[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 196 (Thursday, November 20, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4841-H4849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNLOCKING OUR DOMESTIC LNG POTENTIAL ACT OF 2025
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1949) to repeal restrictions on the export and import of
natural gas, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1949
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 ``Unlocking our Domestic LNG
Potential Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. ADVANCING UNITED STATES GLOBAL LEADERSHIP.
Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) through (c);
(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(a) and (b), respectively;
(3) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c), and
moving such subsection after subsection (b), as so
redesignated;
(4) in subsection (a), as so redesignated, by amending
paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (in this
subsection referred to as the `Commission') shall have the
exclusive authority to approve or deny an application for
authorization for the siting, construction, expansion, or
operation of a facility to export natural gas from the United
States to a foreign country or import natural gas from a
foreign country, including an LNG terminal. In determining
whether to approve or deny an application under this
paragraph, the Commission shall deem the exportation or
importation of natural gas to be consistent with the public
interest. Except as specifically provided in this Act,
nothing in this Act is intended to affect otherwise
applicable law related to any Federal agency's authorities or
responsibilities related to facilities to import or export
natural gas, including LNG terminals.''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d)(1) Nothing in this Act limits the authority of the
President under the Constitution, the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), part B of title II
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6271 et
seq.), the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. 4301 et
seq.), or any other provision of law that imposes sanctions
on a foreign person or foreign government (including any
provision of law that prohibits or restricts United States
persons from engaging in a transaction with a sanctioned
person or government), including a country that is designated
as a state sponsor of terrorism, to prohibit imports or
exports.
``(2) In this subsection, the term `state sponsor of
terrorism' means a country the government of which the
Secretary of State determines has repeatedly provided support
for international terrorism pursuant to--
``(A) section 1754(c)(1)(A) of the Export Control Reform
Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4318(c)(1)(A));
``(B) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2371);
``(C) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2780); or
``(D) any other provision of law.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
{time} 1350
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 1949.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in February 2016, the first cargo of U.S. LNG set sail
from the lower 48, making the United States a natural gas exporter for
the first time since the 1960s.
Since then, exports have increased from 5 billion cubic feet per day
in 2016 to nearly 12 billion cubic feet per day in 2024, making the
U.S. the global leader in LNG in less than a decade.
U.S. LNG has played an undeniably important role in providing
affordable, abundant, and clean energy to the world. This could not
have been more evident than in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine,
disrupting global commodity markets and leaving Europe without secure
access to energy.
Immediately, for our friends in Europe, U.S. producers began sending
cargos of American gas to the Continent to fuel their economies and
heat their homes, helping some of our most important global allies and
friends.
However, in January 2024, the Biden-Harris administration announced
an illegal and indefinite ban on new export authorizations, all in the
name of vaguely stated climate change goals. Current law is clear.
Requiring a statutory presumption in favor of exports are in the public
interest.
Plus, the vast majority of studies show that not only do LNG exports
boost our energy security but they also help maintain low domestic
natural gas prices for Americans.
[[Page H4842]]
The Biden-Harris administration's action not only jeopardized our
European allies but it threatened the faith and credibility of American
companies' contracts. It emboldened Russia and other nefarious actors
and created uncertainty for domestic producers of natural gas.
H.R. 1949, the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2025,
would ensure this catastrophic policy decision is never made again by
removing DOE from the statutory authorization process.
This legislation maintains the President's authority to impose
sanctions on foreign governments, prohibiting imports or exports, if
justified. Free trade, open markets, and competitions have resulted in
the U.S. emerging as a global energy superpower. Lifting these
restrictions will help maintain this dominance at a time it is needed
most.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1949. At a
meeting a couple of years ago with people at the highest levels of the
German Government, they said they needed American LNG gas to rain down
on them because of what was going on in Eastern Europe and Ukraine.
High natural gas prices around the world fund the Russian Army. That
is how they fund their army. It is not that friends are buying from
them but, as the world price goes higher, the Russian price goes higher
from the people who do choose to buy from them. We are not talking
about affecting those people. The President still needs to have the
authority. We are talking about our friends and our allies who are
dependent on us.
I worry about what we do here in our country, but also America cannot
cut itself off from the rest of the world and have our friends and
allies look elsewhere to other people for the natural gas they need to
run their economy. They will do that if we don't step in and do this at
this time.
Mr. Speaker, 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 strong opposition to this bill. This bill
would allow unlimited amounts of our liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to
be sent abroad to any designation in the world including to our
adversaries like China.
This is all about China. The President gets up on a regular basis and
says we need to export more LNG to China. My Republican colleagues say
they worry about Beijing and what Beijing is doing to challenge us.
Yet, they are going to allow with this bill unlimited exports to
Communist China.
By sending more American LNG abroad, this bill would reduce our
energy resources at home, raising our constituents' utility bills at a
time when they can least afford it. It just makes common sense that if
we send liquefied natural gas abroad, it is going to raise the price
here because there will be less here. It is just Economics 101, in my
opinion.
Americans are already being crushed by the rising cost of living. Now
Republicans are making matters worse by pushing legislation that will
only drive up monthly power bills even further. It is quite the
departure from President Trump's campaign promise to cut American power
bills in half. He said that during the course of the campaign that in
the first year he would cut power bills in half. Instead, they keep
climbing.
Right now, thanks to the congressional Republicans' backward energy
policies, electricity prices are climbing more than twice as fast as
inflation. More than 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their
utility bills, with many having to make the impossible choice of either
paying for medicine and food or keeping their lights on. I think it is
a disgrace that, instead of offering up solutions to this affordability
crisis, Republicans are here today to just make it worse.
Let's be clear, Mr. Speaker. It is a well-established fact that
unlimited LNG exports would increase prices here at home. If my
colleagues don't believe me, last year the Secretary of Energy noted:
``Unfettered exports of LNG would increase wholesale domestic natural
gas prices by over 30 percent.''
