[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H645-H654]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
LNG PERMITTING CERTAINTY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 48, I call
up the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited approval of exportation
of natural gas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 351
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``LNG Permitting Certainty and
Transparency Act''.
SEC. 2. ACTION ON APPLICATIONS.
(a) Decision Deadline.--For proposals that must also obtain
authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
or the United States Maritime Administration to site,
construct, expand, or operate LNG export facilities, the
Department of Energy shall issue a final decision on any
application for the authorization to export natural gas under
section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) not later
than 30 days after the later of--
(1) the conclusion of the review to site, construct,
expand, or operate the LNG facilities required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S. C. 4321 et
seq.); or
(2) the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Conclusion of Review.--For purposes of subsection (a),
review required by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 shall be considered concluded--
(1) for a project requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement, 30 days after publication of a Final Environmental
Impact Statement;
(2) for a project for which an Environmental Assessment has
been prepared, 30 days after publication by the Department of
Energy of a Finding of No Significant Impact; and
(3) upon a determination by the lead agency that an
application is eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 implementing
regulations.
(c) Judicial Action.--(1) The United States Court of
Appeals for the circuit in which the export facility will be
located pursuant to an application described in subsection
(a) shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any
civil action for the review of--
(A) an order issued by the Department of Energy with
respect to such application; or
(B) the Department of Energy's failure to issue a final
decision on such application.
(2) If the Court in a civil action described in paragraph
(1) finds that the Department of Energy has failed to issue a
final decision on the application as required under
subsection (a), the Court shall order the Department of
Energy to issue such final decision not later than 30 days
after the Court's order.
(3) The Court shall set any civil action brought under this
subsection for expedited consideration and shall set the
matter on the docket as soon as practical after the filing
date of the initial pleading.
SEC. 3. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EXPORT DESTINATIONS.
Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Public Disclosure of LNG Export Destinations.--As a
condition for approval of any authorization to export LNG,
the Secretary of Energy shall require the applicant to
publicly disclose the specific destination or destinations of
any such authorized LNG exports.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. WHITFIELD. 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. 351.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting
Certainty and Transparency Act sponsored by Congressman Bill Johnson of
Ohio.
All of us recognize that the economy in the U.S. has been sputtering.
We have had great advancements in technology, however, and innovation
in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have led America to
become the number one natural gas producing nation in the world.
Our natural gas output has rapidly increased since 2005 and is
expected to continue rising in the decades ahead in response to growing
demand. Plentiful natural gas is helping many domestic energy producers
and manufacturers and is spurring new investment and job growth here in
America.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce has held multiple hearings and
forums to discuss the domestic growth in natural gas production and its
potential impact on trade, geopolitics, and energy production and
consumption in America.
We now have the opportunity to bring more of this critical energy
resource to other parts of the world while stimulating our energy
security, economic growth, and foreign policy.
I might add that over the last year, many of us have been really
surprised by the number of representatives from other countries in
Europe and around the world who are pleading with America to export
their natural gas so that those countries are not as dependent upon
countries like Russia and others.
I might also add that, in 2012, the Department of Energy commissioned
a report by NERA Economic Consulting to assess the economic impacts of
LNG exports. NERA recently updated this study to include the most
current projections from the Energy Information Administration.
Like the 2012 study, the update found that U.S. LNG exports will
bring widespread economic benefits, touching many parts of our economy,
and that those benefits would consistently increase as exports
increase.
The NERA study also found that the construction of new LNG export
projects is estimated to put up to 45,000 unemployed Americans back to
work. I might also add that this legislation does not in any way change
anything that FERC has responsibility for in approving siting of these
natural gas pipelines and facilities for export, so we are not
affecting in any way any environmental aspects of it.
I might also say that the reason this bill is being introduced is
because we think that the Department of Energy has been dragging its
feet a little bit. They have responsibility over the commodity of the
natural gas, and they have to go through a process. This legislation
also applies only to non-free trade agreements that the U.S. deals
with.
Since 2010, the Department of Energy has issued a final decision on
five of the 37 applications to export LNG to countries where the U.S.
does not have a free trade agreement.
[[Page H646]]
Now, DOE's authority to regulate the export of natural gas arises
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. This provision creates a
rebuttable presumption that a proposed export of natural gas is in the
public interest. DOE must grant the application unless opponents of the
application overcome the presumption, and there are 18 countries where
we have these free trade agreements.
DOE's process to review applications to export LNG to non-free trade
agreement countries is much more complex and unpredictable, and this
legislation would help clarify that and create some certainty. It
amends section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to give DOE 30 days to issue a
final decision on an LNG export application after a complete NEPA
environmental review on the facility.
Additionally, H.R. 351 provides for expedited judicial reviews by the
United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the export
facility will be located, and this is important as well. It requires
public disclosure of export destinations, so we know where it is going
as a condition of approval of authorization to export LNG.
This is a very important piece of legislation. I want to commend Mr.
Johnson of Ohio for introducing this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which is simply
unnecessary. The Department of Energy currently conducts a public
interest review of all applications to export liquefied natural gas to
a country without a free trade agreement with the United States.
To date, DOE has approved four such applications to export LNG and
has issued conditional approvals to four additional applications. DOE
has approved all applications that have completed their required NEPA
review, and so there is no backlog or delay at the DOE to speak of.
With these permits alone, we have the ability to become one of the
largest exporters of natural gas in the world, and so legislation to
impose an arbitrary 30-day deadline on DOE, as suggested by the
underlying bill, is simply unnecessary.
