[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1244-1251]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 351, LNG PERMITTING CERTAINTY AND 
                            TRANSPARENCY ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 48

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the

[[Page 1245]]

     House the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited approval 
     of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings, 
my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             general leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Today, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor on behalf of 
the Rules Committee and the Republican Conference a rule and the 
underlying legislation which helps address a problem that has been 
created by the Obama administration.
  The administration has decided to slow the export of liquefied 
natural gas to countries with which we do not have a free trade 
agreement. This means that American companies have plenty of liquefied 
natural gas to sell to our allies across the globe but that delays by 
the administration are preventing them from selling it. This decision, 
I think, comes at a terrible price for the millions of Americans who 
cannot find work. This decision comes at a terrible price for those in 
need of a good-paying job--perhaps even of a long career--that will 
help support their families, their communities, and, most of all, that 
will help make America stronger.
  The administration's inaction also comes at a terrible price for our 
friends in Europe who are being bullied by thugs, namely the Russian 
Government. Currently, many of our allies in Europe are forced to buy 
natural gas from Russia instead of from the United States of America. 
We have seen how they use this leverage to push around our allies. Our 
other friends around the globe, such as India, Japan, and Haiti, also 
need energy, and this administration's inaction is also costing these 
allies dearly. Let me see if I can paint a picture of how the 
administration's decision has been executed.
  The administration's Department of Energy has slow walked. It has 
taken an antiquated approval process for applications to export 
liquefied natural gas, which is known as LNG. Since 2010, the 
Department of Energy has only issued final decisions on five of the 37 
applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States 
does not have a free trade agreement. These delays have nothing to do 
with the environment. In fact, natural gas is one of the cleanest 
sources of energy in the world. Yes, I think we know what the problem 
is. The problem is they simply do not want to participate in this 
marketplace for Americans to have jobs.
  As a result of these delays, all of us in America are squandering the 
boon in liquefied natural gas, which has made the United States the 
world's largest provider of natural gas in oil beginning, really, in 
2013. Here we are now, 2 years later, and it is time for America to 
come to action. That is, again, why the United States Congress--the 
Republican Congress--is coming to the American people with a bill to 
help do something about this.
  The administration's broken application process is delaying good-
paying jobs at a time when the labor participation rate in our 
marketplace is at historic lows. That hurts real people. That hurts 
real people who want and need opportunities to have jobs today, not to 
look up and find out that Washington is broken and is keeping them from 
good-paying jobs.
  I have much to say about this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, for 
yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
  The enduring reputation of the 113th Congress will be as the least 
productive ever. The previous House was also the most closed ever as it 
pertains to rules, passing more closed rules than any other Congress. 
Despite controlling both Chambers of the 114th Congress, my friends 
across the aisle have picked up the dysfunction right where they left 
off in trying to jam through another piece of legislation regardless of 
its merits and without giving the House a chance to review it through 
regular order. It must be understood that there are a significant 
number of new Members here who didn't have an opportunity, as I did and 
as the chairman did, to vote on this measure in the previous Congress.
  Dysfunction reigns supreme, but don't just take my word for it. Last 
week, my friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Dent, offered a summary 
of the 114th Congress' accomplishments so far:

       Week one, we had a Speaker election that did not go as well 
     as a lot of us would have liked. Week two, we got into a big 
     fight over deporting children, something that a lot of us 
     didn't want to have a discussion about. Week three, we are 
     now talking about rape and incest and reportable rapes and 
     incest for minors . . . I just can't wait for week four.

