[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11008-11014]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               DOMESTIC PROSPERITY AND GLOBAL FREEDOM ACT

  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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6.
  Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1318


                     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 further 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. Poe of Texas (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
June 24, 2014, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-48. That amendment 
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                 H.R. 6

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page 11009]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Domestic Prosperity and 
     Global Freedom Act''.

     SEC. 2. ACTION ON APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Decision Deadline.--The Department of Energy shall 
     issue a decision on any application for authorization to 
     export natural gas under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 
     U.S.C. 717b) not later than 90 days after the later of--
       (1) the end of the comment period for such decision as set 
     forth in the applicable notice published in the Federal 
     Register; or
       (2) the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Judicial Action.--(1) The United States Court of 
     Appeals for the circuit in which the export facility will be 
     located pursuant to an application described in subsection 
     (a) shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any 
     civil action for the review of--
       (A) an order issued by the Department of Energy with 
     respect to such application; or
       (B) the Department of Energy's failure to issue a decision 
     on such application.
       (2) If the Court in a civil action described in paragraph 
     (1) finds that the Department of Energy has failed to issue a 
     decision on the application as required under subsection (a), 
     the Court shall order the Department of Energy to issue such 
     decision not later than 30 days after the Court's order.
       (3) The Court shall set any civil action brought under this 
     subsection for expedited consideration and shall set the 
     matter on the docket as soon as practical after the filing 
     date of the initial pleading.

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EXPORT DESTINATIONS.

       Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Public Disclosure of LNG Export Destinations.--As a 
     condition for approval of any authorization to export LNG, 
     the Secretary of Energy shall require the applicant to 
     publicly disclose the specific destination or destinations of 
     any such authorized LNG exports.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 113-492. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gardner

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part A of House Report 113-492.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Redesignate subsection (b) of section 2 as subsection (c).
       Strike subsection (a) of section 2 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Decision Deadline.--For proposals that must also obtain 
     authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     or the United States Maritime Administration to site, 
     construct, expand, or operate LNG export facilities, the 
     Department of Energy shall issue a final decision on any 
     application for the authorization to export natural gas under 
     section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) not later 
     than 30 days after the later of--
       (1) the conclusion of the review to site, construct, 
     expand, or operate the LNG facilities required by the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S. C. 4321 et 
     seq.); or
       (2) the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Conclusion of Review.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     review required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 shall be considered concluded--
       (1) for a project requiring an Environmental Impact 
     Statement, 30 days after publication of a Final Environmental 
     Impact Statement;
       (2) for a project for which an Environmental Assessment has 
     been prepared, 30 days after publication by the Department of 
     Energy of a Finding of No Significant Impact; and
       (3) upon a determination by the lead agency that an 
     application is eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 implementing 
     regulations.
       In subsection (c) of section 2, as so redesignated, by 
     inserting ``final'' before ``decision'' each place it 
     appears.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 636, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to 
debate H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. It is 
something that, in this Congress, we don't do that often, a bill to 
address both job creation here at home and also to provide our trading 
partners and our allies with energy security abroad.
  The amendment before the desk right now is a manager's amendment, 
brought to this Chamber in a bipartisan fashion with the gentleman from 
Texas, Representative Gene Green, who has been gracious and patient in 
this effort to work through this process to make sure that we have as 
broad-based support as possible for this legislation.
  It recognizes that, despite some of the concerns our side has with 
the recent DOE changes to their process, including the expanding scope 
of DOE's public interest analysis to include elements unrelated to 
DOE's primary authorities, it is still vitally important to send as 
strong a message as possible to our allies that the U.S. is prepared to 
answer their call and enter the market as a major exporting nation.
  It is equally important that we send a message that we are bringing 
certainty to the applicants and the jobs currently waiting in limbo at 
DOE, and that DOE will, indeed, be held accountable to do its job once 
FERC finishes their facility review and the NEPA process.
  Again, this legislation has the potential to lift 45,000 people off 
of the unemployment rolls. Daniel Yergin testified before the Energy 
and Commerce Committee that we could move from 1.7 million jobs in this 
country to 3 million jobs in this country in energy by 2020. And H.R. 6 
and this amendment help advance that job creation.
  But because DOE's recent changes did not put a final deadline for the 
Department to act on applications, this amendment requires that the 
Department must issue a decision on pending applications within 30 days 
after FERC completes the NEPA review for the project. We are doing this 
because some of these applications have been languishing for more than 
2 years, and it is time to insert accountability back into the process, 
especially when DOE's own analysis concludes: Increasing natural gas 
exports are net positive to our economy.
  This issue is too important to domestic job creation and to 
increasing the United States' role in international energy diplomacy to 
continue to squander and delay our opportunities.
  This amendment also addresses many of the concerns that those on the 
other side have voiced with previous versions of this legislation, 
including completing full environmental reviews and maintaining DOE's 
role in the public interest test. I hope this will help H.R. 6 garner 
even broader support.
  At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 
Green) and, again, thank him for his support.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague and fellow committee 
member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. The 
amendment we offer today is the result of hard, bipartisan work.
  The original text of H.R. 6 worked to fix a problem at the Department 
of Energy. The problem was delay. The Department of Energy is 
responsible for permitting exports to non-free trade agreement 
countries.
  Since 2011, the Department has received approximately 35 permit 
applications to export liquefied natural gas. Since 2011, only one 
project has received final approval.
  EIA estimates that by 2035, the United States will produce 5 trillion 
cubic feet more than we can consume of natural gas. But in order to 
export the gas, rather than flare it and harm the environment, projects 
need permits.
  The process is not working well. Why has only one project received 
final approval after 3 years? Why did DOE, just this month, propose 
changing the process? It is because the process is not working.