With regard to exporting natural gas, we should keep in mind that low
domestic natural gas prices can provide an important competitive
advantage to U.S. manufacturing, and simple economics tells us that
additional demand due to unrestricted exports can raise domestic
natural gas prices, so we should think twice about giving away this
advantage for short-term export profits when we are trying hard to
rebuild our long-term manufacturing base.
We should also remember that the bill will not result in LNG exports
to Europe for some time, if at all. Although one LNG export terminal is
set to begin full operation later this year, all other terminals remain
under construction or are in the planning process.
DOE's conditional approval for those facilities allows them to
continue moving forward, but this legislation won't help speed up their
construction or affect how quickly they can actually operate, so
passing this bill today will not magically send LNG from the proposed
terminals tomorrow.
When the United States actually begins to export significant
quantities of LNG, it will most likely go to Asia, not Europe. The
export terminals most likely to get constructed have already signed
long-term contracts to supply LNG to various customers, and those
destinations are primarily in Asia.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I don't believe the phantom
LNG export backlog is one of the pressing issues facing ordinary
Americans, and I don't believe that expediting this type of
infrastructure is what our country needs most.
I believe our country should be encouraging the use of renewable
energy resources like wind and solar power. We should be investing in
increased energy efficiency and a smart grid. We should be trying to
find ways to make our energy infrastructure more resilient and capable
of withstanding extreme weather events, like Hurricane Sandy.
These are the types of clean energy solutions that America should be
investing in, the type that will enhance our energy security, reduce
carbon emissions, and lower overall energy costs to customers.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't achieve any of these goals. In fact,
the 30-day deadline in the bill could have counterproductive results.
If DOE is forced to make a decision before they have determined if the
project is in the public interest, it may have no choice but to deny
the application, and that outcome certainly doesn't benefit anyone,
especially the applicants.
This is the third time this month that the Republican majority has
brought secondhand energy legislation to the floor, legislation that
passed the House last Congress. Like the two bills before it, H.R. 351
would also serve no real purpose.
I just hope that we can begin soon to look at new energy legislation
that will move America forward in developing a clean energy
infrastructure. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to vote
against this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 351, the LNG
Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. This important legislation
will bring certainty to the Department of Energy's review process for
LNG export applications, create American jobs, continue spurring
America's manufacturing comeback, and provide a stable source of energy
to our allies in Europe and around the world.
Thanks to the energy renaissance occurring throughout eastern and
southeastern Ohio and across the United States, America is able to
produce large quantities of natural gas like never before, enough to
meet our domestic natural gas demands and export excess LNG to the
global marketplace.
Through the abundance of natural gas, we have an opportunity to
significantly affect geopolitics and to create American jobs, but only
if we enact smart policies like H.R. 351.
The window of opportunity for LNG exports will not remain open
indefinitely, so it is important that Congress act immediately. If
Congress fails to act, companies will continue to face regulatory
uncertainty, which creates hesitancy in securing financing for
constructing LNG terminals, plus nations with near-term energy needs
will look elsewhere.
Potential geopolitical benefits such as reducing the oppressive
influence of other exporters like Russia and Iran, while simultaneously
strengthening ties with our allies, could be ultimately jeopardized.
Some of my colleagues are concerned that increased LNG exports will
not really help our allies in Europe, but that is simply not true.
Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is sent, increasing the supply and
competition in the international market will provide global consumers
with greater choice and, most importantly, increased leverage when
negotiating LNG pricing contracts.
In fact, by no longer importing such large amounts of LNG, the U.S.
has already indirectly helped our European allies. With the passage of
this legislation, even more LNG will be free to go to places that need
it most.
Equally important, if we delay, domestic economic benefits may also
fail to materialize, specifically the opportunity to create some 45,000
jobs by 2018 and increase hardworking taxpayer salaries by $1 billion
over 6 years. This is a win for manufacturing, especially those who
make drilling equipment pipeline components, not to mention the
refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors.
For these reasons, Congress must pass H.R. 351. To date, DOE has
issued a final decision on only five of the 38 pending LNG export
applications received since 2010. This is unacceptable. I urge my
colleagues to help bring certainty to DOE's approval process, create
jobs, help maximize American energy production, and help our allies
abroad by voting for this important legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.
[[Page H647]]
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for his leadership and for his positive
contributions to this entire institution.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to oppose H.R. 351 because, once again, it is
a proposed solution to a problem that we can't find, a problem that we
have searched high and low for. This problem, Mr. Speaker, simply
doesn't exist.
Here we are, here we go once again, coming up with solutions to a
problem that doesn't even exist. When will my colleagues on the other
side do something productively in this Congress and come up with real
solutions to problems that do exist for the American people?
Mr. Speaker, currently, the Department of Energy, as we speak today,
has already approved not one, not two, not three, not even four, but
five applications--five--for existing LNG, and there are four more
conditional approvals pending.
{time} 0930
Altogether, Mr. Speaker, the approved applications authorize the
export of over 10 million cubic feet per day of LNG. The pending
applications collectively seek an additional 27.5 billion cubic feet of
LNG exported each and every day--27.5.
Where is the problem? Show me the problem. Show me the way. Point out
the problem.