  That was from my colleague Mr. Dent.
  Here we are in week four, in my view, wasting time and taxpayer money 
in debating a solution for a problem that does not exist.
  Since the Department of Energy completed its economic impact study, 
export applications are receiving a decision within about 2 months. In 
fact, four LNG export projects have already won all of the necessary 
Federal permits from the Energy Department and from the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, with the first project scheduled to come online 
this year. Therefore, despite H.R. 351's clever name, the only 
uncertainty regarding the bill is why the House is considering it at 
all.
  This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it 
would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. Let me 
repeat that. This bill originated in the last Congress when we were 
told that it would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from 
Russia. I would like for some of my colleagues on the other side to 
tell me how Ukraine will be able to benefit from this legislation in 
light of what I believe the fact to be, and that is that they are not 
prepared to receive liquefied natural gas from us. In my view, since 
most of this takes place in the spot neverland of oil and gas sales, I 
don't believe, when completed, that this gas will reach Ukraine.
  Do you know where the highest prices for all liquefied natural gas 
are both now and, apparently, in the near future? Asia. This gas is 
going to Asia, not to Ukraine and not to Eastern Europe. I heard some 
discussion yesterday evening about Hungary, and I dispute whether or 
not any of it will go there as well.

                              {time}  1500

  Furthermore, what was true then remains true now: even when the 
United States finally becomes capable of exporting liquefied natural 
gas, Ukraine does not have, as I have pointed out, the capability to 
receive it. I hope you will understand my uncertainty as to why this 
bill is on the floor.
  H.R. 351 will not make gas prices cheaper here either. LNG is already 
cheap. In fact, this bill is more likely to increase our natural gas 
prices, since we are going to be sending more gas overseas, and it will 
be hardworking Americans paying the cost.
  It is not like there are a whole lot of projects waiting to be 
approved either. With natural gas futures and crude oil prices well 
below the levels where natural gas is competitive, companies are 
putting LNG export and development

[[Page 1246]]

