since
2006, and the Energy Information Administration expects the increases
to continue for decades to come. As a result, we can meet domestic
demand for affordable natural gas while also producing a surplus for
export to our allies around the world. The only thing standing in the
way is outdated Federal redtape that greatly delays the construction of
LNG export facilities.
H.R. 6, the bill before us, the Domestic Prosperity and Global
Freedom Act, is a targeted bill that cuts redtape and puts the
Department of Energy on a reasonable deadline to act on LNG export
applications.
I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Gene Green from Texas,
for his cosponsorship of this bipartisan bill, and I urge the support
of every Member in this Chamber for H.R. 6.
According to the lead study conducted for the Department of Energy,
natural gas exports would be a net benefit to the American economy.
These exports would improve the balance of payments and support up to
45,000 jobs associated with additional natural gas production as well
as the construction and operation of LNG export facilities by 2018.
Needless to say, these new jobs could not come at a better time for our
economy.
Remember the concerns many of us had over the U.S. economy
hemorrhaging billions of dollars every year going overseas to pay for
energy imports. Well, for natural gas, the roles can be reversed, and
we could be the ones selling energy on the global market and bringing
in billions of dollars in job-sustaining revenues.
The economic impacts alone make natural gas exports a winning policy,
but the geopolitical impacts are an incredible benefit as well and have
been ignored for far too long. Allies around the world have told us
that they would greatly benefit from American LNG.
Last October, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a forum that
included ambassadors and other officials representing 11 U.S. allies,
all of whom strongly urged us to enter the global LNG marketplace.
Since then, several other allies have stepped forward with the same
request. This includes our friends in eastern Europe unfortunate enough
to be reliant on Russia for natural gas.
Not only do these nations face unfair pricing, but political
pressure, as a result of their dependence on Russia. These nations
believe that the very passage of this legislation, the signal that we
are serious about LNG exports, would immediately reduce Russia's
negotiating leverage even before the first molecule of LNG shipment
actually goes out. H.R. 6 will start doing good the very day it is
enacted.
I should note that our efforts on LNG exports began before the
current crisis erupted in Ukraine. Russia's actions over the past
several months demonstrate the importance of this bill, and Russia's
recent decision to cut off supplies to Ukraine further underscore the
need for America to provide Europe an alternative supply of natural
gas. Indeed, we can effectively push back against Russia's aggression
and help our friends without ever putting any troops in harm's way.
[[Page H5677]]
{time} 1615
Beyond Europe, we can also strengthen our economic ties with allies
in Asia, who would rather buy their energy from us than from less
reliable Middle Eastern suppliers.
We can also assist nations in achieving their environmental goals by
offering the option of clean-burning natural gas, and we can help many
developing countries by providing them with an energy source that is
cheaper than the choices available to them now.
The economic benefits alone--or the geopolitical benefits alone--make
LNG exports a worthwhile policy; but taken together, they make it a no-
brainer. Unfortunately, the decades-old Federal approval process for
LNG export facilities is acting as an impediment.
Proposed projects have languished at DOE for years on end. While DOE
has recently announced some changes to the process, the agency is still
under no deadline to act.
The amendment that I am offering with Mr. Green changes that. It
provides that, once the extensive environmental review conducted by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act is complete for a project, the Department of
Energy has a 30-day deadline to issue a final decision on the
application pending before the agency.
It is a sensible and workable solution to the current regulatory
bottleneck. It is an answer to a call from our allies for energy
security.
It is time to help our friends abroad. It is time to create jobs here
at home.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2014.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton, I am writing concerning H.R. 6, the
``Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act,'' which the
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported on June 19, 2014.
As reported, H.R. 6 contains a section on judicial review,
which is within the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X
jurisdiction. As a result of your having consulted with the
Committee and in order to expedite the House's consideration
of H.R. 6, the Committee on the Judiciary will not assert is
jurisdictional claim over this bill by seeking a sequential
referral. However, this is conditional on our mutual
understanding and agreement that doing so will in no way
diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Judiciary with respect to the appointment of conferees or to
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding, and would request that you include a copy
of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record
during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte, Thank you for your letter
regarding H.R. 6, the ``Domestic Prosperity and Global
Freedom Act.'' As you noted, the bill as reported by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce contains a provision that
fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Judiciary. Specifically, subsection 2(b) provides for
judicial review of U.S. Department of Energy orders and
failures to issue a decision on applications for
authorization to export natural gas.
I appreciate your willingness to forgo seeking a sequential
referral on H.R. 6, and I agree that your decision is not a
waiver of any of the Committee on the Judiciary's
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation, and that the Committee will be
appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar
legislation moves forward. In addition, I understand the
Committee reserves the right to seek appointment of an
appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate
conference involving this or similar legislation, and you
will have my support for any such request.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 6 on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was going to talk about this bill, and I will, but I really want to
talk about the inflation in the naming of these bills. This is a bill
to allow a faster process for exporting natural gas to other countries.
So what is it called? The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.
What do you follow after that? Peace and prosperity in our time,
whatever that may, in fact, involve. I just think this bill is
overrated in its title. I also want to say it is overrated in what it
does.