[[Page 11010]]

  The manager's amendment that I coauthored with my colleague from 
Colorado acknowledges that DOE's proposed changes are a step in the 
right direction.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the gentleman.
  Unfortunately, after 3 years of delay, we need to ensure DOE issues 
timely decisions. The manager's amendment places a 30-day timeframe on 
DOE after the completion of the environmental review process.
  This amendment is an example of the cooperation and bipartisanship 
from our committee. And, again, I urge Members to adopt the manager's 
amendment.
  Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Chris Smith, 
told a Senate panel last week that he is ``confident that whatever the 
law requires, the department will be able to accomplish.''
  DOE will issue public interest determinations 12-to-18 months after 
they receive the application.
  I am confident that: after 3 years of delay, 12-to-18 months of 
environmental review, a 30 day public comment period; and an additional 
30 days to review the application that DOE can issue a sound public 
interest determination.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from 
Colorado, Congressman Gardner, is proposing some changes in an effort 
to address some of the problems with his bill.
  The base bill would require the Department of Energy to make final 
decisions on almost all of the pending energy export applications in 90 
days, without the benefit of complete environmental reviews. Now they 
look at their bill, and they appear to understand that this would be 
bad policy.
  The amendment would establish a different deadline. Now DOE must 
issue a final decision on an application within 30 days of completion 
of the NEPA environmental review. That is an improvement because it at 
least ensures that major LNG export projects are not approved without 
an environmental review. However, if this amendment is adopted, the 
bill will remain unnecessary and problematic.
  The bill is unnecessary because DOE already is approving huge volumes 
of LNG exports without any legislative action. They have proposed to 
further streamline their review at DOE so that it prioritizes review of 
the projects that have completed environmental reviews. That is already 
happening without this bill.
  So if we adopt this amendment, the bill will still be unnecessary 
because it truncates DOE's public interest review. We should give DOE 
the time it needs to weigh the pros and cons of granting an 
application. Instead, the bill sets a 30-day deadline that would rush 
that process. To me, that doesn't make sense, especially since rushing 
DOE isn't going to get LNG exported any faster. LNG can't be exported 
without a terminal, and nothing in this bill gets terminals permitted 
or built any faster.
  I am not going to oppose this amendment because it is probably better 
than the base bill, but it doesn't solve all of the problems with the 
bill. It illustrates how this bill, which is being touted as bringing 
about domestic prosperity and global freedom, is being worked on the 
go. I think it hasn't been thought through. This makes it a little 
better, but I don't see how the bill lives up to its title. I won't 
oppose the amendment, but I still think the bill is not worthy of 
passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I thank Ranking Member Waxman for his support of the 
amendment but would remind him that an Ambassador from Hungary, 
ambassador-at-large for energy security, said it is simply not true 
that lifting the natural gas export ban today would not have an 
immediate effect in Europe. It would immediately change the business 
calculus of infrastructure investment and send an extremely important 
message of strategic reassurance to the region, which currently feels 
more threatened than at any time since the cold war.
  Passage of this bill would send an immediate signal to our allies and 
our enemies that the United States is serious about energy security and 
aiding our friends most in need of energy security.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Ambassador from Hungary and 
other countries that are looking at the possible aggression of the 
Russians are concerned about not having to rely on Russia alone for 
their natural gas supplies, and they are desperate. And we need to help 
them as best we can.
  But let's not fool anybody. Even if this bill were passed, it will 
probably not allow for us to get LNG to some of those countries until 
2017, 2018. And if we allow the export of LNG, exporters here in the 
United States are going to send it primarily to those who will pay the 
highest prices. And they are not in Europe. They are in Asia.