projects on hold, leaving only more uncertainty as to why we are 
considering this bill today.
  This bill is also incredibly misguided. We cannot solve our energy 
problems with fossil fuels. It requires a certain kind of arrogance to 
deny an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change. 
Importing or exporting more fossil fuels, more drilling, more fracking, 
more pipelines, it doesn't matter; fossil fuels are a dead end, full 
stop.
  A serious renewable energy plan is the only way to ensure energy 
independence. Clean energy is the only way we can be sure that we don't 
leave a devastated planet for our children.
  This Congress is starting just like the last one, Mr. Speaker. The 
American people deserve better.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This issue about liquefied natural gas and natural gas perhaps comes 
naturally to Texans. I am from Dallas. I have been around the natural 
gas industry. I have seen the attributes of energy policy and how 
important it is.
  Let me tell you what: the Republicans have taken a keen interest in 
this. This is why the marketplace is producing gasoline at $1.72 a 
gallon. That is why gasoline prices have fallen, that is why natural 
gas is plentifully available at a great price--but, Mr. Speaker, it is 
also jobs behind this.
  I will tell you one other thing. It is also a bipartisan idea. 
Yesterday, this gentleman that I am going to introduce, the sponsor of 
the bill, Bill Johnson, a 26-year veteran of the United States Air 
Force, came up to the Rules Committee and had one of the most 
delightful conversations on a bipartisan basis with other Democrats and 
Republicans and talked about the attributes of jobs and this natural 
resource.
  Thank God we live in America and have these opportunities to where we 
can help other countries.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the original sponsor of this bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 48, the rule for H.R. 
351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.
  During the 113th Congress, identical legislation to H.R. 351 passed 
the House of Representatives as H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and 
Global Freedom Act. Long before its passage, the bill moved through the 
entire legislative process at the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. This process included a hearing as well as an eventual markup 
at the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. A subsequent full committee 
markup followed, and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar.
  The House Committee on Rules then established H. Res. 636, the rule 
for consideration of H.R. 6. After that rule was adopted, the 
legislation was debated, amended, and ultimately passed the House of 
Representatives with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. The President 
did not issue a veto threat.
  The energy renaissance that has swept across America over the last 
years has transformed the United States from an increasingly energy 
dependent Nation--beholden to the whims of OPEC--to our current 
position as the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world.
  This transformation has provided us with a historic and unprecedented 
opportunity not just to bolster our economy, but to also fully leverage 
our energy abundance on the international stage by selling a portion of 
our natural gas abroad.
  Through this abundance of natural gas, America has an opportunity to 
significantly affect geopolitics if we enact smart policies. It could--
and should--be a game changer.
  Allowing the export of liquefied natural gas, for instance, will 
create significant American jobs and wealth for the United States, 
enhance our energy security, and provide a reliable source of fuel to 
our allies, some of whom depend on the mood of Vladimir Putin to meet 
their energy needs.
  Unfortunately, our policies have not kept pace with the industry's 
development. Producers seeking to export LNG face a constantly changing 
approval process which costs millions of dollars and takes years to 
navigate.
  Not only does this undermine regulatory certainty, but with dozens of 
projects seeking approval, Washington is making it difficult for 
businesses to make the investment decisions needed to take advantage of 
this abundant resource. This delays job creation here at home and 
reduces our ability to positively influence global politics abroad.
  My bill, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, aims to 
address this growing problem by cutting through the bureaucratic red 
tape and implementing a deadline on the Department of Energy to issue a 
final decision on LNG applications.
  Given the amount of time that has already passed since many of the 