Mr. Speaker, if you are a Republican who perhaps didn't trust the
Democratic Department of Energy, I would certainly assume you could
trust your own current Department of Energy.
Just last week, the Energy Information Administration noted that it
expects natural gas prices to increase by 16 percent next year due
largely to increased exports of LNG. Mr. Speaker, 16 percent is on top
of the 15 percent increase in natural gas costs that Americans already
suffered this year. It is all due to the LNG export approvals that
President Trump made in his first term.
All this bill does is make that problem worse by ensuring there are
zero restrictions on how much of our own LNG we are shipping out to
other countries. The only ones who stand to benefit are fossil fuel
companies, proving that Republicans care more about padding the profits
of their rich fossil fuel friends than they do about lowering costs for
the average American.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the China part again. China is one of
the top recipients of American LNG, and not only the President but LNG
companies are openly bragging about how they can sell to Chinese
buyers. This bill completely removes any review of whether exporting
more of our LNG to China is in the public interest.
The chairman said that that is a presumption that the public interest
has met. I argue it is more than a presumption. There is no longer any
review of the public interest. When I talk about the public interest, I
am talking about price. I am talking about national security. I am
talking about impact on the environment, the air, and whatever people
breathe.
This bill completely removes any review of what is in the public
interest before we export to China or anyone else. To me, it is the
very reversal. The President talks about America First. This is putting
America last in my opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to say. We have seen this story
before. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, Congress removed the ban on
exporting American crude oil. I already mentioned that. Before that, we
were only sending China 420,000 barrels of oil each year. We now send
China more than 160 million barrels of oil a year.
Clearly, Republicans have learned nothing from that, despite
constantly proclaiming the importance of beating China in the AI race
and so many other things. Republicans consistently say that losing the
AI race to China would be like losing the Cold War to Russia. The bill
they are proposing today is like selling rocket fuel to the Soviets
during the space race. It defies all logic.
Finally, I want to point out a basic fact. We have already approved
enough permits to triple our LNG exports by the end of the decade, and
that is on top of the more than quadrupling of LNG exports we have
already seen over the last 6 years. When my colleagues on the other
side talk about Europe and our allies, there is no way that at this
point with the permits that have already been approved that the
Europeans or any of our allies have to worry about not getting enough
LNG from us.
Mr. Speaker, I think it makes sense to ask the Department of Energy
to keep an eye on this to ensure that all these exports are actually a
good thing and are in our public interest: For our economy, for our
national security, and for the communities that we here represent.
All this bill does is get rid of all of that and say we don't care
and we should export whatever we want to China or whoever else. The
American people are tired of these antics. They don't have time for
them. They need us to get serious about addressing the skyrocketing
cost of living. Today they will see that Republicans are making it
worse, while Democrats are fighting to make it better to try to reduce
prices.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve
the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to prohibit the
President, or whoever is President, from limiting LNG exports,
sanctioning China, or tariffing China. There is no limit to that.
The people who are begging, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, for our
energy is Europe, who are our friends. I do know from just recently
meeting with friends from Japan and Korea they want the natural gas
that we have in our great State of Alaska. This is important.
[[Page H4843]]
The chairman of the Energy Subcommittee is a leader on this issue and
has fought for reliable and sustainable energy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1949, the Unlocking our
Domestic LNG Potential Act, introduced by my friend and colleague from
the 11th District of Texas.
This legislation will streamline regulatory approvals of LNG export
facilities to meet the movement of global energy demands.
This legislation removes unnecessary and burdensome reviews at the
Department of Energy for exporting U.S. LNG while maintaining the
required site and environmental reviews at FERC. Increasing
opportunities for exports increases overall U.S. production, putting
downward pressures on prices for everyone.
The U.S. LNG industry contributed $44 billion to the economy and
supported 220,000 good-paying jobs while providing $11 billion in taxes
and royalty payments.
In response to Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in 2022,
American energy producers immediately supplied Europe and our allies
with LNG. The U.S. was the number one supplier of LNG to Europe in
2023. Unfortunately, in 2024, the Biden administration took politically
motivated actions to place an indefinite ban on LNG export permits to
appease the climate lobby. This legislation ensures that future
administrations cannot unilaterally prohibit exports of LNG for
political purposes.
Nothing in this legislation limits the authority of the President to
impose sanctions on foreign governments and does not affect the
existing FERC authorities for reviewing facilities for environmental or
safety purposes.
H.R. 1949 brings commonsense reforms to treat LNG just like other
commodities such as crude oil. In the 114th Congress, I was proud to
support legislation from the Energy and Commerce Committee that lifted
the crude oil export ban which elevated the United States as the
premier global oil producing nation.
This bill will similarly allow our vast natural resources to advance
our national security interests.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
thank my friend, the chairman of the committee, for bringing forth this
bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of the Energy
Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1949. It is a harmful bill that demonstrates how Republicans in
Congress continue to ignore the rising cost of living and inflation
that is crushing American families and that they are willing to sell
out American energy to our adversaries like the Chinese Community
Party.
I know it wasn't even 2 weeks ago that President Trump said: I don't
want to talk about affordability.
Well, we are going to talk about it, and we are going to stand up for
people's pocketbooks at home.
This bill is just another example of how Republicans have not brought
one single bill to the House floor that would lower energy costs for
hardworking families.
Electricity bills are skyrocketing. It is getting harder and harder
for people to pay their utility bills. Now Republicans and the Trump
administration are making it worse. They have passed the big, ugly bill
to rip away savings and rebates for cleaner, cheaper energy a few
months ago and energy efficiency that keeps bills lower, all to pay for
tax breaks for the wealthy and the well-connected.
Now they want to ramp up gas exports that will make life even more
expensive. It wasn't even 1 year ago that the Department of Energy
released its study that made it clear, continuing to approve gas
exports would raise costs on U.S. households and businesses.
Don't just take it from me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Industrial
Energy Consumers of America dated November 17, 2025.
Industrial Energy Consumers
of America,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2025.