There are 17 or 18 free trade countries, and they can have the export
of natural gas to them right away. They are free trade countries that
have an agreement with us. There is no problem in getting the approval
for them. The question is: Are we going to approve export of natural
gas to non-free trade countries?
The premise of this bill is that we are not doing enough to export
natural gas to them or anyone else, I guess. Congressman Gardner's bill
would change the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports,
presumably because the Department of Energy is moving too slowly,
because they can approve an application now for export anywhere around
the world.
In fact, DOE has moved--quite properly, it seems to me--to authorize
these LNG exports. They have already approved seven export proposals,
and they are continuing to evaluate additional applications.
What these approvals that we have already granted--had granted--the
U.S. is poised to transform into the world's second largest exporter of
LNG in the world, just behind Qatar. If they approve one more
application, we would go from exporting no LNG today to being the
largest exporter in the world in just a few years.
So why do we need this legislation? Certainly not to get domestic
prosperity and global freedom because this bill doesn't accomplish
either goal.
Currently, the Department of Energy goes through a process, and they
perform a public interest determination when reviewing export
applications, so they can carefully consider the effect of LNG exports
on natural gas prices here and the impact of higher prices here on
American consumers and these manufacturers that are benefiting from the
lower price that they have seen for LNG here.
The public interest determination provides DOE an opportunity to
examine a number of factors: energy security, geopolitical, and
environmental considerations.
If we would have this bill adopted, it would short circuit this
established review process for pending and future LNG export
applications. The bill establishes a new deadline for DOE to decide on
applications within 90 days of the close of the public comment period
or enactment of the bill, whichever comes later.
That is a deadline that is established, so they are forcing the DOE
to act, but if DOE looks at an application and they don't feel that
they are ready to make a decision in that period of time, they are more
likely than not to just turn it down. That doesn't seem to be a
worthwhile goal, if we want to have more export of LNG.
This provision would require DOE simultaneously to review and make a
decision on all the pending applications within 90 days. It is not
realistic, and it certainly isn't responsible.
With few exceptions, environmental reviews haven't been completed by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for any of these applications,
so the deadline would force DOE to rush its review of each application
and make its final decision without a final environmental review.
The other thing I want to comment on is all those ambassadors that
told us they want this bill--because of the hold that Russia has over
them--they might not even benefit if this bill were adopted because
they are not free trade countries.
So there has to be an approval of an export for LNG to a non-free
trade country. There is not an approval through the Department of
Energy to any particular country. It simply approves the request of a
company here to export the LNG.
Under our capitalist system, a business usually seeks the highest
reward for its investment. The export of LNG to a non-free trade
country is going to be better rewarded in Asia than it will be in
Ukraine or in Eastern Europe, where they are so concerned, rightfully
so, about what Russia is going to do. It
[[Page H5678]]
may not even help those countries, as so many of these ambassadors
hoped it will.
I would say that this bill is not going to get us to export LNG any
faster. Nothing in the bill affects the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's permitting of the actual LNG export terminals.
Rushing the DOE review is not going to speed up the construction of
these projects. We need the construction of the infrastructure for the
export of natural gas.
The last thing I want to say is there are some controversies about
exporting LNG, not exporting it at all, but opening it up to export in
a process where the export will be wide open.
A lot of manufacturers in this country are worried that, if we are
exporting our LNG, that is going to raise the price of natural gas here
at home. Well, of course it will. It will go to a lower price of LNG
here at home to eventually a world price, if it could be freely
exported around the world the way we have for oil. If that happens,
they are afraid that this boom we have seen in manufacturing in the
United States may be curtailed.
So it is not without controversy that people are looking at this
legislation. In other words, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, if you
lose your job because the price of natural gas goes up and you are
working for a manufacturer that is benefiting from a lower price for
natural gas here in the United States, they are not going to look at
this as a bill that leads to domestic prosperity and global freedom, as
the authors of this bill would have us believe.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that nothing in
this bill changes the requirements of a NEPA analysis to be completed.
I share your frustration with the titles of bill names--the bill
titles. Imagine our consternation over the Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the gentleman from
Colorado for bringing this bill to the floor.
I wholeheartedly support H.R. 6 for a number of reasons. I also want
to address some of the issues that the gentleman from the other side
raised.
First of all, let's consider international trade is the key to
growth, it is the key to job creation, it is the key to reducing our
deficits, and it is important geopolitically for the United States.
Because of this great advance in technology with hydraulic fracturing
and drilling, we now have unprecedented levels supply of gas that we
can use domestically for manufacturing, and we are seeing a domestic
manufacturing renaissance.
Secondly, the amount of gas that we will export from this country,
for a number of reasons, will not cause significant price spikes. In
fact, it will add stability to the pricing of gas in this country and
promote more drilling, which is what we need to do.
We need to take care of our own energy security here, and we can
provide energy security for our partners--our trading partners--around
the world. This is why we need to move forward on this.
It is clear that, over the last 2 years, the U.S. Department of
Energy has raised its long-term forecast on gas production by nearly 40
percent, with price expectations having declined 15 percent over the
same period.
So the point that the gentleman makes about price spikes because of
LNG exports is really, really unfounded--an unfounded point.
LNG exports could contribute up to 450,000 jobs between the years
2016 and 2035 and add $73.6 billion annually to our GDP.