                              {time}  1330

  I wouldn't want the people to be under any illusions that this will 
help them immediately. I think the statement by that Ambassador shows 
more desperation than anything else and hope that we send a signal that 
we are going to do the best we can to get LNG to them as soon as 
possible, maybe they can withstand a possible Russian action.
  On the other hand, the Ambassador from Hungary knows that Hungary is 
part of NATO, and if Hungary is attacked by the Russians, we have an 
obligation to help them under our NATO agreement, so I think that is 
their base security, not this legislation.
  They have high hopes, especially when they hear that this is a bill 
that will bring about domestic prosperity to the United States. They 
would presumably like for us to have prosperity, and so would I, and it 
is called not only Domestic Prosperity, but Global Freedom, and they 
certainly are hoping that we will do what we can for global freedom.
  I certainly want to do everything we can for global freedom, and 
voting against this bill does not mean voting against global freedom.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I would be happy to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Colorado says that this 
would send a signal to European countries, and as my friend from 
California makes clear, it would not be a signal that help is on the 
way any time soon. The natural gas would not come soon, but the signal 
that would be heard loud and clear by manufacturers and homeowners is 
the price of gas would be going up.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that here is an 
article that states that: ``Centrica buys U.S. LNG in 20-year deal as 
U.K. output wanes.'' Selling U.S. LNG to Europe, Italy is close to 20-
year LNG deal with Cheniere; another article, ``Cheniere and Endesa 
sign 20-year LNG sale and purchase agreement.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment to H.R. 6.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part A of House Report 113-492.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 5, strike ``The Department'' and insert 
     ``Except as provided in section 3(a)(2)(C) of the Natural Gas 
     Act, as added by section 4 of this Act), the Department''.
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS.

       Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(a)) is 
     amended--

[[Page 11011]]

       (1) by inserting before ``After six months from the date on 
     which'' the following: ``(1) authorization for the 
     importation of natural gas.--'';
       (2) by striking ``export any natural gas from the United 
     States to a foreign country or'';
       (3) by striking ``exportation or''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Authorization for the Exportation of Natural Gas.--
       ``(A) Prohibition.--No person may export any natural gas 
     from the United States to a foreign country without first 
     having secured an order of the Secretary of Energy 
     authorizing such person to do so.
       ``(B) Issuance of orders.--The Secretary of Energy may 
     issue an order authorizing a person to export natural gas 
     from the United States to a foreign country, upon 
     application, if the Secretary determines that the proposed 
     exportation will be consistent with the public interest, in 
     accordance with the regulations issued under paragraph 
     (3)(B). The Secretary may by order grant such application, in 
     whole or in part, with such modification and upon such terms 
     and conditions as the Secretary may find necessary or 
     appropriate.
       ``(C) Timing.--No order may be issued by the Secretary of 
     Energy under this paragraph prior to the date on which the 
     Secretary issues final regulations under paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(3) Public Interest Determination.--
       ``(A) NEPA review.--The Secretary of Energy shall issue a 
     detailed statement under section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) of 
     the environmental impact of the issuance of orders under 
     paragraph (2), including by conducting an analysis of the 
     impacts of extraction of exported natural gas on the 
     environment in communities where the natural gas is 
     extracted.
       ``(B) Regulations.--
       ``(i) Deadline.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     issue final regulations, after notice and public comment, for 
     determining whether an export of natural gas from the United 
     States to a foreign country is in the public interest for 
     purposes of issuing an order under paragraph (2).
       ``(ii) Contents.--Regulations issued under this paragraph 
     shall require the Secretary of Energy to determine, with 
     respect to each application for export of natural gas from 
     the United States to a foreign country, whether such export 
     is in the public interest through--
       ``(I) use of the latest available data on current and 
     projected United States natural gas demands, production, and 
     price;
       ``(II) consideration of the effects of such natural gas 
     exports on--