Re H.R. 1949 the ``Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act
of 2025'' is Inconsistent with President Trump's Pledge
to Put America First
Hon. Mike Johnson,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Leaders Johnson and Jeffries: The Industrial Energy
Consumers of America do not oppose LNG exports. We do oppose
H.R. 1949, the ``Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of
2025'' because the bill prioritizes LNG exports over U.S.
consumers by removing long standing Natural Gas Act consumer
protections embedded in Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA). H.R. 1949 is inconsistent with President Trump's
``America First'' agenda. LNG exports are forecasted to
increase 136 percent in the next five years (see Figure 1)
and natural gas producers say they will struggle to meet LNG
growth demand.
Prices are already increasing. The November 13, 2025 Wall
Street Journal story ``Natural Gas Prices Hit Highest Level
Since Invasion of Ukraine'' reported that natural gas prices
reached their highest levels since December 2022, with
December futures settling Thursday at $4.646 per million
British thermal units, up 67 percent from a year ago. For
every one dollar increase in the Henry Hub natural gas price,
consumers pay on average $34 billion more for natural gas and
$20 billion more for electricity, or $54 billion annually.
One hundred percent of our member companies are from the
manufacturing sector and are price sensitive.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has already approved a
significant volume equal to 48 Bcf/d for shipment to non-free
trade agreement (NFTA) countries, which equals 49 percent of
2024 net supply. Why then is it in the public interest for
Congress to remove consumer protections? This is not a
national security issue. What is approved is far more than
enough to supply our allies.
When Congress passed the NGA several years ago, it
initiated an ``America First'' energy regulation. Congress,
in their wisdom, understood that natural gas is essential to
the economy and that U.S. consumers do not have an
alternative, which makes them vulnerable. Section 3 of the
NGA requires that exports to NFTA must not be inconsistent
with the public interest. About 80 percent of U.S. LNG is
shipped to NFTA countries. The public interest includes
impacts to prices of natural gas and reliability. Section 3
gives DOE wide latitude to protect U.S. consumers now and in
the future as larger amounts are exported.
H.R. 1949 removes Section 3 and the protection that it
affords. The bill removes DOE's authority and responsibility
to consider the public interest when considering approval of
new LNG exports volumes to NFTA countries.
LNG exports do have the ability to impact domestic prices.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data proves that
LNG export volumes are highest during our winter peak heating
season months of November through March, which accelerates a
reduction in U.S. inventory, increasing the prices of U.S.
natural gas and electricity and reducing reliability. The
severity of the problem increases as export capacity
increases (see Figure 2).
Unlike manufacturing companies, LNG customers are countries
who are insensitive to price and will pay any price to keep
the lights on in their country. No matter how high U.S.
prices will go, they will buy away U.S. natural gas even when
our winter inventories fall and prices rise. The LNG 20-year
contracts shift supply and price risk from LNG buying
countries to U.S. consumers and the economy.
For all of the above reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R.
1949 and preserve consumer protections.
Sincerely,
Paul N. Cicio,
President & CEO.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. They say this bill is inconsistent with the
President's pledge to put America first, and it prioritizes gas exports
over U.S. consumers by removing longstanding consumer protections. They
urge everyone to oppose this bill and preserve those consumer
protections.
Mr. Speaker, when you export more gas, that raises domestic gas
prices, electricity prices, and the cost of manufactured goods. A vote
for this bill is a vote to raise utility bills. That is particularly
problematic to the neighbors back home I represent in the State of
Florida. The State of Florida, the Sunshine State, you would think
would be powered by the sun, Mr. Speaker, but we are 75 percent reliant
on gas to generate electricity.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you are saying: Okay, Floridians, you are already
being crushed by utility bills, and now Republicans are going to make
it worse.
It is raising costs on all of us in more insidious ways too because
we do have a climate crisis across the world. Mr. Speaker, when you are
paying more to
[[Page H4844]]
address climate-fueled disasters caused by hurricanes, such as
repairing your home, emergency response, and property insurance, then
that is an additional cost.
Given that large methane and carbon dioxide emissions are emitted
during fracking, pipeline transport, liquefaction, overseas shipping,
and combustion, costs go up, and so do pollution and health risks,
especially along the Gulf Coast.
Now, let's talk about point number two. Mr. Speaker, if higher costs
in electric bills are not going to convince you to vote against this
bill, then I hope that America's national security will. Republicans
and the gas industry and their lobbyists want carte blanche to export
gas to anyone, even our foreign adversaries.
Now, under current law, the U.S. Department of Energy is responsible
for authorizing exports of domestically produced gas to foreign
countries. In doing so, DOE makes a determination whether or not that
export is consistent with the public interest. Republicans and the
industry want to eliminate that important review, that even if the gas
goes to the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign adversaries that
is okay, there is no need to look and no need to review that. That is
wrong and dangerous.
Aren't Republicans in Congress concerned that shipping American
energy overseas to China to power their AI data centers and their
manufacturing is a risk, an economic risk, and a military risk?
I also serve on the House Select Committee on the Strategic
Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.
On that committee, we have heard over and over about the dangers of
Chinese industrial dominance. They want to just kind of sweep up all
natural resources across the globe for their economic and military
advantage.
Why would Republicans in Congress be party to that?
Through this bill, House Republicans want to make it easier for China
to import U.S. energy to power their industrial and military sectors.
Republicans have also enacted policies that wave a white flag to
China on cleaner and cheaper energy, on electric vehicles, and on the
next generation of energy manufacturing and technology, all evidenced
by what they have done in gutting clean energy tax credits in
manufacturing, in jobs, and in cost savings in their big, ugly bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Strong). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Plus, it is hypocritical for Republicans to
condemn Chinese forced labor, subsidies, and intellectual property
theft on the one hand and then allow massive amounts of U.S. resources
to flow to Chinese factories on the other hand.
These are not hypothetical concerns. In June, the President posted
that hopefully China will be purchasing plenty of oil from the U.S.
