[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1343-1352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
             LNG PERMITTING CERTAINTY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 48, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited approval of exportation 
of natural gas, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 351

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``LNG Permitting Certainty and 
     Transparency Act''.

     SEC. 2. ACTION ON APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Decision Deadline.--For proposals that must also obtain 
     authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     or the United States Maritime Administration to site, 
     construct, expand, or operate LNG export facilities, the 
     Department of Energy shall issue a final decision on any 
     application for the authorization to export natural gas under 
     section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) not later 
     than 30 days after the later of--
       (1) the conclusion of the review to site, construct, 
     expand, or operate the LNG facilities required by the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.); or
       (2) the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Conclusion of Review.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     review required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 shall be considered concluded--
       (1) for a project requiring an Environmental Impact 
     Statement, 30 days after publication of a Final Environmental 
     Impact Statement;
       (2) for a project for which an Environmental Assessment has 
     been prepared, 30 days after publication by the Department of 
     Energy of a Finding of No Significant Impact; and
       (3) upon a determination by the lead agency that an 
     application is eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 implementing 
     regulations.
       (c) Judicial Action.--(1) The United States Court of 
     Appeals for the circuit in which the export facility will be 
     located pursuant to an application described in subsection 
     (a) shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any 
     civil action for the review of--
       (A) an order issued by the Department of Energy with 
     respect to such application; or
       (B) the Department of Energy's failure to issue a final 
     decision on such application.
       (2) If the Court in a civil action described in paragraph 
     (1) finds that the Department of Energy has failed to issue a 
     final decision on the application as required under 
     subsection (a), the Court shall order the Department of 
     Energy to issue such final decision not later than 30 days 
     after the Court's order.
       (3) The Court shall set any civil action brought under this 
     subsection for expedited consideration and shall set the 
     matter on the docket as soon as practical after the filing 
     date of the initial pleading.

     SEC. 3. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EXPORT DESTINATIONS.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 351.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting 
Certainty and Transparency Act sponsored by Congressman Bill Johnson of 
Ohio.
  All of us recognize that the economy in the U.S. has been sputtering. 
We have had great advancements in technology, however, and innovation 
in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have led America to 
become the number one natural gas producing nation in the world.
  Our natural gas output has rapidly increased since 2005 and is 
expected to continue rising in the decades ahead in response to growing 
demand. Plentiful natural gas is helping many domestic energy producers 
and manufacturers and is spurring new investment and job growth here in 
America.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce has held multiple hearings and 
forums to discuss the domestic growth in natural gas production and its 
potential impact on trade, geopolitics, and energy production and 
consumption in America.
  We now have the opportunity to bring more of this critical energy 
resource to other parts of the world while stimulating our energy 
security, economic growth, and foreign policy.
  I might add that over the last year, many of us have been really 
surprised by the number of representatives from other countries in 
Europe and around the world who are pleading with America to export 
their natural gas so that those countries are not as dependent upon 
countries like Russia and others.
  I might also add that, in 2012, the Department of Energy commissioned 
a report by NERA Economic Consulting to assess the economic impacts of 
LNG exports. NERA recently updated this study to include the most 
current projections from the Energy Information Administration.
  Like the 2012 study, the update found that U.S. LNG exports will 
bring widespread economic benefits, touching many parts of our economy, 
and that those benefits would consistently increase as exports 
increase.
  The NERA study also found that the construction of new LNG export 
projects is estimated to put up to 45,000 unemployed Americans back to 
work. I might also add that this legislation does not in any way change 
anything that FERC has responsibility for in approving siting of these 
natural gas pipelines and facilities for export, so we are not 
affecting in any way any environmental aspects of it.
  I might also say that the reason this bill is being introduced is 
because we think that the Department of Energy has been dragging its 
feet a little bit. They have responsibility over the commodity of the 
natural gas, and they have to go through a process. This legislation 
also applies only to non-free trade agreements that the U.S. deals 
with.
  Since 2010, the Department of Energy has issued a final decision on 
five of the 37 applications to export LNG to countries where the U.S. 
does not have a free trade agreement.
  Now, DOE's authority to regulate the export of natural gas arises 
under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. This provision creates a 
rebuttable presumption that a proposed export of natural gas is in the 
public interest. DOE must grant the application unless opponents of the 
application overcome the presumption, and there are 18 countries where 
we have these free trade agreements.
  DOE's process to review applications to export LNG to non-free trade 
agreement countries is much more complex and unpredictable, and this 
legislation would help clarify that and create some certainty. It 
amends section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to give DOE 30 days to issue a 
final decision on an