Mr. Speaker, this 30-day deadline that arbitrarily mandates the DOE
application process would short-circuit the public interest review--
short circuit--cut it short. The public doesn't have any input. No
review by the public.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. RUSH. This arbitrary mandatory 30-day deadline would
unnecessarily fast-track the DOE to hastily make a decision on export
applications, regardless of how complex the application may be. The
result of this ambiguous 30-day deadline may negatively affect DOE's
ability to soberly and thoroughly assess the impact that cumulative
exports may have on natural gas prices.
What would be the effect of gas at the station, at the pump, on the
American people, and we all of a sudden, without any study, without any
conversation, without any consideration, just force the DOE to
arbitrarily meet this 30-day deadline? What is going to be the effect
on the consumer in terms of these gas prices at the pump? Are they
going to skyrocket as a result of this hasty, irresponsible action?
Tell me, do you have answers to that?
It may even result in the unintended consequence of actually denying
applications if the agency does not have the time to complete its due
diligence. This is insane. This is the utmost of insanity.
Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill because at the end of the day
when you skim away all of the rhetoric and all the hyperbole around
this bill, it will not speed up energy exports to Europe and it will
not speed up exports to our other allies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Elvis Presley: let this body
return this bill to sender, return it to sender, address unknown, no
such problem, no such home.
Mr. Speaker, let's send this bill back to committee where it can go
through regular order, and we can have a thorough discussion on these
important issues before voting on such a consequential bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), who has been a real leader in helping
America become energy independent.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill because this is
simply a commonsense bill.
As you know, the U.S. is now the largest producer of natural gas in
the world and has proven gas resources to supply our needs for decades
to come. This is an achievement that we have reached despite roadblocks
and delays from the executive branch. The latest delay is the
Department of Energy's rule from last summer to hold up export terminal
applications.
This important bill streamlines the review process for LNG exports by
requiring a timeline for making a decision and making agencies work
together on the review. This is commonsense change, Mr. Speaker.
Innovations in the harvesting and production of natural gas have cut
energy bills for families across the country. Those are the same
innovations that have also made it affordable to ship LNG around the
globe.
The responsible and safe development of our natural resources through
new technologies, such as horizontal drilling, have begun an energy and
manufacturing renaissance in America.
And who is feeling the benefits? American families and businesses
with an affordable and reliable energy supply. But that could all end
unless we let the free market work.
Let's end the administration's de facto ban on new exports and bring
market stability to the global gas market. Let's get the government out
of the way, and let's give our American innovators a chance to work.
Mr. Speaker, my district, the State of Ohio, and the entire Nation
will reap the benefits of more jobs, increased pay, and lower energy
costs if we pass this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 351 and end the self-imposed
restrictions on LNG exports.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 21 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green), who is the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me explain the problem we
have and the need for this bill today.
The bill is the exact same language that passed this House last
Congress, and it came through our committee, the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Now, what this bill does is give the Department of Energy some
deadlines to make a decision on our national interests--that is what it
does--so we can do it. They have held those permits sometimes up to 2
years to make that determination.
If you have a free trade agreement with the United States, we can
export natural gas to you. But they need to decide the national
interests. I want the DOE to do that, but I also want to make a
decision in very quick time.
We know who our friends are, we know who our adversaries are. We
don't really want to send it to our adversaries, we want to send it to
our friends. So that is DOE's job.
The reason we need this bill is that right now today, or yesterday,
gas is $2.88 per million cubic feet. It was up about $4, which is still
not great for a producer. But what we have been doing in south Texas is
flaring natural gas. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the
people who produce it because they don't have a customer. And what we
need to do is be able to export what we can't use.
In Texas we are very proud of Blue Bell ice cream. In fact, their
advertising slogan is: ``We eat all we can and we sell the rest.''
I have a chemical industry, I have a utility industry that uses
natural gas. They are using it. But we still have a lot of production.
So why would we not use all we can in our country and sell the rest and
make somebody else pay for those jobs that we have in our community?
And that is the problem.
We know the price of oil is going down. But oil and natural gas
sometimes come out of the same well. So that is why we need to make
sure that we have the right, on a reasonable timeframe, to export
natural gas to countries that we want to be friendly with. I would love
to have a natural gas export right now to Ukraine. The infrastructure
over there is not there. It could get there with some reversing
pipelines.
H.R. 351 represents a bipartisan effort to legislate and warrant its
approval.
[[Page H648]]
We worked together on this bill, and it represents that hard work.
The bill is good for the economy, the climate, and the U.S. security
interests. The United States has natural resources to become the
largest exporter of LNG in the world. Our natural gas reserves can meet
all our domestic natural gas needs and still have an excess capacity of
3 trillion cubic feet.
Before we discuss H.R. 351 it is important we clarify the LNG
permitting process, just so there is no confusion. A project applicant
must submit two separate applications: the first to the Department of
Energy and the second to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
FERC.
In the Department of Energy, there are two complete separate
processes. First, the project must submit an application to export. If
the project sends LNG to a country with which the U.S. has a free trade
agreement, the application is automatically approved.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member. I appreciate it.
If the project sends the LNG to a country without a free trade
agreement, then the DOE must issue a permit based on the public
interest. These are very important determinations. However, LNG will
not leave the United States with DOE approval only.
For a project to actually export LNG, in either case, the applicant
must receive a FERC permit. FERC reviews the environmental impacts of
the actual LNG facility. FERC conducts and reviews all environmental
impacts to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. No company will export a
single cubic foot of LNG without FERC approval. FERC's process takes 12
to 18 months and costs approximately $100 million.