My home State of Louisiana--in fact, the Third Congressional
District, my district, is the leading area in this whole effort. We
have currently the first two Department of Energy and FERC-approved
facilities that are undergoing construction today.
The first one, the Sabine Pass facility, will see its exports
probably the end of 2015, early 2016. The others will follow.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GARDNER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Louisiana.
Mr. BOUSTANY. We currently have eight--eight--that are waiting and
have been waiting over a year--eight facilities waiting over a year for
approval from the Department of Energy. That is before they go through
the expensive FERC process.
This is why we need this legislation: to get the Department of Energy
to move forward on this, so that we don't hold up something that is
going to help us grow our economy, create jobs, and be very important
geopolitically.
Trade not only acts as a catalyst for creating jobs, it reduces
deficits, promotes American goods and services internationally, and
energy should be no different.
That is why we need to move forward. We have a unique opportunity.
Let's embrace it now, and let's do the right thing for our country.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, I respect him greatly,
and he made an argument. I don't fully agree with his argument, but
that is the purpose of the debate, to discuss ideas and air our point
of view.
The author of this legislation, I guess, couldn't help himself
because he said: imagine the consternation when they found that the
Affordable Care Act was named the Affordable Care Act. There are
millions of people around the country, for the first time, who are able
to buy insurance that is affordable.
I don't believe, if this bill passed, that it would lead to domestic
prosperity and global freedom. With all due respect to those who have a
different point of view, what gall to say that this bill, which is
controversial, and many Americans oppose because they feel it will hurt
their prosperity here at home or our national security here at home,
would think that an appropriate name is to say this bill is the
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.
Now that I have got that off my chest, Mr. Chairman, I want to yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't think this bill is needed. LNG
permits are being issued faster than they can be built.
This bill establishes a rigid deadline for DOE to complete its public
interest review of LNG export applications. That approach raises
significant concerns.
{time} 1630
I would like to talk about two of the concerns: climate change and
economics.
Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McNERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. You don't think the bill is needed. Does that mean you
are against domestic prosperity and global freedom?
Mr. McNERNEY. No, I don't think that is what it means, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I just wanted that clarification.
Mr. McNERNEY. Reclaiming my time, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change recently released its multiyear report on the state of
climate science. The world's leading climate scientists examined the
peer-reviewed science and confirmed that climate change is already
happening on all continents and across the oceans and will get much
worse if we don't act.
The impacts of runaway climate change will be severe: reduced crop
yields, more heat waves and diseases, decreased water availability, and
more extreme weather events.
That means that we need to scrutinize the energy infrastructure
decisions that we make today because of their impacts on climate change
in the future. Every decision to build a new LNG export terminal has
climate implications. We need to understand and weigh those effects.
Otherwise, we risk locking in infrastructure that will produce carbon
pollution for decades to come or creating stranded investments that
must be shut down before they have paid for themselves.
Natural gas combustion for electricity does emit less carbon
pollution than coal, but natural gas production
[[Page H5679]]
does result in gas escaping, and natural gas is a much more potent
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We need to consider the effect of
carbon emissions in the United States.
In addition, liquefying natural gas and shipping it overseas is an
energy-intensive process that will result in some significant domestic
carbon emissions. For example, the direct emissions from the Sabine
Pass process will represent 2 percent of the entire State of
Louisiana's emissions.
The Energy Information Administration's modeling shows that LNG
exports would increase domestic natural gas production in the United
States. Of course, that is obvious. This could increase emissions of
methane, which is, as I mentioned, a potent greenhouse gas, unless we
take very severe measures to control that pollution at the wellhead and
throughout the natural gas system.
In a carbon-constrained world, we need to understand all of these
domestic emissions' impacts and how they compare with emission impacts
abroad. The DOE has taken a first step to begin looking at these issues
but has not completed a rigorous study of the effects of the different
levels of LNG exports on carbon emissions.
We need to make sure we understand the effects on climate change of
major energy infrastructure investments that will last for decades.
My second concern is economic. Shipping natural gas overseas will
raise domestic natural gas prices. That is basically the law of supply
and demand--unless that law is no longer valid.
Manufacturing is seeing a domestic renaissance here in this country
because of natural gas prices being lower. This is domestic
manufacturing. We want to make things in America. We want to make it in
America. We want to continue to see that renaissance. We want to see
manufacturing increase throughout the country and throughout the
States.
Therefore, I oppose the bill.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would point out that our colleagues in the Senate have introduced
legislation similar to our legislation here on LNG exports titled, the
Freedom Through Energy Export Act, by our colleague from Alaska, Mr.
Begich.
I point out, too, that when it comes to domestic prosperity, the fact
that this could create 45,000 job opportunities, increasing the
employment in energy to 3 million people by 2020, that is prosperity
and freedom.
Hungary's Ambassador at Large for Energy Security, Dr. Anita Orban,
testified that this legislation ``sends a clear signal that the global
gas market is changing, that there is the prospect of much greater
supply coming from other parts of the world.''
That is world security, freedom, prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Turner), who has been a true leader on the issue of LNG exports.
Mr. TURNER. I want to thank the author of H.R. 6 for his leadership
on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, lifting self-imposed restrictions on natural gas
exports is a win-win situation for the American people. It will create
American jobs and strengthen our allies' independence, bolstering our
economic and strategic partnerships.