[[Page 1344]]

LNG export application after a complete NEPA environmental review on 
the facility.
  Additionally, H.R. 351 provides for expedited judicial reviews by the 
United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the export 
facility will be located, and this is important as well. It requires 
public disclosure of export destinations, so we know where it is going 
as a condition of approval of authorization to export LNG.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. I want to commend Mr. 
Johnson of Ohio for introducing this legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which is simply 
unnecessary. The Department of Energy currently conducts a public 
interest review of all applications to export liquefied natural gas to 
a country without a free trade agreement with the United States.
  To date, DOE has approved four such applications to export LNG and 
has issued conditional approvals to four additional applications. DOE 
has approved all applications that have completed their required NEPA 
review, and so there is no backlog or delay at the DOE to speak of.
  With these permits alone, we have the ability to become one of the 
largest exporters of natural gas in the world, and so legislation to 
impose an arbitrary 30-day deadline on DOE, as suggested by the 
underlying bill, is simply unnecessary.
  With regard to exporting natural gas, we should keep in mind that low 
domestic natural gas prices can provide an important competitive 
advantage to U.S. manufacturing, and simple economics tells us that 
additional demand due to unrestricted exports can raise domestic 
natural gas prices, so we should think twice about giving away this 
advantage for short-term export profits when we are trying hard to 
rebuild our long-term manufacturing base.
  We should also remember that the bill will not result in LNG exports 
to Europe for some time, if at all. Although one LNG export terminal is 
set to begin full operation later this year, all other terminals remain 
under construction or are in the planning process.
  DOE's conditional approval for those facilities allows them to 
continue moving forward, but this legislation won't help speed up their 
construction or affect how quickly they can actually operate, so 
passing this bill today will not magically send LNG from the proposed 
terminals tomorrow.
  When the United States actually begins to export significant 
quantities of LNG, it will most likely go to Asia, not Europe. The 
export terminals most likely to get constructed have already signed 
long-term contracts to supply LNG to various customers, and those 
destinations are primarily in Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I don't believe the phantom 
LNG export backlog is one of the pressing issues facing ordinary 
Americans, and I don't believe that expediting this type of 
infrastructure is what our country needs most.
  I believe our country should be encouraging the use of renewable 
energy resources like wind and solar power. We should be investing in 
increased energy efficiency and a smart grid. We should be trying to 
find ways to make our energy infrastructure more resilient and capable 
of withstanding extreme weather events, like Hurricane Sandy.
  These are the types of clean energy solutions that America should be 
investing in, the type that will enhance our energy security, reduce 
carbon emissions, and lower overall energy costs to customers.
  Unfortunately, this bill doesn't achieve any of these goals. In fact, 
the 30-day deadline in the bill could have counterproductive results. 
If DOE is forced to make a decision before they have determined if the 
project is in the public interest, it may have no choice but to deny 