       ``(aa) household and business energy expenditures by 
     electricity and natural gas consumers in the United States;
       ``(bb) the United States economy, jobs, and manufacturing, 
     including such effects on wages, investment, and energy 
     intensive and trade exposed industries, as determined by the 
     Secretary;
       ``(cc) the energy security of the United States, including 
     the ability of the United States to reduce its reliance on 
     imported oil;
       ``(dd) the conservation of domestic natural gas supplies to 
     meet the future energy needs of the United States;
       ``(ee) the potential for natural gas use in the 
     transportation, industrial, and electricity sectors of the 
     United States;
       ``(ff) the ability of the United States to reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions;
       ``(gg) the volume of natural gas produced on public lands 
     in the United States, and where such natural gas is consumed;
       ``(hh) domestic natural gas supply and availability, 
     including such effects on pipelines and other infrastructure;
       ``(ii) the balance of trade of the United States; and
       ``(jj) other issues determined relevant by the Secretary; 
     and

       ``(III) consideration of the detailed statement issued 
     under subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Exemptions.--Paragraph (2) does not apply with 
     respect to any order authorizing the exportation of natural 
     gas if the natural gas that would be exported as a result of 
     the order is exported solely to meet a requirement imposed 
     pursuant to section 203 of the International Emergency 
     Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702), section 5(b) of the 
     Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 5(b)), or part B 
     of title II of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6271 et seq.). In such cases, the Secretary of Energy 
     may issue such order upon application without modification or 
     delay.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 636, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment that I am offering, 
along with Mr. Quigley of Illinois.
  The effects of the natural gas boom have been felt throughout our 
economy, but before we hurry to ship our energy advantage overseas, we 
should ensure that we are not exporting our ability to create jobs, 
keep energy prices low, and to fuel a resurgence in American 
manufacturing that is so badly needed.
  The Holt-Quigley amendment will ensure that the Department of 
Energy--before approving additional LNG exports--adheres to unambiguous 
congressional guidance in consideration of how such exports will affect 
our economy, our communities, and our environment.
  H.R. 6 would essentially approve all pending LNG applications, in 
addition to those that have already been approved. All approved and 
pending export facilities add up to an ability to export 36 billion 
cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day.
  Thirty-six billion cubic feet per day is about 40 percent of U.S. 
peak daily consumption during this past winter--a winter, I should 
note, with volatility in the domestic natural gas market resulting in 
shortages in some areas--while, elsewhere, prices spiked, resulting in 
up to a 250 percent increase in natural gas prices from the previous 
year.
  Now, we know that exporting more LNG will raise prices, but what we 
don't know is by how much. We know that higher prices will create 
problems for U.S. manufacturing and homeowner heating, but we don't 
know how badly.
  We should take the time to consider what greater volumes of LNG 
exports will mean for energy prices, jobs, manufacturing, the 
environment, and the economy.
  As with all the bills on the floor this week, H.R. 6 is about 
supporting oil and gas interest at the expense of American 
manufacturing, American families, and the environment.
  Our amendment has the support of both America's Energy Advantage and 
the Industrial Energy Consumers of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Holt amendment is a virtual rewrite of the entire 
Natural Gas Act that has been drafted without the benefit of the full 
debate of this Chamber or committee in regular order of this process.
  The amendment would reverse the rebuttable presumption that proposed 
exports are consistent with the public interest. The amendment would 
also require the Department of Energy to undertake a new rulemaking and 
issue new regulations to determine whether an export of natural gas 
from the U.S. to a foreign country is in the public interest.
  The moratorium on processing applications resulting from the Holt 
amendment could last years. The DOE has already spent more than 3 
years--3 years--establishing the process for reviewing the public 
interest.
  The DOE's public interest analysis is already well informed by 
numerous economic and environmental studies; and in prior decisions, 
DOE has looked at a number of factors, including economic impacts, 
international considerations, U.S. energy security, and environmental 
considerations, already among other things.
  To conduct its reviews, DOE looks to the record of evidence developed 
in the application proceeding. Applicants and intervenors are free to 
raise new issues or concerns relevant to the public interest that may 
not have been addressed in prior cases.
  Even though the DOE has repeatedly rejected the same reoccurring 
arguments lodged by the same Washington, D.C.-based special interest 
groups, they are delaying decisions on new export applications.
  The Department of Energy has continually stated that the public 
interest generally favors authorizing proposals to export natural gas 
that have been shown to lead to net benefits on the

