[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H611-H616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 351, LNG PERMITTING CERTAINTY AND
TRANSPARENCY ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 48
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 351) to
provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas,
and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings,
my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
general leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Today, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor on behalf of
the Rules Committee and the Republican Conference a rule and the
underlying legislation which helps address a problem that has been
created by the Obama administration.
The administration has decided to slow the export of liquefied
natural gas to countries with which we do not have a free trade
agreement. This means that American companies have plenty of liquefied
natural gas to sell to our allies across the globe but that delays by
the administration are preventing them from selling it. This decision,
I think, comes at a terrible price for the millions of Americans who
cannot find work. This decision comes at a terrible price for those in
need of a good-paying job--perhaps even of a long career--that will
help support their families, their communities, and, most of all, that
will help make America stronger.
The administration's inaction also comes at a terrible price for our
friends in Europe who are being bullied by thugs, namely the Russian
Government. Currently, many of our allies in Europe are forced to buy
natural gas from Russia instead of from the United States of America.
We have seen how they use this leverage to push around our allies. Our
other friends around the globe, such as India, Japan, and Haiti, also
need energy, and this administration's inaction is also costing these
allies dearly. Let me see if I can paint a picture of how the
administration's decision has been executed.
The administration's Department of Energy has slow walked. It has
taken an antiquated approval process for applications to export
liquefied natural gas, which is known as LNG. Since 2010, the
Department of Energy has only issued final decisions on five of the 37
applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States
does not have a free trade agreement. These delays have nothing to do
with the environment. In fact, natural gas is one of the cleanest
sources of energy in the world. Yes, I think we know what the problem
is. The problem is they simply do not want to participate in this
marketplace for Americans to have jobs.
As a result of these delays, all of us in America are squandering the
boon in liquefied natural gas, which has made the United States the
world's largest provider of natural gas in oil beginning, really, in
2013. Here we are now, 2 years later, and it is time for America to
come to action. That is, again, why the United States Congress--the
Republican Congress--is coming to the American people with a bill to
help do something about this.
The administration's broken application process is delaying good-
paying jobs at a time when the labor participation rate in our
marketplace is at historic lows. That hurts real people. That hurts
real people who want and need opportunities to have jobs today, not to
look up and find out that Washington is broken and is keeping them from
good-paying jobs.
I have much to say about this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, for
yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
The enduring reputation of the 113th Congress will be as the least
productive ever. The previous House was also the most closed ever as it
pertains to rules, passing more closed rules than any other Congress.
Despite controlling both Chambers of the 114th Congress, my friends
across the aisle have picked up the dysfunction right where they left
off in trying to jam through another piece of legislation regardless of
its merits and without giving the House a chance to review it through
regular order. It must be understood that there are a significant
number of new Members here who didn't have an opportunity, as I did and
as the chairman did, to vote on this measure in the previous Congress.
Dysfunction reigns supreme, but don't just take my word for it. Last
week, my friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Dent, offered a summary
of the 114th Congress' accomplishments so far:
Week one, we had a Speaker election that did not go as well
as a lot of us would have liked. Week two, we got into a big
fight over deporting children, something that a lot of us
didn't want to have a discussion about. Week three, we are
now talking about rape and incest and reportable rapes and
incest for minors . . . I just can't wait for week four.
That was from my colleague Mr. Dent.
Here we are in week four, in my view, wasting time and taxpayer money
in debating a solution for a problem that does not exist.
Since the Department of Energy completed its economic impact study,
export applications are receiving a decision within about 2 months. In
fact, four LNG export projects have already won all of the necessary
Federal permits from the Energy Department and from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, with the first project scheduled to come online
this year. Therefore, despite H.R. 351's clever name, the only
uncertainty regarding the bill is why the House is considering it at
all.
This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it
would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. Let me
repeat that.
[[Page H612]]
This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it
would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. I would
like for some of my colleagues on the other side to tell me how Ukraine
will be able to benefit from this legislation in light of what I
believe the fact to be, and that is that they are not prepared to
receive liquefied natural gas from us. In my view, since most of this
takes place in the spot neverland of oil and gas sales, I don't
believe, when completed, that this gas will reach Ukraine.