the application, and that outcome certainly doesn't benefit anyone, 
especially the applicants.
  This is the third time this month that the Republican majority has 
brought secondhand energy legislation to the floor, legislation that 
passed the House last Congress. Like the two bills before it, H.R. 351 
would also serve no real purpose.
  I just hope that we can begin soon to look at new energy legislation 
that will move America forward in developing a clean energy 
infrastructure. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 351, the LNG 
Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. This important legislation 
will bring certainty to the Department of Energy's review process for 
LNG export applications, create American jobs, continue spurring 
America's manufacturing comeback, and provide a stable source of energy 
to our allies in Europe and around the world.
  Thanks to the energy renaissance occurring throughout eastern and 
southeastern Ohio and across the United States, America is able to 
produce large quantities of natural gas like never before, enough to 
meet our domestic natural gas demands and export excess LNG to the 
global marketplace.
  Through the abundance of natural gas, we have an opportunity to 
significantly affect geopolitics and to create American jobs, but only 
if we enact smart policies like H.R. 351.
  The window of opportunity for LNG exports will not remain open 
indefinitely, so it is important that Congress act immediately. If 
Congress fails to act, companies will continue to face regulatory 
uncertainty, which creates hesitancy in securing financing for 
constructing LNG terminals, plus nations with near-term energy needs 
will look elsewhere.
  Potential geopolitical benefits such as reducing the oppressive 
influence of other exporters like Russia and Iran, while simultaneously 
strengthening ties with our allies, could be ultimately jeopardized.
  Some of my colleagues are concerned that increased LNG exports will 
not really help our allies in Europe, but that is simply not true. 
Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is sent, increasing the supply and 
competition in the international market will provide global consumers 
with greater choice and, most importantly, increased leverage when 
negotiating LNG pricing contracts.
  In fact, by no longer importing such large amounts of LNG, the U.S. 
has already indirectly helped our European allies. With the passage of 
this legislation, even more LNG will be free to go to places that need 
it most.
  Equally important, if we delay, domestic economic benefits may also 
fail to materialize, specifically the opportunity to create some 45,000 
jobs by 2018 and increase hardworking taxpayer salaries by $1 billion 
over 6 years. This is a win for manufacturing, especially those who 
make drilling equipment pipeline components, not to mention the 
refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors.
  For these reasons, Congress must pass H.R. 351. To date, DOE has 
issued a final decision on only five of the 38 pending LNG export 
applications received since 2010. This is unacceptable. I urge my 
colleagues to help bring certainty to DOE's approval process, create 
jobs, help maximize American energy production, and help our allies 
abroad by voting for this important legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Power.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for his leadership and for his positive 
contributions to this entire institution.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to oppose H.R. 351 because, once again, it is 
a proposed solution to a problem that we can't find, a problem that we 
have searched high and low for. This problem, Mr. Speaker, simply 
doesn't exist.