As chairman of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly, many foreign leaders have expressed to me the need for energy
diversification and its importance to strengthen our strategic
partnerships. We already cooperate with our allies on a variety of
security issues. Energy security must also be a component of our
strategic alliances.
America's emerging role as an energy producer has the potential to
enhance our security relationships and influence the global
marketplace.
As we have seen in Ukraine, Russia will not hesitate to use its
energy resource dominance to expand its sphere of influence. Just last
week, Russia's state-owned monopoly, Gazprom, cut off natural gas
supplies to Ukraine.
In the Asia Pacific, Japan is a critical security partner as we
counter threats posed by countries such as North Korea. Already the
world's largest importer of natural gas, Japan is dependent on Russia,
the Middle East, and Africa for nearly 50 percent of its natural gas
imports and is seeking greater imports as a result of its 2011 nuclear
power plant disaster.
Increasing U.S. natural gas exports, along with the development of
other sources, such as the Southern Gas Corridor and the Eastern
Mediterranean, will help diversify world natural gas supplies and
create a more competitive, transparent, and diversified global natural
gas marketplace. In fact, U.S. natural gas production has already
influenced global markets.
Natural gas previously destined for the United States but no longer
needed as a result of increased production was diverted to other
markets. This increased supply has made the global natural gas market
more competitive, helping to put more pressure on contracts indexed to
the price of oil and allowing several European countries to renegotiate
their long-term contracts with Gazprom.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. TURNER. In fact, President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and
Secretary of Energy Moniz have welcomed LNG exports to strengthen our
strategic alliances. Mr. Chairman, I will submit their statements for
the Record.
President Obama, Current and Past Administration Officials Welcome U.S.
LNG Exports
President Barack Obama, in a joint statement with European
leaders at the EU-US Summit on March 26, 2014: The situation
in Ukraine proves the need to reinforce energy security in
Europe and we are considering new collaborative efforts to
achieve this goal. We welcome the prospect of U.S. LNG
exports in the future since additional global supplies will
benefit Europe and other strategic partners.
Secretary of State John Kerry, in a joint statement with
European energy leaders at a meeting of the EU-US Energy
Council on April 2, 2014: The Council further welcomed the
prospect of US LNG exports in the future since additional
global supplies will benefit Europe and other strategic
partners.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, in a joint statement with
European energy leaders at the G7 Rome Energy Ministerial
meeting on May 6, 2014: No country should depend totally on
one supplier. We intend to promote a more integrated LNG
market, including through new supplies, the development of
transport infrastructures, storage capacities, and LNG
terminals.
Mr. TURNER. Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is shipped,
increasing supply in the global marketplace will provide international
consumers with greater choice and thus increased leverage to negotiate
prices.
U.S. natural gas exports will create jobs right here at home and will
help foster a more competitive natural gas market.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 6.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, 7 percent of the American people approve of the United
States Congress. I think one of the reasons for that low approval
rating is that we have overpromised and underperformed what they expect
of us.
If anybody would think that this bill in and of itself deserves to be
called the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, I think they
lose credibility with the American people. And there is not much more
credibility to lose when they only support us at a rate of 7 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene
Green), for whom I have an enormous amount of affection, even though
today we have had two bills where we have disagreed. He doesn't
overpromise. He just states his views and supports what he believes in.
Sometimes he even convinces me, but he is not doing a good job today.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member for yielding to
me. I have to admit that the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act
is a bipartisan problem we have in this Chamber.
I rise as a cosponsor in support of H.R. 6.
H.R. 6 represents a bipartisan effort to legislate. I want to thank
my colleague from Colorado, Congressman Gardner, for working with me. I
wasn't an original cosponsor, but through our committee process we
[[Page H5680]]
have worked it out. We achieved bipartisan support in the committee
because we were working together. I think that is what the American
people want Congress to do.
It is important to recognize that there are more than 30 export
permits to export LNG. These permits represent more than 35 billion
cubic feet a day in LNG exports.
Currently, the Department of Energy has conditionally approved six of
them, but only one project has received final approval through DOE and
through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
DOE has an important role in export to make sure that we don't
increase our natural gas prices to where they are not affordable to our
country. We are in an energy renaissance because of the success of
natural gas, fracking, and directional drilling in our country, and we
are producing more natural gas than we can use, whether it be for
electricity production or for our chemical industry.
I represent a huge chemical complex in East Harris County. There is
literally a renaissance in the expansion of those chemical industries.
It is increasing jobs and our exports because a lot of those chemicals
we are producing from our U.S. natural gas will be exported. So someone
else will pay for those jobs in our district in East Harris County.
The Department of Energy has a role in this. The problem we have is
that the Department of Energy has taken so long to approve these
permits. The DOE really just needs to look if it is in our national
interest. They include all these things under it. And that is correct.
Let me give you an example.
In Texas and North Dakota, we are flaring natural gas right now
because we don't have customers in our country and we don't have a way
to export it. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the people
who own those royalties because they are not getting paid for them. And
it is just terrible to see something we can sell to someone else not be
utilized.
So that is why I support this bill.
We wanted to find that sweet spot, so to speak, on where we can
export what we are not using.