We have worked extremely hard to protect the environment. It is the
DOE non-FTA process that is the problem. The DOE currently has
approximately 30 non-FTA permits awaiting decision. The DOE has held
most of these permits almost 4 years. Even the DOE recognized this huge
problem and tried to address the backlog last summer by changing the
approval process. Unfortunately, the changes failed to expedite
approval or provide any certainty to companies who are investing $100
million, and these are U.S. companies.
H.R. 351 resolved this issue only after it receives all environmental
permits.
H.R. 351 would place a 30-day timeline for the DOE to issue a
decision after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completes its
environmental reviews.
Once again, we have protected the environmental review process. We
have protected the public interest. And DOE, which held some of these
applications 4 years--we cannot allow DOE to sit on these permits any
longer. They must do their job and do it in a timely fashion.
Opponents of H.R. 351 say if all permits are approved, we will export
more than 35 trillion cubic feet. Opponents say exports will double or
triple domestic natural gas prices. Opponents say exports of that size
will endanger our domestic industry, raise electricity prices, and have
ruinous effects on our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I represent enormous petrochemical facilities, power
generators, and workers.
I remember when domestic natural gas prices caused companies in my
district to move jobs overseas.
If what opponents of H.R. 351 say were even remotely possible, I
would be the first one to oppose this bill.
My constituents work at those facilities.
Those facilities pay taxes and fund the hospitals and schools in my
district.
There are dozens of applications pending at DOE.
No more than a handful of projects will be constructed and ultimately
export LNG.
But each project deserves a fair opportunity at review.
Each company deserves the opportunity to pursue financing in the
capital markets.
The government should not make those decisions.
Each LNG facility costs billions, not to mention the jobs associated
with pipeline construction, electric transmission, local services, etc.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 351 and support this bipartisan
effort.
Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Turner), who has been a real leader on helping America become
energy independent.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, U.S. natural gas exports will create
American jobs and will bolster our strategic partnerships.
I serve as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and many
foreign leaders and officials have expressed to me their need for
energy diversification. As you know, Russia, the largest supplier of
natural gas to Europe, has repeatedly used natural gas pricing to draw
governments closer to its orbit and punished West-leaning governments
with higher prices.
U.S. natural gas exports will foster a more dynamic and competitive
world energy market, helping to curb the use of energy as a political
weapon. And regardless of where natural gas from the United States is
shipped, increasing supply in the global market will help international
customers with greater choice and leverage to negotiate prices.
In fact, the Obama administration has made this exact same argument.
The State Department's energy envoy recently stated:
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. And where the molecule actually ends up
going also doesn't matter.
Now, I understand there have been questions about whether or not
European countries, such as Ukraine, are prepared to receive U.S.
natural gas. Many of our European allies are implementing
infrastructure projects to diversify their natural gas resources.
For example, Poland and Lithuania are opening LNG import terminals to
reduce their dependence on Russian gas. Just last week, Poland and
Ukraine announced an agreement to construct a pipeline that will allow
Ukraine to access natural gas from two LNG import terminals,
potentially from the United States. England and Spain already have
contracts in place to receive U.S. natural gas.
These are just a few examples of how these infrastructure projects
will help Europe diversify its natural gas resources.
Mr. Speaker, last year, President Obama, in a joint statement with
European leaders, welcomed U.S. natural gas exports to help our
European allies and our strategic partners.
I am encouraged by the President's statements. These words must be
followed by action. The President must work with Congress to enact H.R.
351.
I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
{time} 0945
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have heard my colleagues suggest that there is a delay in the DOE's
approval of LNG export applications.
For instance, on Monday night at the Rules Committee, Mr. Johnson
indicated that the DOE has approved only five out of 38 applications
since 2010. Even if the gentleman from Ohio is correct in his
assertion, the fact is that the five applications approved by the Obama
administration since 2010 are five more than were approved by the
Reagan administration or by either Bush administration. In fact, it is
five more than were approved by the Clinton, Carter, Ford, or Nixon
administration. In 2011, the DOE approved the first LNG export
application for the Cheniere Sabine Pass facility. That facility is set
to become operational at the end of this year. That was the DOE's first
approval to export LNG since the 1960s.
The dramatic growth of natural gas production and supply in the
United States was considered impossible a decade ago, so the DOE
commissioned a study to help it decide how to address additional
applications. After establishing a transparent and systematic system
for reviewing and authorizing LNG export applications, the DOE began to
rapidly issue decisions. The record demonstrates that the DOE has moved
aggressively to authorize LNG exports, granting three additional final
authorizations and four conditional approvals since August of 2013.
To date, the DOE has approved the export of enough LNG to make the
United States the world leader in LNG exports. All other pending
applications are still under review at FERC, not at the DOE, so it is
important to understand that this bill does not change the
[[Page H649]]
FERC review process--the site approvals, the environmental approvals. I
would also remind my colleagues that the DOE automatically deems LNG
exports to free trade agreement countries to be in the public interest.
Before the DOE can issue a decision on the pending applications, both
FERC approval and construction will need to be completed. That could
take months or, more likely, years, but this bill will not affect that
timeline, which will be the critical factor in how much more gas can be
exported. That is why I want to emphasize that this bill is unnecessary
and will not materially change the LNG export situation anytime soon.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, they say that you can't have too much of a
good thing, but with our impressive natural gas production, that is
exactly what we have today. We now have so much natural gas that we
cannot only meet our own energy needs and still have extra to sell, but
our natural gas boom can be used as a force for good here at home as a
source for jobs and across the globe as a source of stable energy.