Do you know where the highest prices for all liquefied natural gas
are both now and, apparently, in the near future? Asia. This gas is
going to Asia, not to Ukraine and not to Eastern Europe. I heard some
discussion yesterday evening about Hungary, and I dispute whether or
not any of it will go there as well.
{time} 1500
Furthermore, what was true then remains true now: even when the
United States finally becomes capable of exporting liquefied natural
gas, Ukraine does not have, as I have pointed out, the capability to
receive it. I hope you will understand my uncertainty as to why this
bill is on the floor.
H.R. 351 will not make gas prices cheaper here either. LNG is already
cheap. In fact, this bill is more likely to increase our natural gas
prices, since we are going to be sending more gas overseas, and it will
be hardworking Americans paying the cost.
It is not like there are a whole lot of projects waiting to be
approved either. With natural gas futures and crude oil prices well
below the levels where natural gas is competitive, companies are
putting LNG export and development projects on hold, leaving only more
uncertainty as to why we are considering this bill today.
This bill is also incredibly misguided. We cannot solve our energy
problems with fossil fuels. It requires a certain kind of arrogance to
deny an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change.
Importing or exporting more fossil fuels, more drilling, more fracking,
more pipelines, it doesn't matter; fossil fuels are a dead end, full
stop.
A serious renewable energy plan is the only way to ensure energy
independence. Clean energy is the only way we can be sure that we don't
leave a devastated planet for our children.
This Congress is starting just like the last one, Mr. Speaker. The
American people deserve better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This issue about liquefied natural gas and natural gas perhaps comes
naturally to Texans. I am from Dallas. I have been around the natural
gas industry. I have seen the attributes of energy policy and how
important it is.
Let me tell you what: the Republicans have taken a keen interest in
this. This is why the marketplace is producing gasoline at $1.72 a
gallon. That is why gasoline prices have fallen, that is why natural
gas is plentifully available at a great price--but, Mr. Speaker, it is
also jobs behind this.
I will tell you one other thing. It is also a bipartisan idea.
Yesterday, this gentleman that I am going to introduce, the sponsor of
the bill, Bill Johnson, a 26-year veteran of the United States Air
Force, came up to the Rules Committee and had one of the most
delightful conversations on a bipartisan basis with other Democrats and
Republicans and talked about the attributes of jobs and this natural
resource.
Thank God we live in America and have these opportunities to where we
can help other countries.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the original sponsor of this bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 48, the rule for H.R.
351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.
During the 113th Congress, identical legislation to H.R. 351 passed
the House of Representatives as H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and
Global Freedom Act. Long before its passage, the bill moved through the
entire legislative process at the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce. This process included a hearing as well as an eventual markup
at the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. A subsequent full committee
markup followed, and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar.
The House Committee on Rules then established H. Res. 636, the rule
for consideration of H.R. 6. After that rule was adopted, the
legislation was debated, amended, and ultimately passed the House of
Representatives with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. The President
did not issue a veto threat.
The energy renaissance that has swept across America over the last
years has transformed the United States from an increasingly energy
dependent Nation--beholden to the whims of OPEC--to our current
position as the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world.
This transformation has provided us with a historic and unprecedented
opportunity not just to bolster our economy, but to also fully leverage
our energy abundance on the international stage by selling a portion of
our natural gas abroad.
Through this abundance of natural gas, America has an opportunity to
significantly affect geopolitics if we enact smart policies. It could--
and should--be a game changer.
Allowing the export of liquefied natural gas, for instance, will
create significant American jobs and wealth for the United States,
enhance our energy security, and provide a reliable source of fuel to
our allies, some of whom depend on the mood of Vladimir Putin to meet
their energy needs.
Unfortunately, our policies have not kept pace with the industry's
development. Producers seeking to export LNG face a constantly changing
approval process which costs millions of dollars and takes years to
navigate.
Not only does this undermine regulatory certainty, but with dozens of
projects seeking approval, Washington is making it difficult for
businesses to make the investment decisions needed to take advantage of
this abundant resource. This delays job creation here at home and
reduces our ability to positively influence global politics abroad.
