[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10782-10790]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               DOMESTIC PROSPERITY AND GLOBAL FREEDOM ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 6.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 636 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 6.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1610


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 6) to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural 
gas to World Trade Organization countries, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Harris in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, America's natural gas output has been rising since 
2006, and the Energy Information Administration expects the increases 
to continue for decades to come. As a result, we can meet domestic 
demand for affordable natural gas while also producing a surplus for 
export to our allies around the world. The only thing standing in the 
way is outdated Federal redtape that greatly delays the construction of 
LNG export facilities.
  H.R. 6, the bill before us, the Domestic Prosperity and Global 
Freedom Act, is a targeted bill that cuts redtape and puts the 
Department of Energy on a reasonable deadline to act on LNG export 
applications.
  I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Gene Green from Texas, 
for his cosponsorship of this bipartisan

[[Page 10783]]

bill, and I urge the support of every Member in this Chamber for H.R. 
6.
  According to the lead study conducted for the Department of Energy, 
natural gas exports would be a net benefit to the American economy. 
These exports would improve the balance of payments and support up to 
45,000 jobs associated with additional natural gas production as well 
as the construction and operation of LNG export facilities by 2018. 
Needless to say, these new jobs could not come at a better time for our 
economy.
  Remember the concerns many of us had over the U.S. economy 
hemorrhaging billions of dollars every year going overseas to pay for 
energy imports. Well, for natural gas, the roles can be reversed, and 
we could be the ones selling energy on the global market and bringing 
in billions of dollars in job-sustaining revenues.
  The economic impacts alone make natural gas exports a winning policy, 
but the geopolitical impacts are an incredible benefit as well and have 
been ignored for far too long. Allies around the world have told us 
that they would greatly benefit from American LNG.
  Last October, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a forum that 
included ambassadors and other officials representing 11 U.S. allies, 
all of whom strongly urged us to enter the global LNG marketplace. 
Since then, several other allies have stepped forward with the same 
request. This includes our friends in eastern Europe unfortunate enough 
to be reliant on Russia for natural gas.
  Not only do these nations face unfair pricing, but political 
pressure, as a result of their dependence on Russia. These nations 
believe that the very passage of this legislation, the signal that we 
are serious about LNG exports, would immediately reduce Russia's 
negotiating leverage even before the first molecule of LNG shipment 
actually goes out. H.R. 6 will start doing good the very day it is 
enacted.
  I should note that our efforts on LNG exports began before the 
current crisis erupted in Ukraine. Russia's actions over the past 
several months demonstrate the importance of this bill, and Russia's 
recent decision to cut off supplies to Ukraine further underscore the 
need for America to provide Europe an alternative supply of natural 
gas. Indeed, we can effectively push back against Russia's aggression 
and help our friends without ever putting any troops in harm's way.

                              {time}  1615

  Beyond Europe, we can also strengthen our economic ties with allies 
in Asia, who would rather buy their energy from us than from less 
reliable Middle Eastern suppliers.
  We can also assist nations in achieving their environmental goals by 
offering the option of clean-burning natural gas, and we can help many 
developing countries by providing them with an energy source that is 
cheaper than the choices available to them now.
  The economic benefits alone--or the geopolitical benefits alone--make 
LNG exports a worthwhile policy; but taken together, they make it a no-
brainer. Unfortunately, the decades-old Federal approval process for 
LNG export facilities is acting as an impediment.
  Proposed projects have languished at DOE for years on end. While DOE 
has recently announced some changes to the process, the agency is still 
under no deadline to act.
  The amendment that I am offering with Mr. Green changes that. It 
provides that, once the extensive environmental review conducted by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act is complete for a project, the Department of 
Energy has a 30-day deadline to issue a final decision on the 
application pending before the agency.
  It is a sensible and workable solution to the current regulatory 
bottleneck. It is an answer to a call from our allies for energy 
security.
  It is time to help our friends abroad. It is time to create jobs here 
at home.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 2014.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton, I am writing concerning H.R. 6, the 
     ``Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act,'' which the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce reported on June 19, 2014.
       As reported, H.R. 6 contains a section on judicial review, 
     which is within the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X 
     jurisdiction. As a result of your having consulted with the 
     Committee and in order to expedite the House's consideration 
     of H.R. 6, the Committee on the Judiciary will not assert is 
     jurisdictional claim over this bill by seeking a sequential 
     referral. However, this is conditional on our mutual 
     understanding and agreement that doing so will in no way 
     diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary with respect to the appointment of conferees or to 
     any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters 
     contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record 
     during the floor consideration of this bill. Thank you in 
     advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 24, 2014.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte, Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 6, the ``Domestic Prosperity and Global 
     Freedom Act.'' As you noted, the bill as reported by the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce contains a provision that 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. Specifically, subsection 2(b) provides for 
     judicial review of U.S. Department of Energy orders and 
     failures to issue a decision on applications for 
     authorization to export natural gas.
       I appreciate your willingness to forgo seeking a sequential 
     referral on H.R. 6, and I agree that your decision is not a 
     waiver of any of the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or 
     similar legislation, and that the Committee will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar 
     legislation moves forward. In addition, I understand the 
     Committee reserves the right to seek appointment of an 
     appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate 
     conference involving this or similar legislation, and you 
     will have my support for any such request.
       I will include a copy of your letter and this response in 
     the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 6 on 
     the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was going to talk about this bill, and I will, but I really want to 
talk about the inflation in the naming of these bills. This is a bill 
to allow a faster process for exporting natural gas to other countries.
  So what is it called? The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. 
What do you follow after that? Peace and prosperity in our time, 
whatever that may, in fact, involve. I just think this bill is 
overrated in its title. I also want to say it is overrated in what it 
does.
  There are 17 or 18 free trade countries, and they can have the export 
of natural gas to them right away. They are free trade countries that 
have an agreement with us. There is no problem in getting the approval 
for them. The question is: Are we going to approve export of natural 
gas to non-free trade countries?
  The premise of this bill is that we are not doing enough to export 
natural gas to them or anyone else, I guess. Congressman Gardner's bill 
would change the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, 
presumably because the Department of Energy is moving too slowly, 
because they can approve an application now for export anywhere around 
the world.
  In fact, DOE has moved--quite properly, it seems to me--to authorize 
these LNG exports. They have already approved seven export proposals, 
and they are continuing to evaluate additional applications.
  What these approvals that we have already granted--had granted--the 
U.S. is poised to transform into the world's second largest exporter of 
LNG in the world, just behind Qatar. If they approve one more 
application, we would go from exporting no LNG today to being the 
largest exporter in the world in just a few years.