[[Page 1345]]

  Here we are, here we go once again, coming up with solutions to a 
problem that doesn't even exist. When will my colleagues on the other 
side do something productively in this Congress and come up with real 
solutions to problems that do exist for the American people?
  Mr. Speaker, currently, the Department of Energy, as we speak today, 
has already approved not one, not two, not three, not even four, but 
five applications--five--for existing LNG, and there are four more 
conditional approvals pending.

                              {time}  0930

  Altogether, Mr. Speaker, the approved applications authorize the 
export of over 10 million cubic feet per day of LNG. The pending 
applications collectively seek an additional 27.5 billion cubic feet of 
LNG exported each and every day--27.5.
  Where is the problem? Show me the problem. Show me the way. Point out 
the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, this 30-day deadline that arbitrarily mandates the DOE 
application process would short-circuit the public interest review--
short circuit--cut it short. The public doesn't have any input. No 
review by the public.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. RUSH. This arbitrary mandatory 30-day deadline would 
unnecessarily fast-track the DOE to hastily make a decision on export 
applications, regardless of how complex the application may be. The 
result of this ambiguous 30-day deadline may negatively affect DOE's 
ability to soberly and thoroughly assess the impact that cumulative 
exports may have on natural gas prices.
  What would be the effect of gas at the station, at the pump, on the 
American people, and we all of a sudden, without any study, without any 
conversation, without any consideration, just force the DOE to 
arbitrarily meet this 30-day deadline? What is going to be the effect 
on the consumer in terms of these gas prices at the pump? Are they 
going to skyrocket as a result of this hasty, irresponsible action? 
Tell me, do you have answers to that?
  It may even result in the unintended consequence of actually denying 
applications if the agency does not have the time to complete its due 
diligence. This is insane. This is the utmost of insanity.
  Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill because at the end of the day 
when you skim away all of the rhetoric and all the hyperbole around 
this bill, it will not speed up energy exports to Europe and it will 
not speed up exports to our other allies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Elvis Presley: let this body 
return this bill to sender, return it to sender, address unknown, no 
such problem, no such home.
  Mr. Speaker, let's send this bill back to committee where it can go 
through regular order, and we can have a thorough discussion on these 
important issues before voting on such a consequential bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), who has been a real leader in helping 
America become energy independent.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill because this is 
simply a commonsense bill.
  As you know, the U.S. is now the largest producer of natural gas in 
the world and has proven gas resources to supply our needs for decades 
to come. This is an achievement that we have reached despite roadblocks 
and delays from the executive branch. The latest delay is the 
Department of Energy's rule from last summer to hold up export terminal 
applications.
  This important bill streamlines the review process for LNG exports by 
requiring a timeline for making a decision and making agencies work 
together on the review. This is commonsense change, Mr. Speaker.
  Innovations in the harvesting and production of natural gas have cut 
energy bills for families across the country. Those are the same 
innovations that have also made it affordable to ship LNG around the 
globe.
  The responsible and safe development of our natural resources through 
new technologies, such as horizontal drilling, have begun an energy and 
manufacturing renaissance in America.
  And who is feeling the benefits? American families and businesses 
with an affordable and reliable energy supply. But that could all end 
unless we let the free market work.
  Let's end the administration's de facto ban on new exports and bring 
market stability to the global gas market. Let's get the government out 
of the way, and let's give our American innovators a chance to work.
  Mr. Speaker, my district, the State of Ohio, and the entire Nation 
will reap the benefits of more jobs, increased pay, and lower energy 
costs if we pass this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 351 and end the self-imposed 
restrictions on LNG exports.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 21 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green), who is the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me explain the problem we 
have and the need for this bill today.
  The bill is the exact same language that passed this House last 
Congress, and it came through our committee, the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Now, what this bill does is give the Department of Energy some 
deadlines to make a decision on our national interests--that is what it 
does--so we can do it. They have held those permits sometimes up to 2 
years to make that determination.
  If you have a free trade agreement with the United States, we can 
export natural gas to you. But they need to decide the national 
interests. I want the DOE to do that, but I also want to make a 
decision in very quick time.
  We know who our friends are, we know who our adversaries are. We 
don't really want to send it to our adversaries, we want to send it to 
our friends. So that is DOE's job.
  The reason we need this bill is that right now today, or yesterday, 
gas is $2.88 per million cubic feet. It was up about $4, which is still 
not great for a producer. But what we have been doing in south Texas is 
flaring natural gas. It is bad for the environment. It is bad for the 
people who produce it because they don't have a customer. And what we 
need to do is be able to export what we can't use.
  In Texas we are very proud of Blue Bell ice cream. In fact, their 
advertising slogan is: ``We eat all we can and we sell the rest.''
  I have a chemical industry, I have a utility industry that uses 
natural gas. They are using it. But we still have a lot of production. 
So why would we not use all we can in our country and sell the rest and 
make somebody else pay for those jobs that we have in our community? 
And that is the problem.
  We know the price of oil is going down. But oil and natural gas 
sometimes come out of the same well. So that is why we need to make 
sure that we have the right, on a reasonable timeframe, to export 
natural gas to countries that we want to be friendly with. I would love 
to have a natural gas export right now to Ukraine. The infrastructure 
over there is not there. It could get there with some reversing 
pipelines.
  H.R. 351 represents a bipartisan effort to legislate and warrant its 
approval. We worked together on this bill, and it represents that hard 
work.

[[Page 1346]]