Then, after meeting with President Xi in October, the President said
that a very large-scale transaction may take place concerning the
purchase of oil and gas from the great State of Alaska.
This is all too much. If these projects come online, then U.S. LNG
would represent up to one-quarter of all of China's contracted LNG
under the contracts that have already been entered into.
I urge my colleagues now to do the patriotic thing. Really, go ahead,
and put America first for a change.
It is vitally important that energy export decisions benefit the
American people, not our foreign adversaries. Exporting more LNG
without guardrails does nothing to lower energy bills for hardworking
families. In fact, it will make it worse, and people deserve better.
{time} 1410
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, there are still protections in place so the
President can sanction and not send to any adversaries. What this does
is prevent a President from suspending LNG gas exports for some reason
at a time when our friends in Europe are literally begging for it, and
I know our friends from Japan and Korea are asking for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee and my good
friend.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 1949, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act, led by my
friend and fellow Texan, Representative Pfluger.
For years, America has been blessed with abundant natural gas. In
Texas, we have been at the heart of it all. We are the world's number
one producer of oil and natural gas and the top exporter of LNG. That
didn't happen by accident. It happened because American workers,
American innovators, and American energy producers were finally
unleashed.
Under the previous administration, we launched an indefensible freeze
on LNG export permits, a politically motivated blockade that put our
economy at risk, undermined jobs, and was just simply wrong for global
security.
That was wrong for Texans, wrong for America, and wrong for our
allies working to wean themselves off of Russian gas.
H.R. 1949 fixes that. This bill removes outdated restrictions on
natural gas imports and exports and puts decisionmaking authority back
where it belongs--with FERC, not some bureaucrats using climate reviews
or climate change as a backdoor veto.
Some of you have seen that even the Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, is
now backing up on his climate claims. This is ridiculous.
This bill restores certainty for developers who have already
committed more than $70 billion--with a b--in new investments since
President Trump took office.
It strengthens our hand abroad by ensuring our allies that they can
rely on American energy instead of their adversaries'. Most
importantly, it reinforces a simple truth: Energy security is national
security.
In southeast Texas, we understand that better than anybody. We
produce it. We refine it. We ship it. We keep America moving every
single day.
H.R. 1949 is pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-ally, and proudly pro-American
energy. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1949 and keep America the
world's energy leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of our committee.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the residents of
California's 25th Congressional District against H.R. 1949, which would
increase their energy bills.
The desert communities I serve are already bearing the brunt of high
energy bills and underinvestment in infrastructure. They simply cannot
afford this bill.
Under Trump, in the last 9 months, electricity prices have gone up by
11 percent across the Nation. Trump's one big, beautiful bill, better
known as the big, ugly law, will simply make matters much, much worse
by delivering higher energy costs. It will raise energy costs by over
$600 a year in California.
In my district, families are already struggling with some of the
highest energy costs in the Nation. Families in the desert are paying
hundreds more per year, not because they are using luxury power, but
because extreme heat makes air-conditioning a necessity.
For many families, the rising costs of energy are not abstract
numbers. High costs force impossible choices between cooling their
homes or risking heat-related illnesses.
These bills being debated here today directly affect their health,
safety, and financial stability because they raise costs.
More specifically, H.R. 1949, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG
Potential Act, is a direct threat to working people and middle-class
families in my district and across the country.
This bill removes the requirement that the Department of Energy
determine whether LNG exports are in the public interest, like lowering
costs, before approving shipments to countries without free trade
agreements.
In other words, this bill assumes automatically and without review
that every LNG export is good for America. That assumption is not only
irresponsible, but it is also dangerous and absolutely false.
Analyses have shown that increasing LNG exports drives up natural gas
[[Page H4845]]
prices here at home. DOE's own review last year could not have been
clearer: Unconstrained LNG exports will raise costs for American
families and harm our economy.
DOE found that the kind of unlimited exports authorized under this
bill would increase household energy costs by more than $100 per year
on top of the cost increases already burdening families under the
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act, i.e., the big, ugly law.
Let's be clear. H.R. 1949 is a substantial giveaway to major oil and
gas corporations, billionaires, and executives at the expense of
working people once again.
It strengthens foreign adversaries, including China, while forcing
American families, especially those in extreme heat regions like mine,
to pay the price through higher monthly bills.
For the hardworking people of San Jacinto, Coachella, and Imperial
Valley, the pass area, where triple-digit heat is a life-threatening
reality, these rising energy costs are devastating. They represent
choices no family should ever be forced to make between cooling their
homes during extreme heat or keeping their loved ones safe.
This is not hypothetical. This is unacceptable.
The people I represent are resilient and hardworking. Right now, they
are facing higher energy bills while already dealing with extreme heat
and limited resources.
This bill will make matters worse. This bill will raise their costs
even more. We need to lower costs, not raise them. That is why I urge a
``no'' vote on H.R. 1949. Let's lower costs.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen), a very valuable member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee and my good friend.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1949, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG
Potential Act, and I thank Representative Pfluger for his leadership on
this bill.
In January of last year, former President Joe Biden unveiled the
latest of many attacks on our domestic energy capabilities when he
announced an indefinite pause on all pending approvals of liquefied
natural gas exports, or LNG.
This certainly made the Russians happy, and Europe could have used
some help with their energy demand.
Not only was this decision completely unnecessary, but it was also
economically and strategically dangerous. Under both Democratic and
Republican administrations, DOE has consistently found that U.S. LNG
exports serve the public interest, contributing positive economic
benefits and strengthening energy security for the American people.
Even more, recent studies confirmed that increased American LNG
exports do not significantly raise global emissions. In fact, it is
quite the opposite. Clean natural gas is a major reason why the United
States has significantly reduced emissions.
Thankfully, we now have a Commander in Chief who understands the
importance of embracing an all-of-the-above energy strategy and
unleashing the production and export of clean, affordable, and reliable
American LNG.