There is no question that the whole shale revolution helped break the
fever of the Great Recession. Thanks to innovation and technological
advancement, energy production remained a welcome bright spot in our
national economy, but we aren't out of the woods yet. We all know that.
Millions of folks, certainly in Michigan and across the country, still
find themselves unemployed, underemployed, or facing stagnant
paychecks. This bill, this legislation, will help accelerate their
return to full employment.
At the request of the Department of Energy, NERA Economic Consulting
evaluated the economic impacts of U.S. LNG exports. The NERA study
showed a net positive impact to the United States economy and estimated
that LNG exports would actually reduce the average number of unemployed
workers by as much as 45,000 people by 2018. We will also see tens of
thousands of additional jobs created in the supply chain. I am talking
about good-paying jobs that will help families achieve a better life.
The bill will also advance our foreign policy goals. U.S. LNG exports
can provide our allies with a secure and affordable supply of energy
and can reduce the influence of hostile exporting nations like Russia,
which continues to threaten Ukraine and, really, all of Europe's
natural gas supply. Passing this bill will send the welcome signal to
our allies in Eastern Europe that, yes, an alternative source of energy
is on its way.
The domestic and geopolitical benefits make increasing U.S. LNG
exports a win-win, but the Department of Energy continues to hold up
the process. Since 2010, the DOE has only issued a final decision on
five applications to export LNG to countries with which we don't share
a free trade agreement. This bill would help jump-start approvals so
that we can start creating jobs and sending our surplus gas to those
countries that need it the most. It would give the DOE 30 days to issue
a decision following the completion of the environmental review.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. UPTON. The U.S. is now a global energy superpower, and with that
power, we have a chance to do some real good. Saying ``yes'' to energy
is good for workers here at home and is good for global allies.
I thank Representative Bill Johnson for his leadership on this issue,
and I would hope that everybody would support this bipartisan piece of
legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Under the current approval process for LNG exports, the Department of
Energy has a tool to protect American consumers, and that tool is the
public interest determination. The DOE has the ability to weigh the
benefits and costs of additional LNG exports, including the impact of
increased domestic natural gas prices on consumers, who use gas to heat
and cool their homes and to turn on the lights. Rigid deadlines, as
suggested in this legislation, could prevent the DOE from conducting a
meaningful public interest review, and that means that the DOE might
not be able to ensure that high levels of LNG exports do not harm
American consumers by raising the costs of electricity or home heating
or cooling.
I think consumers, Mr. Speaker, have reason to be concerned. Experts
at the nonpartisan U.S. Energy Information Administration examined this
issue, and here is what they found:
In the scenarios with additional gas exports, consumers
will consume less and pay more on both their natural gas and
electricity bills.
Furthermore, the EIA calculated that high levels of LNG exports could
mean increased residential, commercial, and industrial consumer energy
costs of $7 billion to $14 billion per year between 2020 and 2040.
Make no mistake. American consumers will foot that bill. Recent
experience with gasoline and propane exports also offers cautionary
tales. The Midwest and Northeast experienced sharp propane price spikes
and shortages last winter. Significant increases in propane exports
were a key factor in the skyrocketing prices that hurt consumers.
Just yesterday, the Center for American Progress released an analysis
on the potential impact of expanded LNG exports on consumers. They
found that, in 2020, residential consumers would pay 4.3 percent more
for natural gas per year, and those in the Midwest--in States like
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas--would be the hardest hit by price
increases. By 2040, consumers in the mid-Atlantic States would pay 10
percent more for natural gas per year.
These figures are not insignificant. We need to make sure that LNG
exports do not hurt consumers. Right now, the DOE has the ability to do
that. So, before we disregard any meaningful public interest review and
allow the unrestricted exporting of LNG, let's be sure that our
constituents won't be left footing the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting
Certainty and Transparency Act.
America's energy producers and the tens of thousands of Americans
they employ stand ready to meet the demand for a reliable and secure
source of natural gas from America and the world.
They have completed their reviews, have passed their tests, and are
ready to get to work, but there is one big problem--the Obama
administration is standing in the way. The President and his anti-
American energy agenda have placed a de facto ban on LNG exports by
logjamming their requests and using bureaucratic red tape to block
America's progress.
This bill breaks the bureaucratic gridlock and expedites the approval
of LNG exports. I have seen firsthand the jobs and the opportunities
that an LNG facility has created for the people of east Texas, in my
district. Let's help the American worker by approving H.R. 351.
Mr. PALLONE. Again, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time that remains on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 11 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment
Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are beginning the 114th
Congress the way we ended the previous one--with legislation that is
more about message than about solving real problems.
The message of H.R. 351 is that we are interested in elevating the
interests of the oil and gas industry above any others. Consumers will
not benefit from this policy, and manufacturers will not benefit from
this policy. Eliminating the public interest determination sends that
message clearly.
[[Page H650]]
In spite of the assertions by its supporters, H.R. 351 won't do much
for our allies either, especially those in Europe or Ukraine. The bill
fixes no problem. There is no backlog of applications at the Department
of Energy. Japan, our ally and the world's largest purchaser of LNG,
has three importers who signed contracts in 2013 with three approved
LNG export facilities, those being Freeport, Cameron, and Cove Point.
Because natural gas is such an important and strategic resource, we
should, if anything, be questioning the administration about the wisdom
of issuing so many approvals. Why? They are relying on assumptions,
models, and estimates of recoverable domestic gas reserves that are
very uncertain and that have been decreasing as new information becomes
available.