[[Page 11012]]

U.S. economy, and I believe the Holt amendment would disrupt the 
process that DOE has developed and result in even further delays.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
current amendment to H.R. 6.
  The Holt-Quigley amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to 
consider how proposed natural gas exports will affect the domestic 
natural gas prices, jobs, and manufacturing when making a public 
interest determination.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment because it codifies 
requirements that are already existing in the public interest 
determination. That is what the Department of Energy, under current 
law, is supposed to do, and we expect them to do their job.
  When conducting a public interest determination, the Department of 
Energy considers economic, geopolitical, national security, and a 
variety of other issues. The public interest determination is a robust 
review of all the impacts associated with LNG exports. It would be 
redundant to require DOE to look at issues they are already 
considering.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I 
thank my colleague for the time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a coproposer and coauthor of 
this amendment.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the debate about our Nation's energy 
policy is happening here in Congress and around the country.
  We are debating the merits of natural gas extraction, with many of us 
arguing for much stronger regulations to prevent the contamination of 
our drinking water and the pollution of our air.
  We are debating the building of the Keystone pipeline, with many of 
us arguing that its approval would harm our environment and jeopardize 
the health and well-being of our communities. In each of these debates, 
the argument on each side may be contrary, but both sides are focused 
on one important question: Is this in the national interest?
  It is essential that today's debate about the exportation of natural 
gas be framed in the same light. The amendment I am offering with my 
friend from New Jersey is based on a central premise. Before hurrying 
to export as much as 36 billion cubic feet of LNG per day, we should 
take time to consider what this will mean for energy prices, jobs, 
manufacturing, the environment, and our economy.
  Current law simply assumes it is always in our natural interest to 
export natural gas, even though studies confirm that exporting our 
natural gas would increase the price domestically.
  We are providing a rubberstamp review process that expedites LNG 
exports without considering its potential effects. Our amendment would 
simply flip this assumption and require, by law, that DOE take into 
consideration exports' impact on consumers, the economy, and energy 
security before making its decision.
  By passing this amendment, we can ensure that true beneficiaries of 
the natural gas boom are our consumers and our economy, while 
protecting our environment at the same time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just add that the National Association of Manufacturers, on 
April 9--which claims to be the largest manufacturing association in 
the United States, representing manufacturers in every industrial 
sector and in all 50 States--supports H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity 
and Global Freedom Act.
  So the largest organization of manufacturers supports H.R. 6, the 
Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also point out the risks if we do not have an 
outlet for American energy production.
  The result of shut-in wells and less production, indeed, will lead to 
increased prices for consumers, but the fact is that DOE studies have 
already stated that exporting natural gas has been shown to lead to net 
benefits to the U.S. economy, adding billions of dollars to our GDP, 
adding tens of thousands of jobs to our Nation's workforce, and 
removing people from the unemployment rolls.
  This is something this Congress ought to adopt today, a way to move 
forward on energy security, and a way to move forward on jobs that are 
ready to put people to work. Let's pass this bill today.
  I oppose the gentleman's amendment for the simple fact that it is 
unworkable and rewrites the law without adequate discussion and debate 
amongst this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Groups representing a diverse group of businesses and manufacturers 
support this amendment--groups that believe we should proceed with 
caution when making decisions about vast quantities of domestic energy 
resources.
  The Department of Energy has already approved LNG facilities that are 
capable of exporting 9.3 billion cubic feet per day, and before we 
irresponsibly and hurriedly expedite the approval of up to 36 billion 
cubic feet--nearly four times as much of LNG exports per day--I believe 
we should consider the effect this will have across our economy.
  Mr. Gardner says this amendment of ours might slow exports. Well, it 