[[Page 10784]]

  So why do we need this legislation? Certainly not to get domestic 
prosperity and global freedom because this bill doesn't accomplish 
either goal.
  Currently, the Department of Energy goes through a process, and they 
perform a public interest determination when reviewing export 
applications, so they can carefully consider the effect of LNG exports 
on natural gas prices here and the impact of higher prices here on 
American consumers and these manufacturers that are benefiting from the 
lower price that they have seen for LNG here.
  The public interest determination provides DOE an opportunity to 
examine a number of factors: energy security, geopolitical, and 
environmental considerations.
  If we would have this bill adopted, it would short circuit this 
established review process for pending and future LNG export 
applications. The bill establishes a new deadline for DOE to decide on 
applications within 90 days of the close of the public comment period 
or enactment of the bill, whichever comes later.
  That is a deadline that is established, so they are forcing the DOE 
to act, but if DOE looks at an application and they don't feel that 
they are ready to make a decision in that period of time, they are more 
likely than not to just turn it down. That doesn't seem to be a 
worthwhile goal, if we want to have more export of LNG.
  This provision would require DOE simultaneously to review and make a 
decision on all the pending applications within 90 days. It is not 
realistic, and it certainly isn't responsible.
  With few exceptions, environmental reviews haven't been completed by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for any of these applications, 
so the deadline would force DOE to rush its review of each application 
and make its final decision without a final environmental review.
  The other thing I want to comment on is all those ambassadors that 
told us they want this bill--because of the hold that Russia has over 
them--they might not even benefit if this bill were adopted because 
they are not free trade countries.
  So there has to be an approval of an export for LNG to a non-free 
trade country. There is not an approval through the Department of 
Energy to any particular country. It simply approves the request of a 
company here to export the LNG.
  Under our capitalist system, a business usually seeks the highest 
reward for its investment. The export of LNG to a non-free trade 
country is going to be better rewarded in Asia than it will be in 
Ukraine or in Eastern Europe, where they are so concerned, rightfully 
so, about what Russia is going to do. It may not even help those 
countries, as so many of these ambassadors hoped it will.
  I would say that this bill is not going to get us to export LNG any 
faster. Nothing in the bill affects the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission's permitting of the actual LNG export terminals.
  Rushing the DOE review is not going to speed up the construction of 
these projects. We need the construction of the infrastructure for the 
export of natural gas.
  The last thing I want to say is there are some controversies about 
exporting LNG, not exporting it at all, but opening it up to export in 
a process where the export will be wide open.
  A lot of manufacturers in this country are worried that, if we are 
exporting our LNG, that is going to raise the price of natural gas here 
at home. Well, of course it will. It will go to a lower price of LNG 
here at home to eventually a world price, if it could be freely 
exported around the world the way we have for oil. If that happens, 
they are afraid that this boom we have seen in manufacturing in the 
United States may be curtailed.
  So it is not without controversy that people are looking at this 
legislation. In other words, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, if you 
lose your job because the price of natural gas goes up and you are 
working for a manufacturer that is benefiting from a lower price for 
natural gas here in the United States, they are not going to look at 
this as a bill that leads to domestic prosperity and global freedom, as 
the authors of this bill would have us believe.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that nothing in 
this bill changes the requirements of a NEPA analysis to be completed.
  I share your frustration with the titles of bill names--the bill 
titles. Imagine our consternation over the Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud the gentleman from 
Colorado for bringing this bill to the floor.
  I wholeheartedly support H.R. 6 for a number of reasons. I also want 
to address some of the issues that the gentleman from the other side 
raised.
  First of all, let's consider international trade is the key to 
growth, it is the key to job creation, it is the key to reducing our 
deficits, and it is important geopolitically for the United States.
  Because of this great advance in technology with hydraulic fracturing 
and drilling, we now have unprecedented levels supply of gas that we 
can use domestically for manufacturing, and we are seeing a domestic 
manufacturing renaissance.
  Secondly, the amount of gas that we will export from this country, 
for a number of reasons, will not cause significant price spikes. In 
fact, it will add stability to the pricing of gas in this country and 
promote more drilling, which is what we need to do.
  We need to take care of our own energy security here, and we can 
provide energy security for our partners--our trading partners--around 
the world. This is why we need to move forward on this.
  It is clear that, over the last 2 years, the U.S. Department of 
Energy has raised its long-term forecast on gas production by nearly 40 
percent, with price expectations having declined 15 percent over the 
same period.
  So the point that the gentleman makes about price spikes because of 
LNG exports is really, really unfounded--an unfounded point.
  LNG exports could contribute up to 450,000 jobs between the years 
2016 and 2035 and add $73.6 billion annually to our GDP.
  My home State of Louisiana--in fact, the Third Congressional 
District, my district, is the leading area in this whole effort. We 
have currently the first two Department of Energy and FERC-approved 
facilities that are undergoing construction today.
  The first one, the Sabine Pass facility, will see its exports 
probably the end of 2015, early 2016. The others will follow.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. We currently have eight--eight--that are waiting and 
have been waiting over a year--eight facilities waiting over a year for 
approval from the Department of Energy. That is before they go through 
the expensive FERC process.
  This is why we need this legislation: to get the Department of Energy 
to move forward on this, so that we don't hold up something that is 
going to help us grow our economy, create jobs, and be very important 
geopolitically.
  Trade not only acts as a catalyst for creating jobs, it reduces 
deficits, promotes American goods and services internationally, and 
energy should be no different.
  That is why we need to move forward. We have a unique opportunity. 
Let's embrace it now, and let's do the right thing for our country.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, I respect him greatly, 
and he made an argument. I don't fully agree with his argument, but 
that is the purpose of the debate, to discuss ideas and air our point 
of view.
  The author of this legislation, I guess, couldn't help himself 
because he