In the first days of this administration, the President signed an
executive order reversing President Biden's LNG pause, an important
step in reclaiming global energy dominance and lowering costs across
the board.
It is shocking to me that House Democrats will run to the news
cameras and clamor about the cost of living while they also offered
their full support for reckless anti-domestic energy policies from the
Biden administration that caused prices to skyrocket in the first
place.
I mean, look at the price of gasoline at the pump 2 years ago. Look
at the price of gasoline at the pump today. That is all you have to do.
The reason that energy prices are spiking is because input costs are
spiking.
{time} 1420
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will join us in passing H.R. 1949, which amends the
Natural Gas Act to repeal all restrictions on the import and export of
natural gas, effectively overturning the Biden-Harris administration's
attempt to undermine U.S. domestic energy production.
Removing unnecessary export controls on LNG will strengthen the
domestic economy and increase the energy security of the U.S. and our
allies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1949.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez), a member of the committee.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R.
1949.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would force the Department of Energy to
rubberstamp every LNG export and strip the Department of its ability to
review whether those exports are actually in the public interest.
At a time when families across the country are already seeing rising
costs, Republicans are doing the opposite of what is needed. Instead of
working to lower energy bills, they are prioritizing legislation that
props up the fossil fuel industry and blocks affordable, clean energy
that is ready to be connected to the grid.
We already know that increased LNG exports means higher energy prices
for our communities at a time when families are already facing an
affordability crisis. Due to skyrocketing demand, including from data
centers, families in New Jersey saw a 20 percent spike in electricity
bills this summer.
Further, Republicans claim that we need more fossil fuels to compete
with China. If that is their concern, why advance a bill that makes it
easier for China to purchase even more of our domestic energy? Why are
we driving up our own energy bills to help an adversary? It makes
absolutely no sense.
If we are serious about competing with China, we should take an all-
of-the-above strategy to energy production and fast-track clean energy
onto the grid.
Further, my colleagues across the aisle should tell the Trump
administration to get Revolution Wind, which is off the coast of Rhode
Island, back on track. That is how we produce more energy in this
country. Doing so would bring down prices for American families in the
process.
Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to join me. Let's put the interests of our communities and
of our country first.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Balderson), another good friend. I am yielding to all of my good
friends, but I yield to a very valued member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Mr. BALDERSON. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans and President Trump
remain firm in our commitment to lowering costs for families and
restoring American energy dominance.
I am proud to represent parts of the Utica and Marcellus shale
formations, where natural gas development has transformed local
economies and strengthened our Nation's energy security. Boosting
natural gas production in Ohio and expanding LNG exports are essential
to our vision of energy dominance.
Under the last administration, President Biden repeatedly undermined
the domestic energy producers, including imposing a ban on new LNG
export permits. This misguided action discouraged investments in
American natural gas and harmed our allies abroad, who are working to
reduce their dependence on Russian energy.
The Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act ends political
interference in the permit process and unleashes America's full energy
potential.
Here are the facts on LNG:
Increasing LNG exports would add over $70 billion to the U.S. economy
and create over 400,000 American jobs by 2040.
American LNG is more than 40 percent cleaner than Russian LNG.
Since we have increased our LNG exports, domestic natural gas prices
have remained affordable and stable.
Under President Trump, we are restoring American energy leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman August Pfluger for leading this
important legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
[[Page H4846]]
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 12 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).
Ms. ELFRETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1949, the
Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act.
Mr. Speaker, I asked for 2 minutes. I only need seven words: We
should not be fueling our adversaries.
This bill strips the Department of Energy's authority to provide
oversight on exports of liquefied natural gas to foreign adversaries
like China and Russia, which poses what should be an obvious and grave
threat to our national security.
Unfettered sale of LNG to countries like China and Russia would power
their data centers, AI systems, and cyber missions, all by using
American energy.
This legislation, importantly, is a departure from how we regulate
all other energy sources. Sources like oil and coal, we have laws that
impose certain restrictions on exports to foreign entities of concern,
like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
Mr. Speaker, under this new bill, LNG would not be subject to this
policy, and I have to ask: Why?
If this bill is really about better supporting our allies in Europe
and the Indo-Pacific, I support that, but there are currently no
restrictions from literally fueling our adversaries. In fact, by
exporting LNG, we could be risking higher domestic natural gas prices,
meaning our constituents and our neighbors would face higher
electricity bills and pay more at the gas pump.
That is why I planned on introducing legislation requiring DOE to
certify that LNG exports to our foreign adversaries are actually in the
public interest and aligned with our Nation's national security needs.
We must close this current loophole exempting LNG from oversight and
affirm DOE's role in the process. The premise is simple. It is not and
should not be controversial or partisan. We should not be fueling our
adversaries.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the sponsor of the legislation and a valued member
of our committee.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my legislation. I am proud to offer
H.R. 1949 today, Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act.
It has been a long time coming. For 4 years, we suffered as a nation
under the Biden administration's disastrous energy policies that put
our energy security and the security of our allies at serious risk.
The White House launched a whole-of-government assault on American
energy production: slow-rolling permits; killing infrastructure
projects, like pipelines; and, most importantly, pandering to radical
climate activists. Then they delivered perhaps the most damaging and
egregious move of all: They banned new exports on LNG. This wasn't to
help the environmental laws or to lower prices for American families.
It was to satisfy the radical green activists.
Let me be clear that this ban put politics over people by
jeopardizing the American economy and handing Vladimir Putin a lifeline
as our European allies were forced to scramble for energy. That was not
leadership. That was failure.
It gets worse. After independent experts uncovered major flaws in the
study used to justify the freeze, the Biden administration doubled
down, and senior officials deliberately hid reports that completely
contradicted their argument.
The administration knew the truth, and they hid it. They buried it.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve the truth that exporting
American LNG strengthens our country. U.S. LNG exports replace dirtier
fuels from adversaries like Russia and Iran. In fact, during Biden's
LNG export ban, Russia overtook the U.S. as the lead supplier of gas to
Europe. In no world was this good for the American consumers or our
allies.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that Republicans and Democrats have
similar goals, but that is just not true. We had 4 years to study this.