LNG export applications have been filed and their dockets closed, there 
is no more information to consider and no reason for DOE not to adhere 
to a deadline.
  There is very real risk to inactivity. If Washington waits too long 
to move forward with export licenses, other countries with their own 
natural gas resources--Canada, Qatar, and Australia, to name three--
will step in to meet the demand. Our competitive advantage, along with 
the opportunity to create more domestic energy jobs and serve as a 
check on Russia, will be lost.
  Numerous studies have found that LNG exports will create hundreds of 
thousands of American jobs, many of them in manufacturing, including 
the refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors. ICF International 
estimates that these jobs will occur across the entire value chain, 
translating into roughly $1 billion in new wages for American workers 
over a 6-year period.
  Export terminals will also generate millions of dollars in new tax 
revenue for Federal, State, and local governments, while increasing our 
GDP and lowering the trade deficit.
  It is worth noting that this won't come at the expense of domestic 
consumers. The U.S. Energy Information Administration stressed that it 
expects increased overseas demand for LNG will be met by the 
development of new resources.
  In fact, the DOE has concluded that each of the different export 
scenarios considered ``are welfare improving for U.S. consumers'' and 
would result in ``an increase in U.S. households' real income.''
  The recent turbulence in Eastern Europe--and throughout the Middle 
East--has shown all too clearly that energy can be used as a 
geopolitical tool. Adding a new and reliable source of natural gas onto 
the world market will diversify our allies' energy sources and greatly 
reduce their vulnerability to a single monopolistic supplier.
  I am proud to author this legislation. It is a job creator. It helps 
America in leveraging the geopolitical stage across the globe. We have 
seen enough delay. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I reiterate that I would hope that some of the speakers from the 
other side would answer the question as to whether or not this 
liquefied natural gas is going to reach Eastern Europe. I dispute that.
  Just sort of as an aside, I know no one will say anything regarding 
same, but the fact of the matter is that, for years, the discussion was 
the price of regular gasoline. Now that it is nearing $2 and we are the 
world's biggest producer of natural gas and moving pretty well, I might 
add--and I am glad to see--along the clean energy line, I just am 
curious whether President Obama gets any credit at all for any of these 
changes because those who argued that gasoline would be at $6 and $7--I 
even saw one at $8 a gallon--I am just curious, since that didn't 
occur, what the thought is.
  I recognize we are here on another subject, but I would hope that we 
would get an answer regarding the LNG and Ukraine especially.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We really do want to address both of your questions. I think they are 
both legitimate questions.

[[Page 1247]]

  First of all, according to Hungary's Ambassador at Large for Energy 
Security, lifting restrictions on import ``would send an extremely 
important message of strategic reassurance to the region which 
currently feels more threatened than any time since the cold war.''
  I will yield in a second to the author of the bill because he 
understands that piece of the pie.
  We talk about thuggery from Russia. The Ukrainians had to renegotiate 
the amount of money that they were paying just to get their natural gas 
and stay warm because the Russians raised that price on them. We think 
that is gouging and taking advantage of people.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to discuss 
this point that you asked about.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, right now, today, about 50 percent of Russia's revenue 
comes from taxes on oil and gas. About 80 percent of that resource goes 
through the Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are under tremendous 
pressure, as are other European allies, by the Russians.
  Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is shipped, increasing supply 
and competition in the global marketplace will help provide 
international consumers with greater choice.
  In fact, a representative of the U.S. State Department made a similar 
statement on the benefits of U.S. natural gas exports at a January 8, 
2015, Atlantic Council forum. This is from the State Department:

       Now, where the gas will go doesn't matter. The fact that we 
     have approved exports of natural gas has already had an 
     impact on Europe.