Those of you who are familiar with Texas, we hold in reverence our
Blue Bell Ice Cream. If you are there, in their commercials they will
say:
We eat all we can and sell the rest.
That is what I want to do with natural gas. I want to use all we can,
but I want to sell all the rest we can't use so it will help our
balance of trade, help some of our allies who need it, but also keep
our workers working in both the oil patch and the gas patch.
My colleague states that one more approval would make us the largest
LNG exporter in the world. But not all of these projects will be
constructed. Only one has been approved all the way. Of the more than
30 applications, no more than a handful of these projects will be
constructed and ultimately export LNG.
Further, it is important that we clarify the LNG permitting
processing before we discuss H.R. 6.
There are two completely separate processes. First, a project must
submit an application to export. If the project will send LNG to a
country with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement, the application
is automatically approved. In fact, the Port of Brownsville got their
application approved in 30 days.
If the project sends LNG to a country without a free trade
agreement--non-FTA--the DOE must issue a permit based on the public
interest. For a project to actually export LNG in either case, the
applicant must receive a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permit.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews the environmental
impacts of the actual LNG facility. The FERC process takes 12 to 18
months and costs approximately $100 million.
The issue H.R. 6 seeks to deal with is the non-FTA permits through
the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy currently has 25
permits awaiting decision. The Department of Energy held most of these
permits for more than 3 years. Even the DOE recognizes this is a huge
problem and proposed changing the approval process.
While I support the DOE changes, unfortunately, they fail to provide
any certainty. H.R. 6 would place a timeline for the DOE to issue a
decision. Again, remember, the DOE is going to have 12 to 18 months to
know that permit because it is going through the Federal regulatory
process already.
We need to make sure that the environmental review process is
protected--and that is what FERC does--but we also need to make sure
that the DOE makes those decisions timely so they can get those permits
issued.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 6 and provide certainty to the
market.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank my colleague from California for
his leadership on the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.
This legislation would require the DOE to act quickly in considering
applications to export liquefied natural gas.
New technologies have unlocked vast resources of natural gas across
the country. Our natural gas production will increase by 56 percent
between 2012 and 2014.
{time} 1645
If you want to see what real natural gas development looks like in a
place that could really use the economic development, come to northern
West Virginia or to southwest PA. More production means more American
jobs and more West Virginia jobs.
The Marcellus shale production in West Virginia is surging, and the
possibility of LNG exports will mean more good-paying jobs here at
home--and a lot of them. By 2035, LNG exports are expected to create
8,600 West Virginia jobs and put $1.7 billion in State revenues.
We need to do everything possible to put West Virginia resources to
work for West Virginians, and today's legislation will make a real,
positive difference for working families and communities in my State
and in States across the Nation.
This bill would allow us to import jobs and economic opportunity,
while we export both energy and physical security to our friends and
allies. More than a third of the natural gas consumed in Europe comes
from Russia, and I am sure our allies would rather be buying natural
gas from the United States.
Passing this bill will create jobs in West Virginia and across the
country. It will grow our Nation's economy and strengthen our
relationships with our allies. I encourage my colleagues to vote for
this important bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. I want to thank Ranking Member Henry Waxman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity
and Global Freedom Act. I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation
that will help to increase U.S. liquefied natural gas exports and help
boost our economy.
In my 15th Congressional District in Texas, oil and natural gas
extraction from the Eagle Ford shale has transformed this region,
bringing thousands of new jobs, and growing wealth to many rural
communities in South Texas.
A study by the University of Texas showed that the Eagle Ford shale
has provided a $61 billion impact to Texas and has supported over
116,000 new jobs. More importantly, the boom in American natural gas
production has drastically changed our many counties' energy future.
The United States is now the number one natural gas-producing nation
in the world. The USA has more than enough natural gas to meet its
domestic needs while also exporting to foreign countries at a huge
benefit to the United States' economy.
Unfortunately, the existing application process at the Department of
Energy has made it burdensome for companies to export liquefied natural
gas to non-FTA countries. This bill will address that problem.
Mr. Chairman, this is a truly bipartisan effort that will resolve a
longstanding issue within our administration on expediting exports of
natural gas. Our bill, H.R. 6, will cut the red tape and move quickly
to approve all pending liquefied natural gas applications at the
Department of Energy for
[[Page H5681]]
our WTO allies, and it will provide future applicants with a much more
reasonable process.
I want to thank Representatives Cory Gardner and Tim Ryan for
introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes.''
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from
Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and I applaud my colleague
from Colorado for his leadership.
This bill will expedite exports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to
our allies abroad by cutting the red tape and streamlining the
regulatory process. As a Nation, this has the potential to revitalize
our economy, allow us to become energy independent, and to
strategically advance our interests overseas.
Now, I know many Hoosiers back at home might be asking themselves:
How does this help me? After all, we have limited natural gas wells and
processing plants in Indiana. Let me state clearly that the answer is:
yes, it will help them.
The bill would be an economic boon to the Hoosier economy. As the
Nation's leading manufacturing State, Indiana contributes to the LNG
business heavily by making and manufacturing the equipment that makes
the gas extraction possible.
The natural gas and oil industry has already created 136,000 jobs in
Indiana, and it makes up over 4.1 percent of our entire labor income.