My bill, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, aims to
address this growing problem by cutting through the bureaucratic red
tape and implementing a deadline on the Department of Energy to issue a
final decision on LNG applications.
Given the amount of time that has already passed since many of the
LNG export applications have been filed and their dockets closed, there
is no more information to consider and no reason for DOE not to adhere
to a deadline.
There is very real risk to inactivity. If Washington waits too long
to move forward with export licenses, other countries with their own
natural gas resources--Canada, Qatar, and Australia, to name three--
will step in to meet the demand. Our competitive advantage, along with
the opportunity to create more domestic energy jobs and serve as a
check on Russia, will be lost.
Numerous studies have found that LNG exports will create hundreds of
thousands of American jobs, many of them in manufacturing, including
the refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors. ICF International
estimates that these jobs will occur across the entire value chain,
translating into roughly $1 billion in new wages for American workers
over a 6-year period.
Export terminals will also generate millions of dollars in new tax
revenue for Federal, State, and local governments, while increasing our
GDP and lowering the trade deficit.
It is worth noting that this won't come at the expense of domestic
consumers. The U.S. Energy Information Administration stressed that it
expects increased overseas demand for LNG will be met by the
development of new resources.
In fact, the DOE has concluded that each of the different export
scenarios considered ``are welfare improving for U.S. consumers'' and
would result in ``an increase in U.S. households' real income.''
The recent turbulence in Eastern Europe--and throughout the Middle
East--has shown all too clearly that energy can be used as a
geopolitical tool. Adding a new and reliable source of natural gas onto
the world market will diversify our allies' energy sources and greatly
reduce their vulnerability to a single monopolistic supplier.
I am proud to author this legislation. It is a job creator. It helps
America in
[[Page H613]]
leveraging the geopolitical stage across the globe. We have seen enough
delay. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I reiterate that I would hope that some of the speakers from the
other side would answer the question as to whether or not this
liquefied natural gas is going to reach Eastern Europe. I dispute that.
Just sort of as an aside, I know no one will say anything regarding
same, but the fact of the matter is that, for years, the discussion was
the price of regular gasoline. Now that it is nearing $2 and we are the
world's biggest producer of natural gas and moving pretty well, I might
add--and I am glad to see--along the clean energy line, I just am
curious whether President Obama gets any credit at all for any of these
changes because those who argued that gasoline would be at $6 and $7--I
even saw one at $8 a gallon--I am just curious, since that didn't
occur, what the thought is.
I recognize we are here on another subject, but I would hope that we
would get an answer regarding the LNG and Ukraine especially.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We really do want to address both of your questions. I think they are
both legitimate questions.
First of all, according to Hungary's Ambassador at Large for Energy
Security, lifting restrictions on import ``would send an extremely
important message of strategic reassurance to the region which
currently feels more threatened than any time since the cold war.''
I will yield in a second to the author of the bill because he
understands that piece of the pie.
We talk about thuggery from Russia. The Ukrainians had to renegotiate
the amount of money that they were paying just to get their natural gas
and stay warm because the Russians raised that price on them. We think
that is gouging and taking advantage of people.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to discuss
this point that you asked about.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, right now, today, about 50 percent of Russia's revenue
comes from taxes on oil and gas. About 80 percent of that resource goes
through the Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are under tremendous
pressure, as are other European allies, by the Russians.
Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is shipped, increasing supply
and competition in the global marketplace will help provide
international consumers with greater choice.
In fact, a representative of the U.S. State Department made a similar
statement on the benefits of U.S. natural gas exports at a January 8,
2015, Atlantic Council forum. This is from the State Department:
Now, where the gas will go doesn't matter. The fact that we
have approved exports of natural gas has already had an
impact on Europe.
Just the fact that America is getting into the game has put the
Russians on notice that our friends and allies and people that they are
currently putting under pressure--the Ukrainians and others--are going
to have a choice, and it is going to make a different conversation
happen at the table.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that helped clarify it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, it does help us. I thank the
gentleman.
Let us keep going on the second part of the question, which was: Can
President Obama just get any bit of credit, just any bit, just a small
measure? Well, I would respond to the gentleman: yes, but when he earns
it.