We had 4 years of evidence on this. Democrats want to kill
hydrocarbons, plain and simple.
Republicans are moving to lower prices, and anybody who knows this
industry, anybody who has studied this industry, and anybody who has
been to where this industry happens, knows for certain that this is a
good bill because they understand not just the economics of it, but
they understand the long-term implications of this industry. If Members
vote against it, they are telling me and the American people one thing:
They haven't studied this industry.
Gas exports strengthen our economy. They stabilize prices, and they
drive much-needed investment in energy infrastructure that bolsters our
energy security.
The facts are clear: We must reform the broken approval process and
unlock LNG's potential. My bill does exactly that. It eliminates the
politicized DOE, which was weaponized by the previous administration,
and gives FERC sole authority over that authorization process.
This is common sense. FERC already leads the review of LNG facilities
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. It completes the environmental
work. It completes the technical review. It completes the full
analysis. We are cutting the red tape.
{time} 1430
This is promises made, promises kept. The Unlocking Our Domestic LNG
Potential Act removes that red tape and replaces it with a streamlined,
transparent process that gives producers certainty, strengthening
global energy security, and lowering the cost for all of our domestic
consumers.
We have to depoliticize the export process. Once again, when the
Biden administration banned LNG exports, they weaponized and they
politicized that aspect, but today we have the opportunity to stand
with American families and businesses and lower the cost and restore
energy dominance.
This legislation should be an easy, bipartisan bill. If you support
affordable, reliable energy, then this bill strengthens our economy. It
lowers prices, and it signals that you have studied the industry and
that you know your facts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this and am proud to
offer H.R. 1949.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I will mention to my colleagues on the
other side that the Biden administration did not ban LNG exports.
There was a pause because they were concerned about the public
interest, in particular, because the price was increasing for power,
for natural gas, and so many other things.
It made sense to take a review and see what that meant for price,
what that meant for national security, what that meant for the
environment and climate.
The reality is that the amount of natural gas permits and LNG permits
continue to rise and rise every day. This idea that somehow they banned
it is simply not the case.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Casten).
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that to vote against
this bill means you haven't studied the energy industry.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as someone who spent 20 years working in
the energy industry. I rise today as the son of someone who spent his
entire career in the energy industry. I will take my fancy book
learning or school of hard knocks learning against any of you all any
day.
What strikes me in listening to this debate is, it reminds me of a
paperweight my dad had on his desk when I was a kid. It was a little
paperweight of an oil barrel. On one side of the barrel, it said:
``Relax. The price will go down,'' if you flipped it over, it said,
``Relax. The price will go up,'' because energy consumers want the
price to be cheap. Energy producers want the price to be high.
If you work in the energy industry as long as I have or even if you
worked there for 35 seconds, you spend time talking to consumers and
producers. The debate that is going on here in this body is not what is
in consumers' interest, what is in producers' interest, but what is in
the national interest.
[[Page H4847]]
The Republicans across the aisle are making a very articulate case
for energy producers. It is not lost on us that most of them represent
districts that are heavily dominated by producers.
Over here, there is a very articulate case on behalf of consumers
because most of Americans--I would hazard a guess that all Americans
are consumers.
Because when we export natural gas from the United States, we reduce
domestic supply, which pushes up the price. That is why the Natural Gas
Act since 1935, among other things, has required that gas export
facilities can't be built unless they are in the national interest, not
producers' interest, not the drillers' interest, not some random
Chinese fertilizer manufacturers' interest, but the national interest.
They go on to talk about facts. If you want to talk about people who
studied this, let's talk about the Department of Energy.
There is an LNG export terminal, I am sure you are aware of it, in
Freeport, Texas. In June 2022, it was shut down because of a fire for
about a month. That gave us real-time experiments on exactly what
happens when you make a marginal shift in the export of LNG from the
United States.
According to the Department of Energy website, this is what happened:
``The U.S. natural gas spot price fell by 13 percent on June 9. The
price continued to decline by an additional 17 percent through the end
of June. Prices fell largely because the outage at Freeport decreased
U.S. natural gas exports, putting downward pressure on natural gas
prices.''
That is 30 percent inflation in just one month from just one
facility. Supply and demand is real. This is not complicated.
Mr. Speaker, understand what this bill is trying to do. By
stipulating that all exports are in the national interest, you are
stipulating that raising every American's monthly heating bill is in
the national interest.
This week, Donald Trump gave a speech where he said: ``We are looking
at affordability--we are going to bring it down for everybody. . . .''
I think he meant we are going to make things more affordable, but you
understand the point.
If the Republicans all care about affordability, if they care about
the national interest, if they just care about proving Donald Trump
right for once, if they just care about doing what he tells them to do,
vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Cammack), another distinguished member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Guthrie for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG
Potential Act.
In 2024, America exported nearly 12 billion cubic feet of LNG every
single day. That is enough LNG to power almost 48 million homes in a
single day.
What we are now faced with is making President Trump's vision of
American energy dominance real.
LNG has a huge part to play in this vision, but we are fighting with
one hand tied behind our back.
American oil and gas producers are restrained by bureaucratic red
tape and the lingering rules and regulations of the Biden
administration.
The Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act stands as a pivotal
piece of legislation poised to bolster United States energy security,
foster economic growth, and promote environmental sustainability. At
its very core, the bill aims to streamline the regulatory process
surrounding the exportation of LNG, thereby unleashing the full
potential of America's abundant natural resources.
Now in north central Florida, not many people know this, but we are
home to one of the largest bunkering LNG hubs in North America. This is
critical to our domestic economy, as well as our national security.
The reason why this bill is so important is, first and foremost, it
addresses the Biden administration's extreme LNG permit ban. By
facilitating the exportation of LNG, we reduce our reliance on foreign
energy sources, mitigating the geopolitical risks, and enhance our
national security in the process.