might because the idea is not to do it as quickly as we can, but to do 
it as wisely as we can. Our responsibility is not just to look after 
the oil and gas interests. Our responsibility is also to look after 
American workers, American manufacturers, American consumers, and 
homeowners.
  No one in this Chamber should want our domestic natural gas prices to 
increase on a par with those in Europe or Asia, and a vote in support 
of the Holt-Quigley amendment will ensure that that is not the case.
  I urge support for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent an area that is a combination of both the 
customers of the natural gas boom that we have, but also the export 
opportunities in the States of Texas and Louisiana.
  We are concerned about running up the price of natural gas because I 
want it to be used more for electricity production. I have a chemical 
industry that is in the eastern part of my district that I want to make 
sure we keep adding those jobs like we are doing so much.
  I also know that we need to keep those folks drilling in the field, 
and in south Texas, we are flaring natural gas right now. In North 
Dakota, we are flaring natural gas. It is not good for the environment, 
but we need to have consumers for that, and so that is why this 
legislation is needed, and we will be able to have customers for that.
  I know, yesterday, I used it in the bill on pipelines. In Texas, we 
love Blue Bell ice cream. I know the Chairman does, too. Their ads are 
saying, ``We eat all we can, and we sell the rest.''
  Let's use all our natural gas we can in our country at a reasonable 
price, but what we can't use, let's not waste it. Let's sell it to 
someone else, and I thank the colleague for the time.
  Mr. GARDNER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part A of House Report 113-492.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 11013]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 22, insert ``and publically disclose the 
     applicant's intention to use eminent domain for any 
     construction necessary for such authorized LNG exports'' 
     after ``authorized LNG exports''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 636, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We just had a debate over the potential impact of export of LNG on 
domestic prices. There is no arguing that the low domestic prices for 
natural gas have been a boon for our country. Some manufacturers are 
actually moving operations back from overseas. Others here are being 
advantaged in the international markets, much to the concern of some of 
our competitors in Europe and elsewhere. So we can say that is good. We 
are not going to settle that issue in my amendment. I am going to bring 
up another issue.
  But the reason natural gas companies want to export is to realize 
higher prices, and some of these terminals will require new pipelines 
to connect to domestic natural gas supplies, particularly some of the 
new supplies.
  Here is the problem. In 2005, Congress passed the Bush-Cheney energy 
plan, which gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--a group of 
nameless, faceless, obscure bureaucrats--the authority to grant eminent 
domain to pipeline companies. That means companies have eminent domain 
authority generally reserved for the greater public interest to build 
pipelines to export natural gas.
  Now I had three amendments. This one simply requires disclosure. I 
just want to bring a bit more focus during the expedited--should this 
bill become law--application and approval process for persons in the 
area, whether or not there is a prospect that a natural gas pipeline 
will exert eminent domain over their property. Now, it is just 
disclosure, because, as I say, my other amendments weren't allowed, if 
eminent domain is going to be used to export natural gas to a pipeline 
terminal.
  Now, earlier this year I voted with, as I have every year, every 
single Republican in favor of H.R. 1944. That is legislation to 
overturn the Supreme Court's decision in 2005, Kelo v. City of New 
London, where the city of New London was found to have the authority to 
use eminent domain on behalf of private development interests. The 
Republicans, as I mentioned earlier, brought up a bill to overturn that 
decision, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, which passed with 
every Republican vote and a number of Democrats on our side of the 
aisle.
  The same principle applies here. I am not challenging--because that 
is not allowed--the issue of eminent domain for a private pipeline for 
the export of natural gas, but I am saying that at least persons who 
are in proximity to that, or actually in line with that proposed 
pipeline, should have the opportunity when the company applies to know 
that it may be used so they can address their point of view during the 
application process.
  Now, there are some industry talking points saying wait a minute, 
wait a minute, this eminent domain isn't in section 3. They are right. 