Exporters sign these contracts to guarantee deliveries for some 10 to
20 years. I am not willing to risk price spikes for consumers,
families, and small businesses or to risk the benefits of lower gas
prices for our manufacturing sector for a slightly improved trade
balance. I am unwilling to repeal the requirement for a consideration
of the public interest before more export facilities are approved, not
for a resource that is so strategic and widely used.
H.R. 351 does not fix any real problems, but it could, indeed, help
to create some. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this bill.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the President likes to talk about infrastructure. In his
State of the Union Address, he said that there is bipartisan support
for infrastructure legislation and that Republicans and Democrats need
to ``set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.''
We have listened, and we have done that.
After passing a bill to approve Keystone, this House passed another
bill last week to reform the natural gas permitting process. Now the
House is on its third energy infrastructure bill with Representative
Bill Johnson's LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. I know
the President doesn't pay much attention to what goes on here on
Capitol Hill, but three infrastructure bills in 3 weeks is hard to
miss.
Here are some other numbers, Mr. Speaker, that I think the President
really should remember: though the Department of Energy has received 37
permits in the past 5 years, it has only approved five permits in that
time. That is one a year. If the President cared about infrastructure
as much as he says, I think he would get his administration to process
the rest of them now.
Passing this bill would also lead to the creation of an estimated
45,000 jobs. More permit approvals mean more opportunity. More
opportunity requires more infrastructure. More infrastructure means
more jobs. Delay has become a hallmark of this Presidency, but
Americans are done delaying job creation by ignoring America's energy
abundance.
{time} 1000
American energy supports American jobs. It supports a strong economy.
It also gives our friends--like Ukraine, our allies--an alternative
source of energy, diluting the power countries like Russia and Iran who
use their oil to coerce and even oppress.
Mr. Speaker, the President should know that here in the House we have
set our sights very high; but, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Will the
President set his sights higher than his veto pen?
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, again, I wanted to return to the floor because
the thought occurs to me, as it should to all of the American people,
that we should consider the impact of this bill, the impact of LNG
exports, and the impact that it would have on U.S. manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, let us protect, by all means,
American jobs. Let us protect American manufacturing. Cheap domestic
natural gas prices are providing a big boost and competitive advantage
to U.S. manufacturing. We can all agree on that on both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. Speaker, the disagreement occurs when the other side, the
Republicans, are asking us in this Congress to make a hasty decision
that could undermine the advantage that we are now experiencing in the
rapid increase in manufacturing.
This bill runs the risk of reducing our competitive advantage that we
have now in the manufacturing sector. It requires DOE to rush its
process and make final decisions on pending applications to export a
huge quantity of LNG.
If all of the pending applications are granted, DOE will authorize
the export of approximately 38 million cubic feet per day of LNG. That
is more than half of the total U.S. natural gas consumption. It is more
than the world's largest LNG exporter, Qatar, currently makes each and
every day.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, in my mind or in the minds of the
American people that exports of that magnitude will increase the
domestic price of natural gas. It just makes common sense, and it is
what the EIA found when it studied the economic impact of increased LNG
imports.
Where is your study? How do you answer the conclusions of the EIA
when it found again that the economic impact of increased influence
will increase the domestic price of natural gas? What amount of
American manufacturing? What amount of American jobs? Let's protect
American manufacturing. Let's protect American jobs.
Because this bill truncates DOE's public interest review, the
Department may not even be able to fully analyze the impacts of the
very high level of LNG exports on American consumers, on American jobs,
and on American manufacturing.
My friends on the other side--and they are indeed my friends--always
want to talk about American manufacturing, how we have to support
American manufacturing, how we have to raise the level of American
manufacturing, how we have to increase the American manufacturing
sector, how we have to increase the American manufacturing jobs. This
very bill could undermine all that sense of goodwill and all those
pronouncements from the other side.
What about American manufacturing and what about American
manufacturing jobs? Don't abandon American manufacturing. Don't abandon
American manufacturing jobs. Don't abandon the American people. Let's
slow this process down.
All we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is jeopardizing American manufacturing
and American manufacturing jobs.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, as the ranking member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, I am committed to developing sound energy policy,
and that policy surely includes consideration of the role that natural
gas can play in our energy mix.
Our energy picture is changing every year. The latest development is
low oil prices, but we have other developments in recent years,
including rapidly increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas
and a welcomed increase in wind and solar electricity production.
We are becoming more efficient, but our energy infrastructure is
becoming outdated. We need to look at the ways we produce and use
energy, but we also need to look at the ways that we move, transmit,
and store energy.
We need to innovate in the energy space, but we also need to maintain
reliability and lower energy bills. We need to look at all our energy
issues through the lens of climate change and public health.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are legitimate questions about whether we
want to send our natural gas to other countries. That might help our
trade balance, but it would have negative impacts on our domestic
manufacturing sector.
I don't claim that I have all the answers. I know that we looked at
some of these issues last Congress, but I don't agree that a clear
consensus emerged. In any event, this is a new
[[Page H651]]
Congress with scores of new Members who have never looked at this issue
before.
I think we should take these issues back to the Energy and Commerce
Committee and let the committee and its 12 new members do its job. Let
us look at the facts again as they are today, not last year or last
Congress. I think if we were to do that, we would see that even if this
legislation was once necessary, it isn't anymore.