  Just the fact that America is getting into the game has put the 
Russians on notice that our friends and allies and people that they are 
currently putting under pressure--the Ukrainians and others--are going 
to have a choice, and it is going to make a different conversation 
happen at the table.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that helped clarify it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, it does help us. I thank the 
gentleman.
  Let us keep going on the second part of the question, which was: Can 
President Obama just get any bit of credit, just any bit, just a small 
measure? Well, I would respond to the gentleman: yes, but when he earns 
it.
  The President has made it known from the very beginning that he 
opposed energy policy that the free market tried to produce. Take this 
example: even though he was at the groundbreaking for the Keystone 
pipeline, he has been incapable of making a decision for 6 years on 
something that multiple people, including at least two former 
Presidents and lots of other people, said it makes a lot of sense to 
do.
  Also, the facts of the case are the Congressional Research Service 
reported that domestic natural gas production has risen by 19 percent 
since 2009 but decreased by 28 percent on Federal lands.

                              {time}  1515

  So, the idea that the President has tried to help this while reducing 
it by almost a third from Federal lands, the evidence is just not there 
to give him credit.
  I know that there are people who want to get credit for things even 
though they didn't do things, even though they didn't complete the task 
that was in front of them, making decisions, making wise decisions, 
showing the American people what you stand for.
  I would do this for the gentleman and help him out, but the 
administration clearly has been on simply the other side of that issue 
and that ball.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Corpus Christi, 
Texas (Mr. Farenthold), who was with me on the border this last weekend 
as we looked at border security. He comes from an energy-rich section 
of our Nation and represents some of the most vibrant companies that 
are trying to make this country energy-sufficient and to help make sure 
that what is at the pump is at a great price and is a great product for 
consumers.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, it is important we get this rule done 
and move on to consideration of H.R. 351.
  I am from Corpus Christi, Texas. One of the first things that 
happened when I came to Congress is, I was visited by some folks from a 
company that was looking to put a LNG liquefaction plant in the 
district that I represent. In fact, we have got two pending in the 
district that I represent.
  But the first one, Cheniere Energy, a billion-plus dollar plant to 
liquefy natural gas and export it, has been waiting since I was elected 
to Congress, longer than I have been in Congress, over 4 years now, to 
get this plant approved and online to start selling energy.
  I want to address some of the questions that the gentleman from the 
other side has raised with respect to this.
  First and foremost, the technology is there. There is no point for 
Ukraine or any other country to build the facilities to receive this 
natural gas until there is a sure and steady supply of this natural 
gas. And it is a lot easier to get these facilities built in other 
countries where they don't have to go through the exhausting and 
sometimes, I would go so far to say, insane permitting process that we 
have to go through here in the United States.
  In fact, there is a company looking at putting in another LNG 
facility in Port Lavaca that is going to build the facility to liquefy 
the natural gas on a barge, pull it up, hook up to the pipeline, and 
liquefy it. This same barge technology can be used for re-gasification.
  You could literally pull a barge into a seaport in the Ukraine, hook 
up the ship, hook it up to a pipeline, and they could be receiving LNG 
in a very short order. So it is there for any country.
  And listen, there is this talk about how it could possibly run up 
energy prices and natural gas prices here in the United States. The 
liquefaction process consumes some of the natural gas. The numbers I 
hear vary from around 20 percent or so, and so it will always be 
cheaper to deliver the gas by pipeline here in the United States, so we 
will always have a competitive advantage with the natural gas that we 
produce.
  But we have got to have a market for that natural gas. Right now, 
pretty much the only natural gas we are seeing produced out of the 
Eagle Ford shale in Texas is produced with oil. You drill a well, you 
get both oil and gas.
  We have seen a huge dropoff in drilling for natural gas because the 
demand is so low and the supply is so high, to the point where we are 
drilling wells and we have discovered gas, and we shut that well then 
and don't produce it.
  We have got to strike while the iron is hot. We can help improve our 
balance of trade with the world. We can put people back to work, and it 
can all be done at no government expense. We have just got to get the 
regulators in Washington, D.C., out of our hair and let our country do 
this so we can improve the economy for everybody in America.
  We can have a much more secure economy. We can have people back to 
work. We can have a plentiful supply of energy for the foreseeable 
future.
  You have got Marcellus shale, you have got the Eagle Ford shale, you 
have got the Barnett shale, you have got Pennsylvania, you have got 
Texas, you have got North Dakota. There is plentiful natural gas. We 
need a market for it.
  By approving this rule and the underlying legislation, that will 
happen. Americans will go back to work, and America, as a whole, will 
prosper.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman very much, not only for taking 
time to discuss these important issues but really for his 
representation of an industry that can do so many great things, not 
only for the American people but, really, to help out our friends 
around the world.
  It becomes a part of a very positive foreign affairs policy that the 
United States, instead of going overseas to get energy, we can be 
delivering that energy. Instead of having to have a blue water navy, a 
navy that is stretched to keep shipping lanes open, we can be