By expanding LNG export capabilities, it means that this is job
creation. It stimulates investment in our energy infrastructure and
fosters innovation across the related industries.
Increased LNG exports translate into expanded markets, bolstering
domestic production, and will do more in the next 50 years than we can
imagine.
As I mentioned, the State of Florida is a dominant player in this
role. We need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to make
sure that the unelected bureaucrats are not hindering growth.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I will say that we want the world price
produced by what we have here in our country. The price does fluctuate
on a stop price day-to-day. However, just because we are sitting on
massive reserves of natural gas where our friends in Europe are
suffering, where our friends in Korea and Japan are asking for it, the
argument is, if you don't export any natural gas, the argument some
people seem to be making is the price would go down, but that is just
not true because the producers are going to produce to world price. A
real problem in price of natural gas is getting it distributed to where
it needs to go and that is pipelines. I hope we can work together on
permit reform.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs.
Bice).
Mrs. BICE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act, which will support a robust
natural gas industry in the U.S. and meet President Trump's goal of
achieving American energy dominance.
Natural gas is a major engine of economic growth, particularly in
Oklahoma. LNG exports alone in the U.S. support more than 273,000 U.S.
jobs and contribute $40 billion to our GDP.
This sector is a lifeline for communities across the country,
including Oklahoma's Fifth Congressional District, and we must ensure
it has a stable framework to reach its full potential.
LNG exports are also a win for the environment. A recent S&P Global
study found that U.S. LNG exports reduce global greenhouse gas
emissions by 65 million tons. Anyone serious about lowering global
emissions should strongly support the expansion of American LNG.
{time} 1440
Yet, despite this abundance of benefits, President Biden chose to
unilaterally ban the issue of LNG export permits. While this was
overturned by a court, if approval for export is determined by
political appointees at the Department of Energy, the threat of a
future ban from a progressive Presidential administration remains in
place. Turning these decisions over to a neutral party, like the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, will ensure the industry is kept
safe from such reckless attacks in the future.
Some argue that LNG exports raise energy prices for Americans by
reducing domestic supply. This claim is simply false. Increased export
opportunities incentivize production and drive efficiency gains, which
will help domestic prices continue to be affordable.
Given the abundance of economic and environmental benefits from LNG
exports, I believe it is critical that we help protect the industry
from misguided political attacks such as those made by the Biden
administration last year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of
this legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the
Republicans, talk about the demand for LNG in Europe and how we are not
giving Europe or other allies enough LNG. The fact of the matter is
that we are sending more LNG to our European allies and our other
allies than ever before.
DOE, the Department of Energy, has issued enough permits to triple
our export capacity from what it is today, even if they never issued
another permit. That will take us into the early 2030s, when European
policy is set to reduce natural gas consumption. We have approved so
many terminals that
[[Page H4848]]
most forecasters are seeing a massive glut of LNG on the market
starting next year and running well into the 2030s.
If this bill never becomes law, our European allies, our allies--I
think South Korea or Japan was mentioned--will be well supplied.
What is really happening here with this bill is helping China. That
is what this is about, Beijing, Communist China.
In 2024 alone, the United States exported over 200 billion cubic feet
of gas to China. At a time when Americans are struggling to pay their
heating bills and our power grids are facing unprecedented demand,
President Trump and his Republican Party care more about subsidizing
China's economic development and basically lining the pockets of their
fossil fuel friends.
Republicans claim to be obsessed with beating China in the AI race.
Why are they trying to advance a bill that makes it easier to send
American LNG to China to fuel their data centers and AI tools? Why are
they putting the profits of Chinese technology companies over the well-
being of American families and the success of our American companies?
I have said this before, but it bears repeating. Republicans on the
Committee on Energy and Commerce have compared winning the AI race with
China to the importance of winning the Cold War. If that is true, then
why are we sending more energy and trying to send even more and more
energy to China? It makes absolutely no sense.
H.R. 1949 will enrich Big Oil and the Chinese technology companies
that rely on LNG to fuel their data centers, all while worsening the
energy affordability crisis that Americans are experiencing. The only
Americans who benefit from this deal are the rich fossil fuel
executives.
H.R. 1949 squarely puts China first and America last. The President
and the Republicans keep talking about putting America first. How does
this bill do that? This bill does the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was actually in a meeting with Europeans at the
highest level of government, and when they talked about needing more
LNG exports from the United States and criticized the ban, somebody
made the point that my friend just made to them and said: Well, I
understand all of your terminals are full. You couldn't receive any
more anyway. They said: We need the world price to come down. We have
to have the world price come down.
Energy prices in Germany are three times what they are here. Could
you imagine trying to compete in the global economy when energy prices
are three times as high and when you have a neighbor just a few
countries over that has an unprovoked and illegal invasion of another
country?
We can't just dismiss that this is important to Europe as well just
because they have full terminals.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia
(Mrs. Miller), my good friend from a neighboring State and a good
neighbor.
Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1949, the
Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2025.
As co-chair of the Energy Export Caucus, I understand that
eliminating harmful barriers around American energy exports is
essential to strengthening our economy and national security.
This legislation takes a crucial step, cutting through bureaucratic
red tape, which has slowed or even stalled natural gas imports and
exports for far too long.
Giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission sole authority to
approve or deny natural gas applications eliminates permitting
bottlenecks and gives American energy producers a clear and reliable
path to move forward with critical projects.
H.R. 1949 ends the harmful Biden-era delays on liquefied natural gas
export approvals. Delays discourage investment, undermine our energy
leadership, and threaten the security of our global partners who depend
on the United States to break free from harmful foreign influence.
The United States is blessed with abundant natural gas resources, and
our producers stand ready to meet rising global demand.
Our Nation must capitalize on what we have here at home and continue
to make meaningful progress to stay competitive in the global energy
arena. H.R. 1949 ensures that American energy remains affordable and
accessible, keeping it unmatched on the world stage.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Babin), my good friend.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1949, the
Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act of 2025. I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this very important legislation.