DOE has modernized its process and any backlog that once existed
isn't an issue at this point. DOE and the administration have opened
the way for LNG exports, but I think it continues to be necessary for
us to assess whether approving an application for additional export is
in the public interest because becoming the world's largest exporter of
natural gas is not something we should do lightly, unadvisedly, or
without the latest facts.
This January, we have spent much of our time bringing bills from last
Congress to the floor and rushing them through to the Senate, which is
still considering the Keystone legislation we passed the first week of
this year.
I think we might well have served ourselves and the American people
better by sitting down together in the Energy and Commerce Committee
and working carefully on an energy policy aimed at the future rather
than at an energy policy aimed at the past.
I am going to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I encourage my
colleagues to oppose it as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The former speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, talked
a lot about the impact on the manufacturing base in America this
legislation might have. I would like to point out that the National
Association of Manufacturers, which is the largest manufacturing
association in the United States, representing manufacturers in every
industrial sector in all 50 States, in a letter dated yesterday, urges
Members to support H.R. 351.
They go on to say that it is important to ensure that ``market
forces, rather than bureaucratic inertia, govern international trade.''
That is really what this legislation is all about; it is about market
forces.
Representatives from countries around the world are coming to us and
asking for this product. We are fortunate in America that we have an
abundance of natural gas. In fact, the Energy Information Agency
reported today that it is so abundant that natural gas prices have
dropped to their lowest level since September 2012.
Earlier, there was an expression of concern about increased natural
gas prices. We understand that prices go up and prices go down, but
right now, they are at their lowest level since September 2012, and
when natural gas prices go down too low, you see less production. That
increases prices as well.
We didn't just wake up one day and decide to introduce this
legislation. Concerned groups involved in this business came to
Congress and said: We need some help.
When we started having hearings on this a year and 2 years ago, the
Department of Energy started trying to speed up the process a little
bit, but we are not dictating what their decision should be on allowing
the export to non-free trade agreement countries. We are just saying:
You need to make the decision sooner, and we want some transparency.
That is all this legislation is about.
Now, we understand that any time you talk in today's world about
exporting a fossil fuel, one of the undercurrents is climate change,
and I would remind everyone that CO2 emissions in America
are the lowest that they have been in 20 years.
This country does not have to take a backseat to any country in the
world, and so we want the market to play its role. This is a good,
commonsense piece of legislation that will create jobs in America, will
encourage the expansion of more natural gas production at a time when
the world needs it and we need it.
I would urge every Member of this House to vote in favor of H.R. 351,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R.
351, the ``LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.''
Mr. Speaker, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not anti-trade. I
am, however strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,'' and ``pro-
sustainable environment.''
As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of
the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy
policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and
create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.
That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to
improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.
Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased exports of
natural gas, the legislation before contains several provisions that
are of great concern to me.
Pursuant to Section 2, subsection (a) of the bill, an application for
authorization to export LNG is ``deemed'' approved if the Department of
Energy (DOE) or other federal agencies do not approve or deny the
application within 30 days of the conclusion of the site review.
I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.
First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.
Thus, the provision is unwise.
Second, this provision is a remedy in search of a problem. There is
no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas export
authority applications awaiting action by DOE.
The provision is unnecessary because DOE has to date authorized the
export of over 10 billion cubic feet per day of LNG to non-Free Trade
Agreement countries.
Together with exports to FTA countries, this level of LNG exports
that would transform the United States into one of the world's largest
exporters.
Third, the provision is irresponsible because it would require DOE
and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or
information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines,
and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but
for lack of sufficient review time.
Supporters of this bill argue that it is vital, in the face of
Russian aggression and restrictions, to provide our allies in Europe
with additional exports of LNG.
However, because actual exports through approved terminals are not
expected to begin until late 2015, this legislation will have no impact
on current exports.
And, limiting the time for review would prevent DOE from properly
analyzing the domestic impact that of exporting large amounts of LNG.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that increased
exports could result in an increase of as much as 8 percent in domestic
LNG prices.
Given the inherent delicacy involved in assessing the impact of trade
authorizations, both domestically and abroad, this state of affairs is
likely to lead to DOE erring on the side of caution and denying
applications that may otherwise have been approved if it had more time
and more resources to carry out its responsibilities.
For these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose the bill before us
and urge my colleagues to join me.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 351, to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 4. PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND CREATING
AMERICAN JOBS.
In reviewing an application for authorization to export
natural gas under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C.
717b), the Department of Energy--
(1) shall deny such application if the natural gas would be
exported to any nation
[[Page H652]]
that is a state sponsor of terrorism or otherwise threatens
America's national security, or to any nation or corporation
that steals America's military technology or intellectual
property through cyber-attacks; and
(2) shall require, as a condition for approval of any such
authorization, the applicant to ensure that United States-
flagged and built ships and shipping containers are used to
export the LNG as such vessels become available for charter.
Mr. WHITFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of
order against the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment to the bill will not
kill the bill. Frankly, it will substantially improve it. It won't send
it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will come to the floor for a
vote later this morning.
We have heard a lot of discussion here about jobs in the Rules
Committee, and I thank the chair, Mr. Whitfield, for his interest in
this particular proposal and for the Rules Committee listening to the
debate very carefully about how we can significantly advance America's
national interest.
{time} 1015
Natural gas is a strategic asset. It has allowed us to substantially
reduce our energy costs in the United States; replace, re-power many of
our power plants; bring down the cost; and, frankly, lead to an
increased manufacturing sector.