The President has made it known from the very beginning that he
opposed energy policy that the free market tried to produce. Take this
example: even though he was at the groundbreaking for the Keystone
pipeline, he has been incapable of making a decision for 6 years on
something that multiple people, including at least two former
Presidents and lots of other people, said it makes a lot of sense to
do.
Also, the facts of the case are the Congressional Research Service
reported that domestic natural gas production has risen by 19 percent
since 2009 but decreased by 28 percent on Federal lands.
{time} 1515
So, the idea that the President has tried to help this while reducing
it by almost a third from Federal lands, the evidence is just not there
to give him credit.
I know that there are people who want to get credit for things even
though they didn't do things, even though they didn't complete the task
that was in front of them, making decisions, making wise decisions,
showing the American people what you stand for.
I would do this for the gentleman and help him out, but the
administration clearly has been on simply the other side of that issue
and that ball.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Corpus Christi,
Texas (Mr. Farenthold), who was with me on the border this last weekend
as we looked at border security. He comes from an energy-rich section
of our Nation and represents some of the most vibrant companies that
are trying to make this country energy-sufficient and to help make sure
that what is at the pump is at a great price and is a great product for
consumers.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, it is important we get this rule done
and move on to consideration of H.R. 351.
I am from Corpus Christi, Texas. One of the first things that
happened when I came to Congress is, I was visited by some folks from a
company that was looking to put a LNG liquefaction plant in the
district that I represent. In fact, we have got two pending in the
district that I represent.
But the first one, Cheniere Energy, a billion-plus dollar plant to
liquefy natural gas and export it, has been waiting since I was elected
to Congress, longer than I have been in Congress, over 4 years now, to
get this plant approved and online to start selling energy.
I want to address some of the questions that the gentleman from the
other side has raised with respect to this.
First and foremost, the technology is there. There is no point for
Ukraine or any other country to build the facilities to receive this
natural gas until there is a sure and steady supply of this natural
gas. And it is a lot easier to get these facilities built in other
countries where they don't have to go through the exhausting and
sometimes, I would go so far to say, insane permitting process that we
have to go through here in the United States.
In fact, there is a company looking at putting in another LNG
facility in Port Lavaca that is going to build the facility to liquefy
the natural gas on a barge, pull it up, hook up to the pipeline, and
liquefy it. This same barge technology can be used for re-gasification.
You could literally pull a barge into a seaport in the Ukraine, hook
up the ship, hook it up to a pipeline, and they could be receiving LNG
in a very short order. So it is there for any country.
And listen, there is this talk about how it could possibly run up
energy prices and natural gas prices here in the United States. The
liquefaction process consumes some of the natural gas. The numbers I
hear vary from around 20 percent or so, and so it will always be
cheaper to deliver the gas by pipeline here in the United States, so we
will always have a competitive advantage with the natural gas that we
produce.
But we have got to have a market for that natural gas. Right now,
pretty much the only natural gas we are seeing produced out of the
Eagle Ford shale in Texas is produced with oil. You drill a well, you
get both oil and gas.
We have seen a huge dropoff in drilling for natural gas because the
demand is so low and the supply is so high, to the point where we are
drilling wells and we have discovered gas, and we shut that well then
and don't produce it.
We have got to strike while the iron is hot. We can help improve our
balance of trade with the world. We can put people back to work, and it
can all be done at no government expense. We have just got to get the
regulators in Washington, D.C., out of our hair and let our country do
this so we can improve the economy for everybody in America.
[[Page H614]]
We can have a much more secure economy. We can have people back to
work. We can have a plentiful supply of energy for the foreseeable
future.
You have got Marcellus shale, you have got the Eagle Ford shale, you
have got the Barnett shale, you have got Pennsylvania, you have got
Texas, you have got North Dakota. There is plentiful natural gas. We
need a market for it.
By approving this rule and the underlying legislation, that will
happen. Americans will go back to work, and America, as a whole, will
prosper.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman very much, not only for taking
time to discuss these important issues but really for his
representation of an industry that can do so many great things, not
only for the American people but, really, to help out our friends
around the world.