I agree with them. They are absolutely right. However, section 7 
regulates pipelines, and pipelines in some instances will be required 
and will be used to access these natural gas terminals, and I am simply 
saying that persons in those areas should know that eminent domain is 
intended to be used.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I have spent a great deal of my time, both 
here in this Chamber and actually working in the State legislature as 
well, to protect people's property rights, particularly private 
property rights. In the State legislature, I remember the decision 
coming down from the Supreme Court, making sure that we could do 
everything we could to prevent any abuse of eminent domain. But it is 
that State legislative experience that taught me that the legal process 
of eminent domain is largely a State and local issue which should have 
no bearing on the Department of Energy's public interest 
determination--again, this is about the public interest determination--
for the export of LNG to non-free trade countries.
  By law, the Secretary of Energy plays no part in approving the 
construction of LNG export facilities or the pipelines connecting the 
gas to the facility. By law, the Secretary of Energy plays no part in 
the pipeline or construction of the facilities.
  This bill only addresses the Department of Energy's process, and this 
amendment would expand the role of DOE into an area where the DOE is 
not currently involved and has no expertise.
  The purpose of H.R. 6 is to expedite liquefied natural gas export 
applications which have been stuck in limbo awaiting a decision for far 
too long--in some cases, for more than 2 years. This amendment would 
unfairly put new requirements on these already pending applications, 
and I believe we should oppose the amendment because it is something, 
again, that is left to the States and local determination factors. With 
that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, unfortunately, it isn't left to the States. The 
gentleman is wrong. The Bush-Cheney energy act preempted the States--
preempted the State authority. It gives a faceless, nameless Federal 
bureaucracy, which on every other day is opposed by the other side of 
the aisle, the authority to grant eminent domain for a private company, 
for private profit, for the export of natural gas, which may well drive 
up the gas prices of the property owners adjacent to or who have been 
penetrated by that line.
  This amendment doesn't delay anything. It doesn't give any 
significant new authority. It just requires the simple disclosure that 
if this terminal is built, a new pipeline is going to be required, and 
that pipeline, under section 3, with the faceless, nameless Federal 
bureaucrats behind it, is going to be granted eminent domain authority 
to take people's property. That is the bottom line. You can try and 
dance around it and say, well, I am against Kelo because that was 
another kind of development, but no, I am against this amendment 
because we wouldn't want people to know that they were going to lose 
their property rights to eminent domain because of faceless, nameless 
Federal bureaucrats.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado for yielding to me again.
  That 2005 energy bill may have been called Bush-Cheney, but it came 
out of our Energy and Commerce Committee, and it had 77 Democratic 
votes when we passed that bill on the House floor.
  Mr. DeFazio's amendment, with all due respect, requires an applicant 
to disclose any intention to use eminent domain on any construction 
necessary to support the LNG export project. I rise in opposition 
because it looks like an attempt to unnecessarily complicate LNG 
exports.
  LNG facilities require pipelines. However, pipeline construction and 
operation is a whole separate issue. Yesterday in the House, we had a 
pipeline bill. Unfortunately, my colleague submitted LNG amendments to 
the pipeline bill yesterday. If H.R. 6 were a pipeline bill, then 
perhaps we could be honest about the debate. The fact of the matter is 
that we need more pipelines in our country. Right now in North Dakota 
and south Texas, we are flaring natural gas. But H.R. 6 is not a 
pipeline bill, and it is not the legislation to address the issue of 
eminent domain, which is predominantly under

[[Page 11014]]

State law, and I am proud of our State law in Texas. I ask my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just add again that there is no 
eminent domain authority for an LNG facility. That is what H.R. 6 is 
addressing, the export permits for LNG facilities. There is no eminent 
domain authority for an LNG facility. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition 
to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 4 will not be offered.
  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 (Mr. 
Jolly) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, 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.

                          ____________________