Shipbuilding is also a strategic national asset. Our Navy depends
upon it. However, 107,000 Americans work in the shipbuilding industry
in our ports and ship yards. It is a strategic asset, as are the
mariners. American mariners are also a strategic asset.
What we are trying to do with this amendment is to bring together
these three strategic assets of America and advance the American
economy and our national security at the same time.
This amendment would simply require that if we are going to export
liquefied natural gas, a strategic asset, then we should do it in a way
that advances our national security and our economy by requiring that
those ships be manned and ``womanned'' by American mariners, the
captains, the engineers, the sailors, that they be American.
This is a safety issue. Natural gas is a very volatile issue, and,
under current law, when it is imported, it has to have American
mariners on board.
Similarly, by requiring that the ships be American-built, we will be
able to employ several hundred thousand new men and women in our
shipyards. If it is about jobs--and we all claim this bill is about
jobs--then let's take it another step. Let's take it another step, so
that we really rebuild the American shipping industry, that we put
American mariners to work, that we revitalize our shipyards, so that
our U.S. Navy will be able to have a robust competition for their
ships.
There are 117 shipyards in the United States that build ships. None
of them, yet, build these tankers. They could if we pass this
amendment.
Let's build it in America. Let's make it in America. This is a
strategy that is employed by India, which has a tender out to buy gas
from the United States. That tender requires that three of the ships
used to transport that be built in India.
I say let's build the other seven in the United States. They want
American natural gas; build the ships in America.
We know that this is a big industry. Cheniere needs 100 ships when
they begin to ship natural gas, LNG, from their new terminal in Texas--
100 ships. Are those American ships?
No, not without this amendment. Those ships will be Chinese ships in
Chinese shipyards built by Chinese.
How about America? How about building it in America?
That is what this amendment is about. We can all agree that we want
American jobs. Is there one among the 435 of us who wants the jobs to
be in China or Korea or Japan? I don't think so.
Let's do it in America. This is an American-made amendment. This is
an amendment for American workers, American shipyards.
This is not going to kill the bill. This is going to make this bill
into a real ``Make It In America,'' a real American jobs bill with
hundreds of thousands of jobs spread throughout this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, work with us. Make this into a real, robust American
jobs bill. Adopt this amendment. Put aside the normal game we play with
MTRs, which is just kind of a Kabuki dance here.
Let's do it for the American workers, for the American shipyards all
across this Nation. That is what this is about.
This is an unexpected opportunity that has come about because of our
great natural gas industry here. Take advantage of it. Think about the
national security. Think about our shipyards, the U.S. Navy, the
mariners. Make it in America. Adopt this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is
withdrawn.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized
for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the
gentleman from California for offering this motion to recommit. It has
two basic parts to it. The first part relates to denying applications
of natural gas that would be exported to any nation that is a state-
sponsored terrorist.
We feel quite confident that, under the existing law and under H.R.
351, the Department of Energy is not going to approve the export of
natural gas that is going to be in the public interest to any terrorist
state.
The second question, which is a very important question--and as I
said in the Rules Committee and say on the floor, I am delighted that
Mr. Garamendi has raised this issue about U.S.-flagged ships being
involved in the export.
As you know, his amendment goes to the Jones Act, and the Jones Act,
as we all know, requires U.S.-flagged ships between ports here in the
United States, but it does not expand to export and the use in other
countries, and that raises a much broader issue than this very narrow-
focused bill.
I do think that that discussion needs to take place at some point in
time, but, at this time, I am going to respectfully request the Members
to reject the motion to recommit.
I, and others, would look forward to talking to Mr. Garamendi in more
detail about a broader debate on what impact expanding the Jones Act
would have on our international trade.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Speaker
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 175,
nays 237, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 49]
YEAS--175
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle (PA)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
[[Page H653]]
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
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)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--237
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)
Buchanan
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
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
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)
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
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOT VOTING--21
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Clay
Crowley
DeFazio
Duckworth
Engel
Gutieerrez
Heck (NV)
Jones
Lee
Lieu (CA)
Marino
Meeks
Neal
Nunnelee
Perlmutter
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Slaughter
Young (AK)
{time} 1050
Mr. ROUZER, Mrs. COMSTOCK, Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, MARCHANT, BUCK,
CRENSHAW, PALMER, JORDAN, HANNA, and NUNES changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WELCH, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Messrs. POLIS, TAKAI, JOHNSON of Georgia,
and TONKO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277,
nays 133, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 50]
YEAS--277
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Caardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Doyle (PA)
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emmer
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Torres
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--133
Adams
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu (CA)
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Higgins
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
[[Page H654]]
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Velaazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Amodei
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Clay
Crowley
DeFazio
DeSaulnier
Duckworth
Engel
Gutieerrez
Heck (NV)
Jones
Lee
Lieu (CA)
Marino
Meeks
Neal
Nunnelee
Perlmutter
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Slaughter
Young (AK)
{time} 1057
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Personal Explanation
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed
Roll Call vote numbers 49 and 50. Had I been present, I would have
voted aye on Roll Call vote number 49, and no on Roll Call vote number
50.
Personal Explanation
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 2015 I was unable to be
present and missed the following votes:
On Roll Call vote 49, on Agreeing to the Motion to Recommit With
Instructions to H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency
Act, I would have voted AYE.
On Roll Call vote 50, on Passage of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting
Certainty and Transparency Act, I would have voted NO.
____________________