It becomes a part of a very positive foreign affairs policy that the
United States, instead of going overseas to get energy, we can be
delivering that energy. Instead of having to have a blue water navy, a
navy that is stretched to keep shipping lanes open, we can be handing
these off to other countries to take them.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there was a vigorous opportunity, on a
bipartisan basis, a discussion that not only did Bill Johnson take part
in but also Mr. Garamendi, the gentleman, the Democrat from California,
and Ed Whitfield, the subcommittee chairman, about how the delivery of
this LNG can be on American ships.
A shipbuilding industry to build the ships to meet the specifications
that would be necessary to put them in the water to deliver these
around the world can be an American-made product also.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I do want to point out that the President even
understands that there is an ability there for the Ukraine. Speaking in
Ukraine recently, he said: ``We welcome the prospect of U.S. LNG
efforts in the future since additional global supplies will benefit
Europe and other strategic partners.''
That is a quote somebody sent me from President Obama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, for the
first time in a long time, we did not receive a Statement of
Administration Policy that the President is opposed to this.
It was a bipartisan presentation in the Rules Committee yesterday.
Not unprecedented but a really good feeling about us working together
for the common interest, to make sure that the American worker comes
out on top of this, that the taxpayer comes out on top of this, that we
are producing good legislation that can go to the United States Senate,
this time, to be heard and passed on, so that we can get this
legislation so the President does earn that part of his check on the
box that says: And thank you, Mr. President, for agreeing and working
with us. Thank you for helping us out.
I think this can get through the House. I think it can get to the
Senate, and I think the President will sign it.
Mr. Speaker, if that is not a positive declaration about the
President seeing great things, and me wanting and needing and expecting
the President to do what I think is the right thing, then we are simply
miscast today.
This is a good thing for America. This is a good thing for both
parties. But this is a good thing for our friends around the world and
diplomacy also.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Friendswood,
Texas (Mr. Weber), my dear colleague.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Folks, the world is an inherently dangerous
place. Watch the news.
Think with me for a minute. When the world has a catastrophe--and it
doesn't matter whether it is a tsunami, an earthquake, whether it is
fire, pestilence, whether it is war--when the world has a catastrophe
and dials 911, who is it that answers?
It is America, isn't it? With our military.
It is America that answers that 911 call. Now, how do we do that?
It is because this country has the strongest, most stable, most
reliable, affordable energy capacity and capability in the world.
America is able to produce goods. I often say the things that make
America great are the things that America makes, and our fossil fuel
energy supply is what underwrites that.
You don't think that's right?
And I would argue that not only is it America's security; when
America is strong, the world is strong. You don't think fossil fuel
energy is important, try powering a tank or a jet plane with a solar
panel, Mr. Speaker. You won't get very far.
We must remain strong. As I said, for the world to be safe, America
has got to be strong. This rule and this bill, H.R. 351, are important
not only to America's economy but also our national security and, I
would argue, by extension, with the world depending on us,
international security.
Yes, we have a stable, long-lasting reliable source of energy here in
America. We have the opportunity to export that to our friends around
the globe and help them to be safe, help them to be productive.
We will produce American jobs in the process. We will improve our
balance of trade, as my friend from Corpus Christi said earlier.
LNG is helping not only with the economy, Mr. Speaker, but with
national and, by extension, international security.
I have three plants in my district. The permitting process needs to
be expedited and move forward. That is why I rise today in support of
the rule, in support of H.R. 351.
Two LNG facilities in my district and one more on the books. They
mean jobs. They mean security.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support this bill, put
Americans to work, help America continue to be a leader, to be safe,
and, indeed, help keep this world safe.
I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the gentleman stick
around for a minute because, as a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, he is most genuinely involved in trying to make sure that
discussions about America and our allies and how the world sees us are
well understood.
As a man who comes from not only Friendswood, Texas, which, like Mr.
Farenthold, is right in the center of this enterprise where we ship our
natural resources around the world, I would really like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman to talk about the impact of foreign affairs.
The gentleman, Mr. Hastings, had asked a question about, well, why
does this matter?
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Thank you. Great questions.