The United States is already the world's leading producer of oil and
natural gas and also the top exporter of LNG. A whole lot of that
energy comes straight out of my district in the great State of Texas.
That is why it is long past time that we repeal the harmful,
politically motivated Biden-era restrictions that have shackled and
locked down our LNG industry. These restrictions did nothing but
threaten American jobs, drive away investment, and undermine the energy
security of our own allies and friends.
H.R. 1949, led by my friend Representative August Pfluger from Texas,
fixes this. It lifts restrictions on the import and export of natural
gas and allows American LNG to flourish once again.
Mr. Speaker, America should never ever voluntarily surrender its
energy advantages, not when our production strengthens families, their
paychecks, and communities, and certainly not when Texas and our Gulf
Coast stand ready to supply LNG to the world safely, cleanly, and
reliably. Energy security is national security. We must never forget
this.
I am proud to support this bill. It is a wise, good bill that will
strengthen America. I urge my colleagues to join me in unlocking
America's full LNG potential to achieve world energy dominance.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I should have introduced my good friend
from Texas (Mr. Babin) as a colleague and fellow chairman, the chairman
of the Committee on Science.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Arrington), chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, my good
friend.
{time} 1450
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the ranking member talk
about China's need for U.S. energy, thank God it is that way and not
the other way around.
If we followed the green new manifesto, with the regulatory assault
on U.S. energy, and kept throwing hundreds of billions of dollars in
distorting Green New Deal energy subsidies, that is exactly what would
happen, we would wake up and be dependent on China for yet one more
critical product.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand alongside Chairman Guthrie and my
fellow west Texan, August Pfluger, in support of the Unlocking our
Domestic LNG Potential Act. America is the world's top exporter of LNG,
a vital pillar of both our economic strength and national security.
In an effort to placate the radical left, which I think was primarily
the motivation, the Biden administration, with its whole-of-government
assault on American energy, froze new LNG export permits with no
economic, environmental, or national security justification. That
reckless decision threatened billions of U.S. investments, undermined
our allies, and harmed energy-producing regions like west Texas.
Thankfully, we now have a President in the White House who is
committed to doing the right thing for the country, for our producers
and consumers, and committed to making American energy great again, not
weaponizing
[[Page H4849]]
this authority for purely ideological purposes.
This bill removes politics from the export permit process and secures
America's position as the world's energy superpower. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill and prevent future administrations from
threatening America's energy dominance. I thank the chairman again for
his leadership.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the chairman of our committee so much. The
last time he spoke, he said that we need the world energy price to come
down. What about the price here in the United States? The price is
higher in the rest of the world than it is here, and that is why the
rest of the world wants more of our LNG, because it is cheaper for
them.
What about us, though? Shouldn't we be primarily concerned about
Americans and the price here?
This bill, in my opinion, is just a giant handout to Big Oil and Gas
that enriches our adversaries, primarily China, and forces middle-class
families to pay the price with higher home energy bills. The bill
removes the requirement that the Department of Energy determine LNG
exports to be in the public interest before approving any export
applications.
The bill assumes that all exports of LNG are automatically in the
public interest. I think this is absurd, considering multiple analyses
have found that increased LNG exports directly lead to higher natural
gas prices here in America.
Last year, the Department of Energy's own review was clear:
Unfettered gas exports will hurt the American economy. It found that
energy costs would go up by more than $100 per year for every
individual. At the same time, that is on top of the costs imposed by
Republicans' big beautiful or ugly bill.
The Department of Energy also found that natural gas prices would
increase by over 30 percent, so we are essentially, in this bill,
removing crucial safeguards. What you are going to have instead is a
Wild West, allowing all adversaries like China to purchase even more of
our energy, essentially, to use against us.
This is the same playbook that Republicans ran when they repealed the
crude oil export ban in 2015. After that repeal went through, oil
exports to China increased from 420,000 barrels per year to over 160
million barrels per year in 2023. Last year, the United States sent 213
billion cubic feet of LNG to China, but Trump says he wants to send
even more. He says that all the time.
All I am saying is if beating China is really as important as
Republicans and President Trump claim, we shouldn't be raising our own
energy prices just to fuel Chinese data centers. That is what this bill
does.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of
my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the price is different around the world because of the
way it is distributed. The price of natural gas is the price of natural
gas. To use it, you have to get it to market. You have to have it
there.
To use an example my friend from Illinois said, Mr. Speaker, that you
have a real-world example, he said there was a terminal that went
offline that was supposed to export natural gas. It burned, so it went
offline. There was natural gas moving to that terminal. All of a
sudden, for a few days, you had an excess of capacity of natural gas.
The argument would be, we would have the same production of natural gas
if we just shut down all of the ports. If you can use one as an
example, if you shut them all down and continue to produce the same
level of natural gas, the price would drop.
The issue is, there is a certain point where it costs you to produce
natural gas. You have to reach that point. What we are saying is, there
is a world price for natural gas. If you continue to expand markets for
people to ship natural gas, you will continue to have natural gas, and
they will continue to drill to meet those market demands around the
world.
If you shrink the demand around the world artificially by banning the
exports, then they are not going to produce as much natural gas, and it
doesn't affect the price. You can point to times when there are
disruptions in the supply, but overall, it is basic economics. That is
how it works.
Mr. Speaker, also, you can call what President Biden did a pause as
opposed to a ban, but I know from the time he implemented the pause or
ban until President Trump came into office, you couldn't ship natural
gas. Either pause it or ban it, I think that is saying the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, this is important. We do want to beat China. I have a
tremendous amount of respect for my ranking member. We want to work
together to beat China, and we are going to work together to beat China
because that unites all of us. Everybody in this room and everybody in
this Chamber wants America to be first. We are going to work together
to do that.
I think this is important. We may disagree on this policy. I think it
is important. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________