[[Page 10785]]

said: imagine the consternation when they found that the Affordable 
Care Act was named the Affordable Care Act. There are millions of 
people around the country, for the first time, who are able to buy 
insurance that is affordable.
  I don't believe, if this bill passed, that it would lead to domestic 
prosperity and global freedom. With all due respect to those who have a 
different point of view, what gall to say that this bill, which is 
controversial, and many Americans oppose because they feel it will hurt 
their prosperity here at home or our national security here at home, 
would think that an appropriate name is to say this bill is the 
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.
  Now that I have got that off my chest, Mr. Chairman, I want to yield 
5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't think this bill is needed. LNG 
permits are being issued faster than they can be built.
  This bill establishes a rigid deadline for DOE to complete its public 
interest review of LNG export applications. That approach raises 
significant concerns.

                              {time}  1630

  I would like to talk about two of the concerns: climate change and 
economics.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McNERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. You don't think the bill is needed. Does that mean you 
are against domestic prosperity and global freedom?
  Mr. McNERNEY. No, I don't think that is what it means, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you. I just wanted that clarification.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Reclaiming my time, the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change recently released its multiyear report on the state of 
climate science. The world's leading climate scientists examined the 
peer-reviewed science and confirmed that climate change is already 
happening on all continents and across the oceans and will get much 
worse if we don't act.
  The impacts of runaway climate change will be severe: reduced crop 
yields, more heat waves and diseases, decreased water availability, and 
more extreme weather events.
  That means that we need to scrutinize the energy infrastructure 
decisions that we make today because of their impacts on climate change 
in the future. Every decision to build a new LNG export terminal has 
climate implications. We need to understand and weigh those effects. 
Otherwise, we risk locking in infrastructure that will produce carbon 
pollution for decades to come or creating stranded investments that 
must be shut down before they have paid for themselves.
  Natural gas combustion for electricity does emit less carbon 
pollution than coal, but natural gas production does result in gas 
escaping, and natural gas is a much more potent greenhouse gas than 
carbon dioxide. We need to consider the effect of carbon emissions in 
the United States.
  In addition, liquefying natural gas and shipping it overseas is an 
energy-intensive process that will result in some significant domestic 
carbon emissions. For example, the direct emissions from the Sabine 
Pass process will represent 2 percent of the entire State of 
Louisiana's emissions.
  The Energy Information Administration's modeling shows that LNG 
exports would increase domestic natural gas production in the United 
States. Of course, that is obvious. This could increase emissions of 
methane, which is, as I mentioned, a potent greenhouse gas, unless we 
take very severe measures to control that pollution at the wellhead and 
throughout the natural gas system.
  In a carbon-constrained world, we need to understand all of these 
domestic emissions' impacts and how they compare with emission impacts 
abroad. The DOE has taken a first step to begin looking at these issues 
but has not completed a rigorous study of the effects of the different 
levels of LNG exports on carbon emissions.
  We need to make sure we understand the effects on climate change of 
major energy infrastructure investments that will last for decades.
  My second concern is economic. Shipping natural gas overseas will 
raise domestic natural gas prices. That is basically the law of supply 
and demand--unless that law is no longer valid.
  Manufacturing is seeing a domestic renaissance here in this country 
because of natural gas prices being lower. This is domestic 
manufacturing. We want to make things in America. We want to make it in 
America. We want to continue to see that renaissance. We want to see 
manufacturing increase throughout the country and throughout the 
States.
  Therefore, I oppose the bill.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would point out that our colleagues in the Senate have introduced 
legislation similar to our legislation here on LNG exports titled, the 
Freedom Through Energy Export Act, by our colleague from Alaska, Mr. 
Begich.
  I point out, too, that when it comes to domestic prosperity, the fact 
that this could create 45,000 job opportunities, increasing the 
employment in energy to 3 million people by 2020, that is prosperity 
and freedom.
  Hungary's Ambassador at Large for Energy Security, Dr. Anita Orban, 
testified that this legislation ``sends a clear signal that the global 
gas market is changing, that there is the prospect of much greater 
supply coming from other parts of the world.''
  That is world security, freedom, prosperity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Turner), who has been a true leader on the issue of LNG exports.
  Mr. TURNER. I want to thank the author of H.R. 6 for his leadership 
on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, lifting self-imposed restrictions on natural gas 
exports is a win-win situation for the American people. It will create 
American jobs and strengthen our allies' independence, bolstering our 
economic and strategic partnerships.
  As chairman of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary 
Assembly, many foreign leaders have expressed to me the need for energy 
diversification and its importance to strengthen our strategic 
partnerships. We already cooperate with our allies on a variety of 
security issues. Energy security must also be a component of our 
strategic alliances.
  America's emerging role as an energy producer has the potential to 
enhance our security relationships and influence the global 
marketplace.
  As we have seen in Ukraine, Russia will not hesitate to use its 
energy resource dominance to expand its sphere of influence. Just last 
week, Russia's state-owned monopoly, Gazprom, cut off natural gas 
supplies to Ukraine.
  In the Asia Pacific, Japan is a critical security partner as we 
counter threats posed by countries such as North Korea. Already the 
world's largest importer of natural gas, Japan is dependent on Russia, 
the Middle East, and Africa for nearly 50 percent of its natural gas 
imports and is seeking greater imports as a result of its 2011 nuclear 
power plant disaster.
  Increasing U.S. natural gas exports, along with the development of 
other sources, such as the Southern Gas Corridor and the Eastern 
Mediterranean, will help diversify world natural gas supplies and 
create a more competitive, transparent, and diversified global natural 
gas marketplace. In fact, U.S. natural gas production has already 
influenced global markets.
  Natural gas previously destined for the United States but no longer 
needed as a result of increased production was diverted to other 
markets. This increased supply has made the global natural gas market 
more competitive, helping to put more pressure on contracts indexed to 
the price of oil and allowing several European countries to renegotiate 
their long-term contracts with Gazprom.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 10786]]