[[Page 1248]]

handing these off to other countries to take them.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there was a vigorous opportunity, on a 
bipartisan basis, a discussion that not only did Bill Johnson take part 
in but also Mr. Garamendi, the gentleman, the Democrat from California, 
and Ed Whitfield, the subcommittee chairman, about how the delivery of 
this LNG can be on American ships.
  A shipbuilding industry to build the ships to meet the specifications 
that would be necessary to put them in the water to deliver these 
around the world can be an American-made product also.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. I do want to point out that the President even 
understands that there is an ability there for the Ukraine. Speaking in 
Ukraine recently, he said: ``We welcome the prospect of U.S. LNG 
efforts in the future since additional global supplies will benefit 
Europe and other strategic partners.''
  That is a quote somebody sent me from President Obama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, for the 
first time in a long time, we did not receive a Statement of 
Administration Policy that the President is opposed to this.
  It was a bipartisan presentation in the Rules Committee yesterday. 
Not unprecedented but a really good feeling about us working together 
for the common interest, to make sure that the American worker comes 
out on top of this, that the taxpayer comes out on top of this, that we 
are producing good legislation that can go to the United States Senate, 
this time, to be heard and passed on, so that we can get this 
legislation so the President does earn that part of his check on the 
box that says: And thank you, Mr. President, for agreeing and working 
with us. Thank you for helping us out.
  I think this can get through the House. I think it can get to the 
Senate, and I think the President will sign it.
  Mr. Speaker, if that is not a positive declaration about the 
President seeing great things, and me wanting and needing and expecting 
the President to do what I think is the right thing, then we are simply 
miscast today.
  This is a good thing for America. This is a good thing for both 
parties. But this is a good thing for our friends around the world and 
diplomacy also.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Friendswood, 
Texas (Mr. Weber), my dear colleague.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Folks, the world is an inherently dangerous 
place. Watch the news.
  Think with me for a minute. When the world has a catastrophe--and it 
doesn't matter whether it is a tsunami, an earthquake, whether it is 
fire, pestilence, whether it is war--when the world has a catastrophe 
and dials 911, who is it that answers?
  It is America, isn't it? With our military.
  It is America that answers that 911 call. Now, how do we do that?
  It is because this country has the strongest, most stable, most 
reliable, affordable energy capacity and capability in the world.
  America is able to produce goods. I often say the things that make 
America great are the things that America makes, and our fossil fuel 
energy supply is what underwrites that.
  You don't think that's right?
  And I would argue that not only is it America's security; when 
America is strong, the world is strong. You don't think fossil fuel 
energy is important, try powering a tank or a jet plane with a solar 
panel, Mr. Speaker. You won't get very far.
  We must remain strong. As I said, for the world to be safe, America 
has got to be strong. This rule and this bill, H.R. 351, are important 
not only to America's economy but also our national security and, I 
would argue, by extension, with the world depending on us, 
international security.
  Yes, we have a stable, long-lasting reliable source of energy here in 
America. We have the opportunity to export that to our friends around 
the globe and help them to be safe, help them to be productive.
  We will produce American jobs in the process. We will improve our 
balance of trade, as my friend from Corpus Christi said earlier.
  LNG is helping not only with the economy, Mr. Speaker, but with 
national and, by extension, international security.
  I have three plants in my district. The permitting process needs to 
be expedited and move forward. That is why I rise today in support of 
the rule, in support of H.R. 351.
  Two LNG facilities in my district and one more on the books. They 
mean jobs. They mean security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support this bill, put 
Americans to work, help America continue to be a leader, to be safe, 
and, indeed, help keep this world safe.
  I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the gentleman stick 
around for a minute because, as a member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, he is most genuinely involved in trying to make sure that 
discussions about America and our allies and how the world sees us are 
well understood.
  As a man who comes from not only Friendswood, Texas, which, like Mr. 
Farenthold, is right in the center of this enterprise where we ship our 
natural resources around the world, I would really like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman to talk about the impact of foreign affairs.
  The gentleman, Mr. Hastings, had asked a question about, well, why 
does this matter?
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Thank you. Great questions.
  I didn't talk about the fact that I have five ports in my district on 
the Gulf Coast of Texas, more than any other Member of Congress. Some 
have four. I have five LNG plants, LPG plants.
  Sixty percent of the Nation's jet fuel is produced in my district, 60 
percent of the Nation's jet fuel. An extremely large amount, a 
classified amount of the military's fuel. They won't tell us how much, 
but a large amount of the military's fuel.
  Strategic petroleum reserves abound in my district. Again, we can't 
find out how much, but it is a huge amount.
  From a foreign affairs initiative--and I have been over to Japan, I 
have been over to the Philippines, I have been to Hong Kong, South 
Korea, Taiwan--they want our LNG. They would much rather buy it from us 
than from the Russian bear.
  Don't you know the people in Ukraine would much rather be dependent 
on us because we are not a dictatorship, at least not supposed to be, 
and we are not going to cut off their fuel because we have a 
disagreement with the way the Russian separatists activate or believe?
  So it is a foreign affairs, it is a foreign policy initiative. As I 
said earlier, it helps make the world safer. It helps create jobs over 
here. It helps with our balance of trade, or imbalance of trade. It is 
an important issue, and it is one that bears supporting.
  Support the rule, support this bill because it is not only important 
for America from an energy perspective, from a security perspective, 
but an international or world trade perspective, as well as world 
security. For foreign policy, it matters.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas, who, Mr. 
Speaker, has a keen understanding about not only what is in America's 
best interest, by serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but who is 
also a proud man who understands that people who work hard have jobs--
clean, natural gas, an opportunity for America to get the benefits of 
one of God's greatest gifts to the United States that we can share with 
others.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that there are a whole lot of ways for us to 
look at not only what lies ahead with opportunity, but I think we can 
also look at some models of success, and one of them might be my home 
State of Texas.

                              {time}  1530

  My home State of Texas has incredible opportunities and benefits that

[[Page 1249]]