The future for Indiana looks even brighter with the expansion of LNG
exports. It is estimated that Indiana's economy would grow by $2.2
billion a year and produce as many as 12,800 new jobs by simply
allowing shipments of gas to our trusted allies.
Just last week, I received a letter from the CEO of the Ports of
Indiana that urged the passage of this legislation. He supports the
passage because of the significant competitive advantage it will give
our State, in terms of our geography and infrastructure, which will
allow Indiana to further capitalize on LNG exports.
Now is the time to allow American entrepreneurship to increase
domestic energy production and fuel job creation, but unfortunately,
the administration has refused, time and time again, to get out of the
way of this entrepreneurship.
The administration refuses to approve licenses for LNG exports, and
as I speak now, there are 24 pending applications awaiting action from
the Department of Energy. One has been waiting 917 days and counting.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, it is time to unleash the power
of America's abundant natural resources in order to capitalize on our
ingenuity and create thousands of good-paying jobs in my home State of
Indiana and across the Nation. I urge its passage.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for his yielding, and I thank him
for his work as ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 6, we are embarking on a policy that will
lock us into higher and more volatile natural gas prices, and that will
erode a key advantage we have for domestic manufacturing, that being
low natural gas prices.
Natural gas is used widely throughout our economy. It is, indeed, a
valuable commodity, and we should be setting policy to ensure that we
use it efficiently and effectively. LNG terminals are expensive to
build and require a lot of energy to operate. The contracts signed by
exporters commit them to exporting LNG for anywhere from 10 to 20
years.
We already had a small taste of what happens if there is an
unexpected event that increases domestic demand when ready supplies are
low and exports have increased.
At a time when we are producing record amounts of propane, we had
some of the worst shortages and price spikes we have seen in years. It
was not entirely due to export increases, but it was definitely a
factor. Many of our communities are paying the environmental costs of
this natural gas boom. This bill is now going to deny them the benefits
associated with sacrifices.
There are very real concerns that this legislation would harm
economic growth, job creation, and American manufacturing. This bill
will not allow the adequate consideration of the public interest,
including impacts on United States' consumers and manufacturers, before
granting the approval of natural gas exports to countries with which we
do not have a free trade agreement.
In fact, because we do have free trade agreements with a number of
countries, exports of LNG to them do not require any public interest
analysis. The DOE has approved billions of cubic feet to be exported to
nations with which we have free trade agreements and to others as well.
We are in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance due, in part, to
an abundance of affordable domestic natural gas. We have seen 12
consecutive months of growth in the manufacturing sector and a growing
trend of the reshoring of jobs back to the United States.
Why would we want to turn that trend around?
Exports on the scale that this legislation would enable will raise
domestic natural gas and electricity prices for every American and
undermine our manufacturing competitiveness.
The United States' natural gas prices are less than one-half of
Europe's and one-third less than in places like Japan and South Korea.
The integration of the United States' and Asia's natural gas markets
would lead to increases in prices for consumers and businesses, undoing
the economic conditions that have led to the recent growth in American
manufacturing.
The industrial sector represents some 22 percent of American energy
use, with natural gas being the single largest input. Energy is
consumed in the industrial sector for a wide range of purposes--from
processing to heating, cooling, and as feedstocks to produce non-energy
products.
The chemicals, pulp and paper, iron and steel, refining, and
nonmetallic minerals industries account for about one-half of all
energy used in this sector.
These industries alone represent millions of American jobs. That is
why I am so concerned that the Energy Information Administration, the
EIA, found that increased natural gas exports will ``lead to increased
natural gas prices,'' and ``larger export levels lead to larger
domestic price increases.''
The EIA looked specifically at the potential impact of these price
increases on United States' manufacturers, and it found that a high
level of LNG exports could increase natural gas costs for the
industrial sector by between 5 and 27 percent annually.
The amendment I offered to the Rules Committee, an amendment which
was not made in order, would have prevented section 2 of this bill from
taking effect until there would be a determination that LNG exports
would not adversely impact the competitiveness of the United States'
manufacturing community.
American employers are struggling to compete in this global economy,
especially with the jobs in the manufacturing sector. Domestic
manufacturers are competing with countries that have low wages, limited
environmental and worker protections, and manipulated currencies. Low-
priced, abundant natural gas is a competitive advantage for domestic
manufacturers. Let's not give that up.
This Congress has an obligation to prevent the loss of American
manufacturing jobs. The revitalization of the American manufacturing
industry and the bringing back of quality jobs from overseas should be
the cornerstone of our efforts in Washington in order to help the
private sector thrive and to put our people back to work.
This bill is only good for the natural gas-producing industry, and
its increased benefits will be coming at everyone else's expense.
With that, I urge the defeat of this bill.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Commerce Committee has
[[Page H5682]]
been tackling the issue of LNG exports for quite some time now.
What began as a solid case in favor of these exports has only grown
stronger. I support this bill, H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and
Global Freedom Act, and I applaud, in particular, the sponsor, Cory
Gardner, for his efforts on this important bipartisan bill.
Last October, we held a forum that consisted of nearly a dozen
representatives of foreign governments, as well as the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, all of whom expressed their strong interest in buying LNG
from the U.S.