  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. TURNER. In fact, President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and 
Secretary of Energy Moniz have welcomed LNG exports to strengthen our 
strategic alliances. Mr. Chairman, I will submit their statements for 
the Record.

President Obama, Current and Past Administration Officials Welcome U.S. 
                              LNG Exports

       President Barack Obama, in a joint statement with European 
     leaders at the EU-US Summit on March 26, 2014: The situation 
     in Ukraine proves the need to reinforce energy security in 
     Europe and we are considering new collaborative efforts to 
     achieve this goal. We welcome the prospect of U.S. LNG 
     exports in the future since additional global supplies will 
     benefit Europe and other strategic partners.
       Secretary of State John Kerry, in a joint statement with 
     European energy leaders at a meeting of the EU-US Energy 
     Council on April 2, 2014: The Council further welcomed the 
     prospect of US LNG exports in the future since additional 
     global supplies will benefit Europe and other strategic 
     partners.
       Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, in a joint statement with 
     European energy leaders at the G7 Rome Energy Ministerial 
     meeting on May 6, 2014: No country should depend totally on 
     one supplier. We intend to promote a more integrated LNG 
     market, including through new supplies, the development of 
     transport infrastructures, storage capacities, and LNG 
     terminals.

  Mr. TURNER. Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is shipped, 
increasing supply in the global marketplace will provide international 
consumers with greater choice and thus increased leverage to negotiate 
prices.
  U.S. natural gas exports will create jobs right here at home and will 
help foster a more competitive natural gas market.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of H.R. 6.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 7 percent of the American people approve of the United 
States Congress. I think one of the reasons for that low approval 
rating is that we have overpromised and underperformed what they expect 
of us.
  If anybody would think that this bill in and of itself deserves to be 
called the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, I think they 
lose credibility with the American people. And there is not much more 
credibility to lose when they only support us at a rate of 7 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green), for whom I have an enormous amount of affection, even though 
today we have had two bills where we have disagreed. He doesn't 
overpromise. He just states his views and supports what he believes in. 
Sometimes he even convinces me, but he is not doing a good job today.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member for yielding to 
me. I have to admit that the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act 
is a bipartisan problem we have in this Chamber.
  I rise as a cosponsor in support of H.R. 6.
  H.R. 6 represents a bipartisan effort to legislate. I want to thank 
my colleague from Colorado, Congressman Gardner, for working with me. I 
wasn't an original cosponsor, but through our committee process we have 
worked it out. We achieved bipartisan support in the committee because 
we were working together. I think that is what the American people want 
Congress to do.
  It is important to recognize that there are more than 30 export 
permits to export LNG. These permits represent more than 35 billion 
cubic feet a day in LNG exports.
  Currently, the Department of Energy has conditionally approved six of 
them, but only one project has received final approval through DOE and 
through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  DOE has an important role in export to make sure that we don't 
increase our natural gas prices to where they are not affordable to our 
country. We are in an energy renaissance because of the success of 
natural gas, fracking, and directional drilling in our country, and we 
are producing more natural gas than we can use, whether it be for 
electricity production or for our chemical industry.
  I represent a huge chemical complex in East Harris County. There is 
literally a renaissance in the expansion of those chemical industries. 
It is increasing jobs and our exports because a lot of those chemicals 
we are producing from our U.S. natural gas will be exported. So someone 
else will pay for those jobs in our district in East Harris County.
  The Department of Energy has a role in this. The problem we have is 
that the Department of Energy has taken so long to approve these 
permits. The DOE really just needs to look if it is in our national 
interest. They include all these things under it. And that is correct.
  Let me give you an example.
  In Texas and North Dakota, we are flaring natural gas right now 
because we don't have customers in our country and we don't have a way 
to export it. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the people 
who own those royalties because they are not getting paid for them. And 
it is just terrible to see something we can sell to someone else not be 
utilized.
  So that is why I support this bill.
  We wanted to find that sweet spot, so to speak, on where we can 
export what we are not using.
  Those of you who are familiar with Texas, we hold in reverence our 
Blue Bell Ice Cream. If you are there, in their commercials they will 
say:

       We eat all we can and sell the rest.