I didn't talk about the fact that I have five ports in my district on
the Gulf Coast of Texas, more than any other Member of Congress. Some
have four. I have five LNG plants, LPG plants.
Sixty percent of the Nation's jet fuel is produced in my district, 60
percent of the Nation's jet fuel. An extremely large amount, a
classified amount of the military's fuel. They won't tell us how much,
but a large amount of the military's fuel.
Strategic petroleum reserves abound in my district. Again, we can't
find out how much, but it is a huge amount.
From a foreign affairs initiative--and I have been over to Japan, I
have been over to the Philippines, I have been to Hong Kong, South
Korea, Taiwan--they want our LNG. They would much rather buy it from us
than from the Russian bear.
Don't you know the people in Ukraine would much rather be dependent
on us because we are not a dictatorship, at least not supposed to be,
and we are not going to cut off their fuel because we have a
disagreement with the way the Russian separatists activate or believe?
So it is a foreign affairs, it is a foreign policy initiative. As I
said earlier, it helps make the world safer. It helps create jobs over
here. It helps with our balance of trade, or imbalance of trade. It is
an important issue, and it is one that bears supporting.
Support the rule, support this bill because it is not only important
for America from an energy perspective, from a security perspective,
but an international or world trade perspective, as well as world
security. For foreign policy, it matters.
I thank the gentleman from Texas.
[[Page H615]]
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas, who, Mr.
Speaker, has a keen understanding about not only what is in America's
best interest, by serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but who is
also a proud man who understands that people who work hard have jobs--
clean, natural gas, an opportunity for America to get the benefits of
one of God's greatest gifts to the United States that we can share with
others.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there are a whole lot of ways for us to
look at not only what lies ahead with opportunity, but I think we can
also look at some models of success, and one of them might be my home
State of Texas.
{time} 1530
My home State of Texas has incredible opportunities and benefits that
have arisen from the ability to have energy abundance, the ability to
have oil, natural gas, and other elements that can be used in this
industry to make our country stronger, but what is happening is that we
have also used it to Texas' benefit and America's benefit. That is
right.
Just to tell a story, if it weren't for Texas, net job growth over
the last 7 years in America would be flat. That means you take all 49
States, level it out--the minuses, the pluses, net it out--America
would not have net positive job growth. But because of Texas, I can
tell you that we now have created a net increase of 1.2 million jobs in
America, net, and that has come because of Texas. So it is literally
entirely a Texas product.
The essence of this has come from not just lower taxes, not just
better roads, great schools, better education, good people, but it
comes from a philosophy of understanding that we need to utilize these
natural resources for the benefit of our world. To make jobs, job
creation important, instead of delaying things, Texas had to make sure
that what we did is we used it to our advantage.
So instead of not making decisions, like this Federal Government does
by delaying major initiatives, we signed them into law. We got them
done. We made things happen. So by doing that, when you do that, then
you stand a chance to better everybody's life.
I would now like to give the gentleman from Florida a chance to
finish his time, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, I don't want to in any way disparage the lovefest of my
friends from Texas. I recognize that everything is big in Texas.
Also, as a child, I even learned the songs of Texas, ``The Yellow
Rose of Texas,'' ``Deep in the Heart of Texas,'' a whole of bunch of
them which I hold dear from my childhood.
I would like to have the gentleman who was called upon as a foreign
affairs expert--because he serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee--to
know, then, that I guess I too am a foreign affairs expert since I
served on that committee for 8 years, served on the Intelligence
Committee for 8 years. All of the countries that the gentleman
mentioned, I have been to.
I assuredly never got an answer from the chairman or anyone else
regarding whether or not Ukraine--and it is not ``the Ukraine''; it is
``Ukraine''--didn't get an answer as to whether they were prepared to
receive liquefied natural gas.
I also know that we are mindful of the sanctions on Russia and how it
is impacting them.
I didn't only just go to Ukraine. In their first election after the
Orange Revolution, I was the lead election monitor for the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
I don't come to this dance without having some understanding, and I
would urge that I still didn't get--although my friend, the chairman,
seemed to suggest that the President is deserving of something that he
earns, my belief is that the President has allowed for more gas leases
than I would have had him do.