Three of them--Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania--are
Eastern European allies that are currently dependent on Russia for
natural gas. They described in great detail how Russia wields natural
gas as a weapon against them, threatening to raise prices or to even
cut off supplies as a means of exerting political pressure.
We need to respond, as we are seeing their warnings playing out with
the ongoing crisis, obviously, today in Ukraine. If Putin is not
deterred, he will likely use the same tactics on other Eastern European
countries in the years ahead. Russia's aggression is real, and American
LNG can provide a much-needed lifeline away from Putin's grip as an
alternative supply source.
The Energy Information Administration's estimated reserves of natural
gas continue to be revised upward, ensuring that we can continue to
provide American manufacturers with low-cost supplies, while having
enough for export markets, and the Department of Energy has even
concluded that natural gas exports will be a net benefit to our
economy.
Early in our efforts, the DOE insisted that its process for approving
LNG export facilities wasn't broken, but over the last year, there have
been very few approvals, and most applications continue to languish--
some for even more than a year--and the line continues to grow.
The DOE's most recent changes to the process, while a slight
improvement from the existing queue, are still very disappointing. They
do nothing to address the core problem of open-ended delays. Congress
needs to act.
{time} 1700
Throughout our efforts on this topic, there has been bipartisan
interest in LNG exports. Since the bill was first introduced, the
bipartisanship has only grown, and for that, I commend the bill's
author, Cory Gardner, for working with Gene Green and others on an
amendment adapting the bill's language to address a number of concerns.
I know that we have reached the point where the passage of this bill,
H.R. 6, will be seen as a bipartisan success story, as it should; and
the Senate should follow our lead, stand up for jobs, as well as our
allies, and quickly send this bill to the President's desk.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. UPTON. Because of advances in technology and innovation, we are
now entering a new era of abundance. America is emerging, yes, as an
energy superpower. We can enjoy the domestic benefits of being an
energy superpower while also projecting our influence as a force for
good abroad. The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act allows us
to do both.
This commonsense bill says ``yes'' to jobs, ``yes'' to energy, and I
would urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 6.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado
for bringing this bill to the floor. It is so important that we exploit
American domestic resources to create jobs, create global stability,
and make lower prices for consumers. This bill does all those things.
So we have a lot to thank you for, Congressman Gardner, for what this
bill could accomplish, and I appreciate that.
Let me address a couple of points that I think have been erroneously
made. Some said that current users of natural gas won't benefit as much
if this bill were to become law. That is simply not true.
There is such an abundance of natural gas in this country that we can
supply domestic needs and, at the same time, have liquefied natural gas
exports to our friends and allies. We can do both, and everyone will
benefit. The shale gas revolution in this country is so amazing that
that has made this possible.
Secondly, some have said that there will not be the same quality of
environmental reviews of LNG if this takes place, and that is simply
not true either. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission maintains its
role to permit the siting of facilities, just as under current law, and
FERC, as they are known, is required by the National Environmental
Policy Act, NEPA, to conduct an environmental assessment and, if
necessary, an EIS, an Environmental Impact Statement, if that is
required. That does not change either. The same requirements under NEPA
will still be met under this law, should it become law. So we are not
in any way degrading or compromising environmental standards. They are
still going to be satisfied.
So, for all those reasons, I want to thank the sponsor of this bill,
Representative Gardner, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the gentleman from
Colorado how many more speakers you have?
Mr. GARDNER. We have two additional speakers.
Mr. WAXMAN. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Then I presume the gentleman from Colorado will want to close on his
bill. So after your two speakers, we will close on our side, and then
you can close.
Mr. GARDNER. At this point, we only have two remaining speakers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for sponsoring this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, companies were building terminals to
import natural gas at the cost of billions of dollars because analysts
agreed that the United States economy was going to need natural gas
from overseas. Today that scenario has flipped on its head, and import
terminals are dormant. The Department of Energy has 19 applications
waiting to get permission to export U.S. natural gas.
Thanks to technology breakthroughs, U.S. natural gas reserves have
climbed 72 percent since 2000. We have more gas than we can use here in
the United States. Mr. Chairman, we have the best ice cream company in
the world in Brenham, Texas, and their motto is: ``We eat all we can,
and we sell the rest.'' That is what our motto should be with natural
gas. We should use all we can and sell the rest everywhere in the world
that wants to buy it.
As chairman of the Trade Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, I did a
hearing on more LNG exports in April. Every witness at the hearing,
from the union representatives to a professor, agreed that we should
export natural gas. We have too much gas and our allies have too
little.
And then there is Russia. Russia has an energy stranglehold over
Europe, including Ukraine. Just this past week, Russia announced it was
going to require payments up front from Ukraine. Russia has already
increased the price of natural gas and even stopped sending natural gas
to Ukraine.
Isn't that lovely?
Ukraine needs access to natural gas down the road, and that could be
the United States. We need to compete with Gazprom. That could be the
United States. That is how we can help thwart Russian aggression in
Eastern Europe.
Technically, the United States can export natural gas, but the
approval process is slow as molasses. It is the government. The
government takes too long to make a decision, and the Department of
Energy wraps companies in red tape. Many times we can lose these
natural gas contracts to our competitors.