have arisen from the ability to have energy abundance, the ability to 
have oil, natural gas, and other elements that can be used in this 
industry to make our country stronger, but what is happening is that we 
have also used it to Texas' benefit and America's benefit. That is 
right.
  Just to tell a story, if it weren't for Texas, net job growth over 
the last 7 years in America would be flat. That means you take all 49 
States, level it out--the minuses, the pluses, net it out--America 
would not have net positive job growth. But because of Texas, I can 
tell you that we now have created a net increase of 1.2 million jobs in 
America, net, and that has come because of Texas. So it is literally 
entirely a Texas product.
  The essence of this has come from not just lower taxes, not just 
better roads, great schools, better education, good people, but it 
comes from a philosophy of understanding that we need to utilize these 
natural resources for the benefit of our world. To make jobs, job 
creation important, instead of delaying things, Texas had to make sure 
that what we did is we used it to our advantage.
  So instead of not making decisions, like this Federal Government does 
by delaying major initiatives, we signed them into law. We got them 
done. We made things happen. So by doing that, when you do that, then 
you stand a chance to better everybody's life.
  I would now like to give the gentleman from Florida a chance to 
finish his time, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, I don't want to in any way disparage the lovefest of my 
friends from Texas. I recognize that everything is big in Texas.
  Also, as a child, I even learned the songs of Texas, ``The Yellow 
Rose of Texas,'' ``Deep in the Heart of Texas,'' a whole of bunch of 
them which I hold dear from my childhood.
  I would like to have the gentleman who was called upon as a foreign 
affairs expert--because he serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee--to 
know, then, that I guess I too am a foreign affairs expert since I 
served on that committee for 8 years, served on the Intelligence 
Committee for 8 years. All of the countries that the gentleman 
mentioned, I have been to.
  I assuredly never got an answer from the chairman or anyone else 
regarding whether or not Ukraine--and it is not ``the Ukraine''; it is 
``Ukraine''--didn't get an answer as to whether they were prepared to 
receive liquefied natural gas.
  I also know that we are mindful of the sanctions on Russia and how it 
is impacting them.
  I didn't only just go to Ukraine. In their first election after the 
Orange Revolution, I was the lead election monitor for the Organization 
for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
  I don't come to this dance without having some understanding, and I 
would urge that I still didn't get--although my friend, the chairman, 
seemed to suggest that the President is deserving of something that he 
earns, my belief is that the President has allowed for more gas leases 
than I would have had him do.
  I would urge that just off the press, embargoed until noon today, is 
a press release from the United States Department of the Interior, 
which receives a lot of negative comment from my colleagues regarding 
regulations. ``Interior Department Announces Draft Strategy for 
Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing.'' The draft proposal program includes 14 
potential lease sales in eight planning areas--10 sales in the Gulf of 
Mexico, three off the coast of Alaska, and one in a portion of the mid- 
and south Atlantic.
  Now, let me make it very clear. That might make a whole lot of people 
happy. It does not make me happy because they are discussing leases in 
the Gulf of Mexico where, I believe, there is substantial 
infrastructure from areas like Louisiana and Texas in the western 
portion of the gulf. I guess we just ignore things like the BP oil 
spill, and we ignore the potential for those kinds of disasters.
  So I can't disagree very much with the chairman regarding much of his 
statistics, but I want the administration and my friend from Texas, the 
chairman, to know that, as I have said repeatedly, I will be the last 
person standing in this House of Representatives opposed to offshore 
drilling in my State of Florida no matter the views that others have. I 
believe there is enough wind from our respective oceans to double the 
amount of energy that we have, and, yes, my friend, there are aircraft 
that are powered without fossil fuel.
  We were originally scheduled this week to also consider a border 
security bill, but that bill was scuttled yesterday amidst a number of 
things.
  My friends, the Republicans, are pretty lucky. As bad as the 
snowstorm is, particularly for the New England area of our country, 
many of our colleagues could not get back here yesterday and probably 
won't be able to get back here today as well. The reason I say they are 
lucky is they can hide--by pulling the border bill--under the fact that 
there was a snowstorm and people couldn't get in here, and that is 
legitimate, in my view.
  The other part of the concern--and we will see about it next week and 
the week after--is that many conservatives in the Republican Party are 
jumping ship on the border bill, and that was out there as well. Just 
like last week, just like last Congress, there is a rift in the 
majority, leaving it unable to even pass legislation that all of its 
Members can agree on.
  Unfortunately, we have real problems in this country that my friends 
are going to have to address. So I look forward to my friends' plan to 
repair our crumbling roads and bridges in this country, and I can't 
wait to see how this body will combat the national security threat of 
climate change, in spite of all of your denials.
  I hope that my friends intend to ensure that women receive equal pay 
for equal work, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
make sure that many of the reforms in our tax structure allow for those 
persons who are ultrawealthy to pay their fair proportion of what they 
earn and to reform our Tax Code so that middle-income Americans can 
benefit and poor Americans can rise to the middle class.
  With America's workers' wages stagnant for so long, including our own 
here in the House of Representatives, we are entering the seventh year 
without any increase in wages. And those of us who are poorer Members 
of Congress have experienced the kinds of difficulties of just being 
here in Washington and the cost for being here. I am seeking no 
sympathies. It is just a fact.
  So with those wages stagnant for so long, I look forward to hearing 
from my colleagues on how they plan to raise the minimum wage in this 
country. Because until my friends can address their dysfunction and 
inability to lead, I am afraid our country is in for 2 more years of 
uncertainty.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that most Presidents get a lot of 
credit on their watch and a lot of negative when things go wrong. For 
once, our gas prices are down, and my friends can't even bring 
themselves to say that this President deserves some credit. I do. I see 
it. He deserves some credit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, Texas is the great 
American jobs machine. We talked about how we create jobs because we 
have effectively used the resources that, in many instances, Mother 
Nature and God have given us. So now it is time for Washington, I 
think, to learn from models that we do in Texas, where we learn to 
capitalize on all of our resources--in this case, the energy revolution 
that is at hand.
  Look, what Republicans have done today is brought a bill that is 
common sense to the floor to unleash our natural resources, to make 
sure that it helps out not only our foreign policy, but workers and 
jobs in this country, and that is important. So it is a policy issue. 
The Republican Party is dead-on. There is going to be a bipartisan vote 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation.