I would urge that just off the press, embargoed until noon today, is
a press release from the United States Department of the Interior,
which receives a lot of negative comment from my colleagues regarding
regulations. ``Interior Department Announces Draft Strategy for
Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing.'' The draft proposal program includes 14
potential lease sales in eight planning areas--10 sales in the Gulf of
Mexico, three off the coast of Alaska, and one in a portion of the mid-
and south Atlantic.
Now, let me make it very clear. That might make a whole lot of people
happy. It does not make me happy because they are discussing leases in
the Gulf of Mexico where, I believe, there is substantial
infrastructure from areas like Louisiana and Texas in the western
portion of the gulf. I guess we just ignore things like the BP oil
spill, and we ignore the potential for those kinds of disasters.
So I can't disagree very much with the chairman regarding much of his
statistics, but I want the administration and my friend from Texas, the
chairman, to know that, as I have said repeatedly, I will be the last
person standing in this House of Representatives opposed to offshore
drilling in my State of Florida no matter the views that others have. I
believe there is enough wind from our respective oceans to double the
amount of energy that we have, and, yes, my friend, there are aircraft
that are powered without fossil fuel.
We were originally scheduled this week to also consider a border
security bill, but that bill was scuttled yesterday amidst a number of
things.
My friends, the Republicans, are pretty lucky. As bad as the
snowstorm is, particularly for the New England area of our country,
many of our colleagues could not get back here yesterday and probably
won't be able to get back here today as well. The reason I say they are
lucky is they can hide--by pulling the border bill--under the fact that
there was a snowstorm and people couldn't get in here, and that is
legitimate, in my view.
The other part of the concern--and we will see about it next week and
the week after--is that many conservatives in the Republican Party are
jumping ship on the border bill, and that was out there as well. Just
like last week, just like last Congress, there is a rift in the
majority, leaving it unable to even pass legislation that all of its
Members can agree on.
Unfortunately, we have real problems in this country that my friends
are going to have to address. So I look forward to my friends' plan to
repair our crumbling roads and bridges in this country, and I can't
wait to see how this body will combat the national security threat of
climate change, in spite of all of your denials.
I hope that my friends intend to ensure that women receive equal pay
for equal work, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
make sure that many of the reforms in our tax structure allow for those
persons who are ultrawealthy to pay their fair proportion of what they
earn and to reform our Tax Code so that middle-income Americans can
benefit and poor Americans can rise to the middle class.
With America's workers' wages stagnant for so long, including our own
here in the House of Representatives, we are entering the seventh year
without any increase in wages. And those of us who are poorer Members
of Congress have experienced the kinds of difficulties of just being
here in Washington and the cost for being here. I am seeking no
sympathies. It is just a fact.
So with those wages stagnant for so long, I look forward to hearing
from my colleagues on how they plan to raise the minimum wage in this
country. Because until my friends can address their dysfunction and
inability to lead, I am afraid our country is in for 2 more years of
uncertainty.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that most Presidents get a lot of
credit on their watch and a lot of negative when things go wrong. For
once, our gas prices are down, and my friends can't even bring
themselves to say that this President deserves some credit. I do. I see
it. He deserves some credit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, Texas is the great
American jobs machine. We talked about how we create jobs because we
have effectively used the resources that, in many instances, Mother
Nature and God have given us. So now it is time for Washington, I
think, to learn from models that we do in Texas, where we learn to
capitalize on all of
[[Page H616]]
our resources--in this case, the energy revolution that is at hand.
Look, what Republicans have done today is brought a bill that is
common sense to the floor to unleash our natural resources, to make
sure that it helps out not only our foreign policy, but workers and
jobs in this country, and that is important. So it is a policy issue.
The Republican Party is dead-on. There is going to be a bipartisan vote
today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 48 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 469 and H.R.
246, each by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 169, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 46]
YEAS--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--169
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Bera
Buchanan
Capuano
Crowley
DeFazio
Duckworth
Engel
Heck (NV)
Jones
Lee
Lieu (CA)
Marino
Meeks
Meng
Neal
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Schock
Slaughter
Walorski
{time} 1606
Ms. MATSUI changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________