So I support this legislation. I thank the gentleman for bringing it
to the floor.
And that's just the way it is.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6,
the
[[Page H5683]]
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, championed by my friend and
colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Gardner of
Colorado, a true leader in this area. This Act will help expedite
approval of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports to our allies.
The United States is experiencing a North American energy boom that
analysts predict can produce enough natural gas to meet our domestic
demands as well as that of our global allies, including Ukraine and
other Eastern European nations currently at the mercy of Russian energy
supplies. Expediting U.S. liquefied natural gas exports serves our
national security interests as an aggressive Russian regime looks to
expand power in former Soviet Union countries. This legislation helps
our allies in eastern Europe and across the globe, while creating jobs
here at home through private investment and economic opportunity
essential to improving the American economy.
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I am proud to
have helped bring this important energy global security measure to the
floor today, and I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.
This is in the national security interest of the United States of
America.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a sponsor of H.R. 6, somebody who has been with this
bill, this legislation, from the beginning as we have worked on this
bipartisan process.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. I probably won't take all
the time, but I did want to stand up in support of this piece of
legislation.
Mr. Chair, in my district in eastern Ohio, we have been--and I have
heard speaker after speaker talk about the potential boom for our
country and different regions of America. And my region that I
represent is one of those areas along eastern Ohio.
I think if we are looking to address many of the issues of global
warming, and I know there would be a lot of different discussions and
opinions that I may have compared to a lot of people on the other side,
but I believe that this is an opportunity for us to address that issue
with liquid natural gas, to get it out into the marketplace, to make
sure that the economic benefits are here in the United States, that our
people in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, into New York and the
upstate New York area are able to benefit from this. FERC is going to
have to approve these ultimately, at the end of the day, and so I don't
think that we can pass up this opportunity to have a transition.
Now, I think, quite frankly, we missed the boat a few years ago when
we had an opportunity to pass a comprehensive energy bill that would
invest into--in the bill that came before this House, money into coal
research was an opportunity that I think we missed.
There was an opportunity for wind and solar and the alternatives that
I think, ultimately, will be a part of an extended portfolio here in
the United States. But today, the opportunity is with liquid natural
gas and getting it abroad.
In one of my positions on the German Study Group, we were in Germany
talking to Chancellor Merkel, and the first thing she said to us, as
our delegation was over there, was let's talk about natural gas, the
first thing, because she had Putin at that time, a year, year and a
half ago, breathing down her neck, and now here we are. So I think
there is an opportunity here. This is one step in a long process.
I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and hope we can
continue to build out this energy portfolio with natural gas and the
others that will come along the way.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For those who want to export natural gas, this bill really isn't
necessary because the Department of Energy is approving enough export
of natural gas that will allow us, in a few years, to be the largest
exporter of LNG in the world. So DOE is acting.
For those of you who are concerned about global freedom, well, when
we get all the facilities going to be able to export the natural gas
and once we get all of the approvals to export natural gas, the
countries who are going to receive this natural gas are most likely
going to be China, Japan, and India, because that is where they are
paying higher prices for natural gas. It is going to be more profitable
to ship the LNG there.
I don't fault the companies for doing that. They are in business to
make money. It is going to provide more money to ship the natural gas
there.
Well, what about Ukraine? What about the countries that are under
threat from Russia?
Angela Merkel, the head of Germany, may not realize it, but natural
gas is not going to be there for quite a long time. It is going to take
years. Therefore, if you think domestic prosperity is hinging on the
ability to export natural gas, we don't need this bill.
If you think global freedom is hanging on the balance waiting for
this bill to become law--and by ``global freedom'' you don't mean
freedom for China to get more natural gas or India or Japan, but
Ukraine and countries in eastern Europe--don't count on this bill to
bring about global freedom.
The bill is grossly titled because it is promising more than this
bill can ever deliver, and I would urge that this bill is not necessary
and ought to be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman for your leadership over this hour and thank the
gentleman from California for the debate and the Members who came and
debated this important piece of legislation today.
Look, we know this bill has the support of organizations like the
National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
People who represent the businesses of this country, the industrial
might of this country, support H.R. 6 because they know that when we
can produce our energy in our own backyard and help our allies to a
greater prosperity for themselves, we are doing the right thing with
H.R. 6.
{time} 1715
This bill is the confluence of two policies that we try to promote
but often fail to achieve: the policy of domestic job creation, where
45,000 people could be taken off the unemployment rolls because of H.R.
6. The other policy that we achieve with this legislation is to give
our friends and allies a greater degree of freedom, a greater ability
to be independent from Russia, their aggressive neighbors that just
decide one day to invade.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 is the work of a bipartisan group of lawmakers
who have worked over the past several months to make sure that we have
the support--not just from the Republican side of the aisle, but strong
support from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans who
believe that we should answer the call from our friends and allies for
energy security, for economic opportunity at home, and to make sure
that we continue the energy revolution in this country.
Opposition to the bill, as I said in committee, is like hanging up on
a 911 phone call from our friends and allies.
Let's pass this legislation. Let's achieve exactly what the title of
this bill says: prosperity at home and help for our allies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Walorski) having assumed the chair, Mr. McClintock, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to
provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas to World
Trade Organization countries, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________