  That is what I want to do with natural gas. I want to use all we can, 
but I want to sell all the rest we can't use so it will help our 
balance of trade, help some of our allies who need it, but also keep 
our workers working in both the oil patch and the gas patch.
  My colleague states that one more approval would make us the largest 
LNG exporter in the world. But not all of these projects will be 
constructed. Only one has been approved all the way. Of the more than 
30 applications, no more than a handful of these projects will be 
constructed and ultimately export LNG.
  Further, it is important that we clarify the LNG permitting 
processing before we discuss H.R. 6.
  There are two completely separate processes. First, a project must 
submit an application to export. If the project will send LNG to a 
country with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement, the application 
is automatically approved. In fact, the Port of Brownsville got their 
application approved in 30 days.
  If the project sends LNG to a country without a free trade 
agreement--non-FTA--the DOE must issue a permit based on the public 
interest. For a project to actually export LNG in either case, the 
applicant must receive a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permit.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews the environmental 
impacts of the actual LNG facility. The FERC process takes 12 to 18 
months and costs approximately $100 million.
  The issue H.R. 6 seeks to deal with is the non-FTA permits through 
the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy currently has 25 
permits awaiting decision. The Department of Energy held most of these 
permits for more than 3 years. Even the DOE recognizes this is a huge 
problem and proposed changing the approval process.
  While I support the DOE changes, unfortunately, they fail to provide 
any certainty. H.R. 6 would place a timeline for the DOE to issue a 
decision. Again, remember, the DOE is going to have 12 to 18 months to 
know that permit because it is going through the Federal regulatory 
process already.
  We need to make sure that the environmental review process is 
protected--and that is what FERC does--but we also need to make sure 
that the DOE makes those decisions timely so they can get those permits 
issued.
  I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 6 and provide certainty to the 
market.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank my colleague from California for 
his leadership on the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.

[[Page 10787]]

  This legislation would require the DOE to act quickly in considering 
applications to export liquefied natural gas.
  New technologies have unlocked vast resources of natural gas across 
the country. Our natural gas production will increase by 56 percent 
between 2012 and 2014.

                              {time}  1645

  If you want to see what real natural gas development looks like in a 
place that could really use the economic development, come to northern 
West Virginia or to southwest PA. More production means more American 
jobs and more West Virginia jobs.
  The Marcellus shale production in West Virginia is surging, and the 
possibility of LNG exports will mean more good-paying jobs here at 
home--and a lot of them. By 2035, LNG exports are expected to create 
8,600 West Virginia jobs and put $1.7 billion in State revenues.
  We need to do everything possible to put West Virginia resources to 
work for West Virginians, and today's legislation will make a real, 
positive difference for working families and communities in my State 
and in States across the Nation.
  This bill would allow us to import jobs and economic opportunity, 
while we export both energy and physical security to our friends and 
allies. More than a third of the natural gas consumed in Europe comes 
from Russia, and I am sure our allies would rather be buying natural 
gas from the United States.
  Passing this bill will create jobs in West Virginia and across the 
country. It will grow our Nation's economy and strengthen our 
relationships with our allies. I encourage my colleagues to vote for 
this important bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I want to thank Ranking Member Henry Waxman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity 
and Global Freedom Act. I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation 
that will help to increase U.S. liquefied natural gas exports and help 
boost our economy.
  In my 15th Congressional District in Texas, oil and natural gas 
extraction from the Eagle Ford shale has transformed this region, 
bringing thousands of new jobs, and growing wealth to many rural 
communities in South Texas.
  A study by the University of Texas showed that the Eagle Ford shale 
has provided a $61 billion impact to Texas and has supported over 
116,000 new jobs. More importantly, the boom in American natural gas 
production has drastically changed our many counties' energy future.
  The United States is now the number one natural gas-producing nation 
in the world. The USA has more than enough natural gas to meet its 
domestic needs while also exporting to foreign countries at a huge 
benefit to the United States' economy.
  Unfortunately, the existing application process at the Department of 
Energy has made it burdensome for companies to export liquefied natural 
gas to non-FTA countries. This bill will address that problem.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a truly bipartisan effort that will resolve a 
longstanding issue within our administration on expediting exports of 
natural gas. Our bill, H.R. 6, will cut the red tape and move quickly 
to approve all pending liquefied natural gas applications at the 
Department of Energy for our WTO allies, and it will provide future 
applicants with a much more reasonable process.
  I want to thank Representatives Cory Gardner and Tim Ryan for 
introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).
  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and I applaud my colleague 
from Colorado for his leadership.
  This bill will expedite exports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, to 
our allies abroad by cutting the red tape and streamlining the 
regulatory process. As a Nation, this has the potential to revitalize 
our economy, allow us to become energy independent, and to 
strategically advance our interests overseas.
  Now, I know many Hoosiers back at home might be asking themselves: 
How does this help me? After all, we have limited natural gas wells and 
processing plants in Indiana. Let me state clearly that the answer is: 
yes, it will help them.
  The bill would be an economic boon to the Hoosier economy. As the 
Nation's leading manufacturing State, Indiana contributes to the LNG 
business heavily by making and manufacturing the equipment that makes 
the gas extraction possible.
  The natural gas and oil industry has already created 136,000 jobs in 
Indiana, and it makes up over 4.1 percent of our entire labor income.
  The future for Indiana looks even brighter with the expansion of LNG 
exports. It is estimated that Indiana's economy would grow by $2.2 
billion a year and produce as many as 12,800 new jobs by simply 
allowing shipments of gas to our trusted allies.
  Just last week, I received a letter from the CEO of the Ports of 
Indiana that urged the passage of this legislation. He supports the 
passage because of the significant competitive advantage it will give 
our State, in terms of our geography and infrastructure, which will 
allow Indiana to further capitalize on LNG exports.
  Now is the time to allow American entrepreneurship to increase 
domestic energy production and fuel job creation, but unfortunately, 
the administration has refused, time and time again, to get out of the 
way of this entrepreneurship.
  The administration refuses to approve licenses for LNG exports, and 
as I speak now, there are 24 pending applications awaiting action from 
the Department of Energy. One has been waiting 917 days and counting.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, it is time to unleash the power 
of America's abundant natural resources in order to capitalize on our 
ingenuity and create thousands of good-paying jobs in my home State of 
Indiana and across the Nation. I urge its passage.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).
  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for his yielding, and I thank him 
for his work as ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 6, we are embarking on a policy that will 
lock us into higher and more volatile natural gas prices, and that will 
erode a key advantage we have for domestic manufacturing, that being 
low natural gas prices.
  Natural gas is used widely throughout our economy. It is, indeed, a 
valuable commodity, and we should be setting policy to ensure that we 
use it efficiently and effectively. LNG terminals are expensive to 
build and require a lot of energy to operate. The contracts signed by 
exporters commit them to exporting LNG for anywhere from 10 to 20 
years.
  We already had a small taste of what happens if there is an 
unexpected event that increases domestic demand when ready supplies are 
low and exports have increased.
  At a time when we are producing record amounts of propane, we had 
some of the worst shortages and price spikes we have seen in years. It 
was not entirely due to export increases, but it was definitely a 
factor. Many of our communities are paying the environmental costs of 
this natural gas boom. This bill is now going to deny them the benefits 
associated with sacrifices.
  There are very real concerns that this legislation would harm 
economic growth, job creation, and American manufacturing. This bill 
will not allow the adequate consideration of the public interest, 
including impacts on