[[Page 1250]]

  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the rule 
governing debate on this bill, H.R. 351, the ``LNG Permitting Certainty 
and Transparency Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not anti-trade. I 
am, however strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,'' and ``pro-
sustainable environment.''
  As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of 
the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy 
policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and 
create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.
  That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal 
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when 
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
  Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to 
improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.
  Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased exports of 
natural gas, the legislation before contains several provisions that 
are of great concern to me.
  Pursuant to Section 2, subsection (a) of the bill, an application for 
authorization to export LNG is ``deemed'' approved if the Department of 
Energy (DOE) or other federal agencies do not approve or deny the 
application within 30 days of the conclusion of the site review.
  I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.
  First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a 
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.
  Thus, the provision is unwise.
  Second, this provision is a remedy in search of a problem. There is 
no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas export 
authority applications awaiting action by DOE.
  The provision is unnecessary because DOE has to date authorized the 
export of over 10 billion cubic feet per day of LNG to non-Free Trade 
Agreement countries.
  Together with exports to FTA countries, this level of LNG exports 
that would transform the United States into one of the world's largest 
exporters.
  Third, the provision is irresponsible because it would require DOE 
and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or 
information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, 
and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but 
for lack of sufficient review time.
  Supporters of this bill argue that it is vital, in the face of 
Russian aggression and restrictions, to provide our allies in Europe 
with additional exports of LNG.
  However, because actual exports through approved terminals are not 
expected to begin until late 2015, this legislation will have no impact 
on current exports.
  And, limiting the time for review would prevent DOE from properly 
analyzing the domestic impact that of exporting large amounts of LNG.
  The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that increased 
exports could result in an increase of as much as 8% in domestic LNG 
prices.
  Given the inherent delicacy involved in assessing the impact of trade 
authorizations, both domestically and abroad, this state of affairs is 
likely to lead to DOE erring on the side of caution and denying 
applications that may otherwise have been approved if it had more time 
and more resources to carry out its responsibilities.
  For these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose the rule, and the 
underlying bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 48 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 469 and H.R. 
246, each by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 169, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 46]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--169

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bera
     Buchanan
     Capuano
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     Lee
     Lieu (CA)
     Marino

[[Page 1251]]


     Meeks
     Meng
     Neal
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Schock
     Slaughter
     Walorski

                              {time}  1606

  Ms. MATSUI changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________