[[Page 10788]]

United States' consumers and manufacturers, before granting the 
approval of natural gas exports to countries with which we do not have 
a free trade agreement.
  In fact, because we do have free trade agreements with a number of 
countries, exports of LNG to them do not require any public interest 
analysis. The DOE has approved billions of cubic feet to be exported to 
nations with which we have free trade agreements and to others as well.
  We are in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance due, in part, to 
an abundance of affordable domestic natural gas. We have seen 12 
consecutive months of growth in the manufacturing sector and a growing 
trend of the reshoring of jobs back to the United States.
  Why would we want to turn that trend around?
  Exports on the scale that this legislation would enable will raise 
domestic natural gas and electricity prices for every American and 
undermine our manufacturing competitiveness.
  The United States' natural gas prices are less than one-half of 
Europe's and one-third less than in places like Japan and South Korea. 
The integration of the United States' and Asia's natural gas markets 
would lead to increases in prices for consumers and businesses, undoing 
the economic conditions that have led to the recent growth in American 
manufacturing.
  The industrial sector represents some 22 percent of American energy 
use, with natural gas being the single largest input. Energy is 
consumed in the industrial sector for a wide range of purposes--from 
processing to heating, cooling, and as feedstocks to produce non-energy 
products.
  The chemicals, pulp and paper, iron and steel, refining, and 
nonmetallic minerals industries account for about one-half of all 
energy used in this sector.
  These industries alone represent millions of American jobs. That is 
why I am so concerned that the Energy Information Administration, the 
EIA, found that increased natural gas exports will ``lead to increased 
natural gas prices,'' and ``larger export levels lead to larger 
domestic price increases.''
  The EIA looked specifically at the potential impact of these price 
increases on United States' manufacturers, and it found that a high 
level of LNG exports could increase natural gas costs for the 
industrial sector by between 5 and 27 percent annually.
  The amendment I offered to the Rules Committee, an amendment which 
was not made in order, would have prevented section 2 of this bill from 
taking effect until there would be a determination that LNG exports 
would not adversely impact the competitiveness of the United States' 
manufacturing community.
  American employers are struggling to compete in this global economy, 
especially with the jobs in the manufacturing sector. Domestic 
manufacturers are competing with countries that have low wages, limited 
environmental and worker protections, and manipulated currencies. Low-
priced, abundant natural gas is a competitive advantage for domestic 
manufacturers. Let's not give that up.
  This Congress has an obligation to prevent the loss of American 
manufacturing jobs. The revitalization of the American manufacturing 
industry and the bringing back of quality jobs from overseas should be 
the cornerstone of our efforts in Washington in order to help the 
private sector thrive and to put our people back to work.
  This bill is only good for the natural gas-producing industry, and 
its increased benefits will be coming at everyone else's expense.
  With that, I urge the defeat of this bill.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Commerce Committee has been 
tackling the issue of LNG exports for quite some time now.
  What began as a solid case in favor of these exports has only grown 
stronger. I support this bill, H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and 
Global Freedom Act, and I applaud, in particular, the sponsor, Cory 
Gardner, for his efforts on this important bipartisan bill.
  Last October, we held a forum that consisted of nearly a dozen 
representatives of foreign governments, as well as the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, all of whom expressed their strong interest in buying LNG 
from the U.S.
  Three of them--Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania--are 
Eastern European allies that are currently dependent on Russia for 
natural gas. They described in great detail how Russia wields natural 
gas as a weapon against them, threatening to raise prices or to even 
cut off supplies as a means of exerting political pressure.
  We need to respond, as we are seeing their warnings playing out with 
the ongoing crisis, obviously, today in Ukraine. If Putin is not 
deterred, he will likely use the same tactics on other Eastern European 
countries in the years ahead. Russia's aggression is real, and American 
LNG can provide a much-needed lifeline away from Putin's grip as an 
alternative supply source.
  The Energy Information Administration's estimated reserves of natural 
gas continue to be revised upward, ensuring that we can continue to 
provide American manufacturers with low-cost supplies, while having 
enough for export markets, and the Department of Energy has even 
concluded that natural gas exports will be a net benefit to our 
economy.
  Early in our efforts, the DOE insisted that its process for approving 
LNG export facilities wasn't broken, but over the last year, there have 
been very few approvals, and most applications continue to languish--
some for even more than a year--and the line continues to grow.
  The DOE's most recent changes to the process, while a slight 
improvement from the existing queue, are still very disappointing. They 
do nothing to address the core problem of open-ended delays. Congress 
needs to act.

                              {time}  1700

  Throughout our efforts on this topic, there has been bipartisan 
interest in LNG exports. Since the bill was first introduced, the 
bipartisanship has only grown, and for that, I commend the bill's 
author, Cory Gardner, for working with Gene Green and others on an 
amendment adapting the bill's language to address a number of concerns.
  I know that we have reached the point where the passage of this bill, 
H.R. 6, will be seen as a bipartisan success story, as it should; and 
the Senate should follow our lead, stand up for jobs, as well as our 
allies, and quickly send this bill to the President's desk.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. UPTON. Because of advances in technology and innovation, we are 
now entering a new era of abundance. America is emerging, yes, as an 
energy superpower. We can enjoy the domestic benefits of being an 
energy superpower while also projecting our influence as a force for 
good abroad. The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act allows us 
to do both.
  This commonsense bill says ``yes'' to jobs, ``yes'' to energy, and I 
would urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 6.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado 
for bringing this bill to the floor. It is so important that we exploit 
American domestic resources to create jobs, create global stability, 
and make lower prices for consumers. This bill does all those things.
  So we have a lot to thank you for, Congressman Gardner, for what this 
bill could accomplish, and I appreciate that.
  Let me address a couple of points that I think have been erroneously 
made. Some said that current users of natural gas won't benefit as much 
if this bill were to become law. That is simply not true.

[[Page 10789]]

  There is such an abundance of natural gas in this country that we can 
supply domestic needs and, at the same time, have liquefied natural gas 
exports to our friends and allies. We can do both, and everyone will 
benefit. The shale gas revolution in this country is so amazing that 
that has made this possible.
  Secondly, some have said that there will not be the same quality of 
environmental reviews of LNG if this takes place, and that is simply 
not true either. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission maintains its 
role to permit the siting of facilities, just as under current law, and 
FERC, as they are known, is required by the National Environmental 
Policy Act, NEPA, to conduct an environmental assessment and, if 
necessary, an EIS, an Environmental Impact Statement, if that is 
required. That does not change either. The same requirements under NEPA 
will still be met under this law, should it become law. So we are not 
in any way degrading or compromising environmental standards. They are 
still going to be satisfied.
  So, for all those reasons, I want to thank the sponsor of this bill, 
Representative Gardner, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the gentleman from 
Colorado how many more speakers you have?
  Mr. GARDNER. We have two additional speakers.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Then I presume the gentleman from Colorado will want to close on his 
bill. So after your two speakers, we will close on our side, and then 
you can close.
  Mr. GARDNER. At this point, we only have two remaining speakers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for sponsoring this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, companies were building terminals to 
import natural gas at the cost of billions of dollars because analysts 
agreed that the United States economy was going to need natural gas 
from overseas. Today that scenario has flipped on its head, and import 
terminals are dormant. The Department of Energy has 19 applications 
waiting to get permission to export U.S. natural gas.
  Thanks to technology breakthroughs, U.S. natural gas reserves have 
climbed 72 percent since 2000. We have more gas than we can use here in 
the United States. Mr. Chairman, we have the best ice cream company in 
the world in Brenham, Texas, and their motto is: ``We eat all we can, 
and we sell the rest.'' That is what our motto should be with natural 
gas. We should use all we can and sell the rest everywhere in the world 
that wants to buy it.
  As chairman of the Trade Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, I did a 
hearing on more LNG exports in April. Every witness at the hearing, 
from the union representatives to a professor, agreed that we should 
export natural gas. We have too much gas and our allies have too 
little.
  And then there is Russia. Russia has an energy stranglehold over 
Europe, including Ukraine. Just this past week, Russia announced it was 
going to require payments up front from Ukraine. Russia has already 
increased the price of natural gas and even stopped sending natural gas 
to Ukraine.
  Isn't that lovely?
  Ukraine needs access to natural gas down the road, and that could be 
the United States. We need to compete with Gazprom. That could be the 
United States. That is how we can help thwart Russian aggression in 
Eastern Europe.
  Technically, the United States can export natural gas, but the 
approval process is slow as molasses. It is the government. The 
government takes too long to make a decision, and the Department of 
Energy wraps companies in red tape. Many times we can lose these 
natural gas contracts to our competitors.
  So I support this legislation. I thank the gentleman for bringing it 
to the floor.
  And that's just the way it is.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, 
the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, championed by my friend 
and colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Gardner 
of Colorado, a true leader in this area. This Act will help expedite 
approval of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports to our allies.
  The United States is experiencing a North American energy boom that 
analysts predict can produce enough natural gas to meet our domestic 
demands as well as that of our global allies, including Ukraine and 
other Eastern European nations currently at the mercy of Russian energy 
supplies. Expediting U.S. liquefied natural gas exports serves our 
national security interests as an aggressive Russian regime looks to 
expand power in former Soviet Union countries. This legislation helps 
our allies in eastern Europe and across the globe, while creating jobs 
here at home through private investment and economic opportunity 
essential to improving the American economy.
  As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I am proud to 
have helped bring this important energy global security measure to the 
floor today, and I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage. 
This is in the national security interest of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a sponsor of H.R. 6, somebody who has been with this 
bill, this legislation, from the beginning as we have worked on this 
bipartisan process.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. I probably won't take all 
the time, but I did want to stand up in support of this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, in my district in eastern Ohio, we have been--and I have 
heard speaker after speaker talk about the potential boom for our 
country and different regions of America. And my region that I 
represent is one of those areas along eastern Ohio.
  I think if we are looking to address many of the issues of global 
warming, and I know there would be a lot of different discussions and 
opinions that I may have compared to a lot of people on the other side, 
but I believe that this is an opportunity for us to address that issue 
with liquid natural gas, to get it out into the marketplace, to make 
sure that the economic benefits are here in the United States, that our 
people in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, into New York and the 
upstate New York area are able to benefit from this. FERC is going to 
have to approve these ultimately, at the end of the day, and so I don't 
think that we can pass up this opportunity to have a transition.
  Now, I think, quite frankly, we missed the boat a few years ago when 
we had an opportunity to pass a comprehensive energy bill that would 
invest into--in the bill that came before this House, money into coal 
research was an opportunity that I think we missed.
  There was an opportunity for wind and solar and the alternatives that 
I think, ultimately, will be a part of an extended portfolio here in 
the United States. But today, the opportunity is with liquid natural 
gas and getting it abroad.
  In one of my positions on the German Study Group, we were in Germany 
talking to Chancellor Merkel, and the first thing she said to us, as 
our delegation was over there, was let's talk about natural gas, the 
first thing, because she had Putin at that time, a year, year and a 
half ago, breathing down her neck, and now here we are. So I think 
there is an opportunity here. This is one step in a long process.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and hope we can 
continue to build out this energy portfolio with natural gas and the 
others that will come along the way.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For those who want to export natural gas, this bill really isn't 
necessary because the Department of Energy is approving enough export 
of natural gas

[[Page 10790]]

that will allow us, in a few years, to be the largest exporter of LNG 
in the world. So DOE is acting.
  For those of you who are concerned about global freedom, well, when 
we get all the facilities going to be able to export the natural gas 
and once we get all of the approvals to export natural gas, the 
countries who are going to receive this natural gas are most likely 
going to be China, Japan, and India, because that is where they are 
paying higher prices for natural gas. It is going to be more profitable 
to ship the LNG there.
  I don't fault the companies for doing that. They are in business to 
make money. It is going to provide more money to ship the natural gas 
there.
  Well, what about Ukraine? What about the countries that are under 
threat from Russia?
  Angela Merkel, the head of Germany, may not realize it, but natural 
gas is not going to be there for quite a long time. It is going to take 
years. Therefore, if you think domestic prosperity is hinging on the 
ability to export natural gas, we don't need this bill.
  If you think global freedom is hanging on the balance waiting for 
this bill to become law--and by ``global freedom'' you don't mean 
freedom for China to get more natural gas or India or Japan, but 
Ukraine and countries in eastern Europe--don't count on this bill to 
bring about global freedom.
  The bill is grossly titled because it is promising more than this 
bill can ever deliver, and I would urge that this bill is not necessary 
and ought to be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman for your leadership over this hour and thank the 
gentleman from California for the debate and the Members who came and 
debated this important piece of legislation today.
  Look, we know this bill has the support of organizations like the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 
People who represent the businesses of this country, the industrial 
might of this country, support H.R. 6 because they know that when we 
can produce our energy in our own backyard and help our allies to a 
greater prosperity for themselves, we are doing the right thing with 
H.R. 6.

                              {time}  1715

  This bill is the confluence of two policies that we try to promote 
but often fail to achieve: the policy of domestic job creation, where 
45,000 people could be taken off the unemployment rolls because of H.R. 
6. The other policy that we achieve with this legislation is to give 
our friends and allies a greater degree of freedom, a greater ability 
to be independent from Russia, their aggressive neighbors that just 
decide one day to invade.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 is the work of a bipartisan group of lawmakers 
who have worked over the past several months to make sure that we have 
the support--not just from the Republican side of the aisle, but strong 
support from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans who 
believe that we should answer the call from our friends and allies for 
energy security, for economic opportunity at home, and to make sure 
that we continue the energy revolution in this country.
  Opposition to the bill, as I said in committee, is like hanging up on 
a 911 phone call from our friends and allies.
  Let's pass this legislation. Let's achieve exactly what the title of 
this bill says: prosperity at home and help for our allies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chair, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 6, 
legislation calling for expedited approval of the exportation of 
natural gas to World Trade Organization (WTO) countries.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I believe 
passage of this legislation is critical to strengthening the United 
States' presence in Asia, and encourages the growth of the American 
economy.
  Several weeks ago, my Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the 
implications of increasing exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) 
to the Asia-Pacific region. The Subcommittee specifically examined the 
impact that doing so would have on our strategic interests in the 
region, as well as on the U.S. economy.
  It is very evident that increasing exports of LNG would be immensely 
beneficial to both the U.S. and our strategic partners in the region, 
and I commend my colleagues for moving this important legislation 
forward.
  The energy landscape is changing drastically in Asia. Asian economies 
are expected to be the largest consumers of energy in the world by 
2035. Current models predict that China will account for nearly 25 
percent of the total world energy demand alone. Japan is paying a 
premium for access to LNG, as a result of a near total shutdown of its 
nuclear reactors in response to the Fukushima disaster. And as India's 
economy advances, so too does its demand for energy and the price of 
natural gas. Vietnam, Taiwan, and others are also expressing strong 
interest in purchasing U.S. LNG.
  The U.S. has the opportunity to promote a more free market in the 
region, by selling natural gas that is less expensive than the gas 
supplied by other providers in the region who link their gas prices to 
the price of oil.
  And consequently, shipping U.S. LNG to Asia may free up Malaysian and 
Qatari natural gas resources which, alternatively, could be shipped to 
Europe and alleviate their reliance on Russian energy supplies.
  Expanding LNG exports to include WTO countries offers the U.S. a 
chance to bolster our domestic economy and revitalize the U.S. 
manufacturing sector. In 2012, the increase in unconventional energy 
production resulted in over 2 million jobs and reduced our trade 
deficit by more than $164 billion over the last five years.
  Increasing LNG exports stamped ``Made in the USA'' brings many 
benefits both at home and abroad. By passing H.R. 6, we are taking an 
important step that strengthens our long-term strategic interests in 
Asia, and also boosts our own domestic economy. I urge my colleagues to 
support the legislation.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Walorski) having assumed the chair, Mr. McClintock, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to 
provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas to World 
Trade Organization countries, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________