  The bill is good for the economy, the climate, and the U.S. security 
interests. The United States has natural resources to become the 
largest exporter of LNG in the world. Our natural gas reserves can meet 
all our domestic natural gas needs and still have an excess capacity of 
3 trillion cubic feet.
  Before we discuss H.R. 351 it is important we clarify the LNG 
permitting process, just so there is no confusion. A project applicant 
must submit two separate applications: the first to the Department of 
Energy and the second to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
FERC.
  In the Department of Energy, there are two complete separate 
processes. First, the project must submit an application to export. If 
the project sends LNG to a country with which the U.S. has a free trade 
agreement, the application is automatically approved.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank the ranking member. I appreciate it.
  If the project sends the LNG to a country without a free trade 
agreement, then the DOE must issue a permit based on the public 
interest. These are very important determinations. However, LNG will 
not leave the United States with DOE approval only.
  For a project to actually export LNG, in either case, the applicant 
must receive a FERC permit. FERC reviews the environmental impacts of 
the actual LNG facility. FERC conducts and reviews all environmental 
impacts to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. No company will export a 
single cubic foot of LNG without FERC approval. FERC's process takes 12 
to 18 months and costs approximately $100 million.
  We have worked extremely hard to protect the environment. It is the 
DOE non-FTA process that is the problem. The DOE currently has 
approximately 30 non-FTA permits awaiting decision. The DOE has held 
most of these permits almost 4 years. Even the DOE recognized this huge 
problem and tried to address the backlog last summer by changing the 
approval process. Unfortunately, the changes failed to expedite 
approval or provide any certainty to companies who are investing $100 
million, and these are U.S. companies.
  H.R. 351 resolved this issue only after it receives all environmental 
permits.
  H.R. 351 would place a 30-day timeline for the DOE to issue a 
decision after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission completes its 
environmental reviews.
  Once again, we have protected the environmental review process. We 
have protected the public interest. And DOE, which held some of these 
applications 4 years--we cannot allow DOE to sit on these permits any 
longer. They must do their job and do it in a timely fashion.
  Opponents of H.R. 351 say if all permits are approved, we will export 
more than 35 trillion cubic feet. Opponents say exports will double or 
triple domestic natural gas prices. Opponents say exports of that size 
will endanger our domestic industry, raise electricity prices, and have 
ruinous effects on our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent enormous petrochemical facilities, power 
generators, and workers.
  I remember when domestic natural gas prices caused companies in my 
district to move jobs overseas.
  If what opponents of H.R. 351 say were even remotely possible, I 
would be the first one to oppose this bill.
  My constituents work at those facilities.
  Those facilities pay taxes and fund the hospitals and schools in my 
district.
  There are dozens of applications pending at DOE.
  No more than a handful of projects will be constructed and ultimately 
export LNG.
  But each project deserves a fair opportunity at review.
  Each company deserves the opportunity to pursue financing in the 
capital markets.
  The government should not make those decisions.
  Each LNG facility costs billions, not to mention the jobs associated 
with pipeline construction, electric transmission, local services, etc.
  I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 351 and support this bipartisan 
effort.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Turner), who has been a real leader on helping America become 
energy independent.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, U.S. natural gas exports will create 
American jobs and will bolster our strategic partnerships.
  I serve as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and many 
foreign leaders and officials have expressed to me their need for 
energy diversification. As you know, Russia, the largest supplier of 
natural gas to Europe, has repeatedly used natural gas pricing to draw 
governments closer to its orbit and punished West-leaning governments 
with higher prices.
  U.S. natural gas exports will foster a more dynamic and competitive 
world energy market, helping to curb the use of energy as a political 
weapon. And regardless of where natural gas from the United States is 
shipped, increasing supply in the global market will help international 
customers with greater choice and leverage to negotiate prices.
  In fact, the Obama administration has made this exact same argument. 
The State Department's energy envoy recently stated:

       Now where the gas will go doesn't matter. The fact that we 
     have approved exports of natural gas has already had an 
     impact on Europe. And where the molecule actually ends up 
     going also doesn't matter.

  Now, I understand there have been questions about whether or not 
European countries, such as Ukraine, are prepared to receive U.S. 
natural gas. Many of our European allies are implementing 
infrastructure projects to diversify their natural gas resources.
  For example, Poland and Lithuania are opening LNG import terminals to 
reduce their dependence on Russian gas. Just last week, Poland and 
Ukraine announced an agreement to construct a pipeline that will allow 
Ukraine to access natural gas from two LNG import terminals, 
potentially from the United States. England and Spain already have 
contracts in place to receive U.S. natural gas.
  These are just a few examples of how these infrastructure projects 
will help Europe diversify its natural gas resources.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, President Obama, in a joint statement with 
European leaders, welcomed U.S. natural gas exports to help our 
European allies and our strategic partners.
  I am encouraged by the President's statements. These words must be 
followed by action. The President must work with Congress to enact H.R. 
351.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have heard my colleagues suggest that there is a delay in the DOE's 
approval of LNG export applications.
  For instance, on Monday night at the Rules Committee, Mr. Johnson 
indicated that the DOE has approved only five out of 38 applications 
since 2010. Even if the gentleman from Ohio is correct in his 
assertion, the fact is that the five applications approved by the Obama 
administration since 2010 are five more than were approved by the 
Reagan administration or by either Bush administration. In fact, it is 
five more than were approved by the Clinton, Carter, Ford, or Nixon 
administration. In 2011, the DOE approved the first LNG export 
application for the Cheniere Sabine Pass facility. That facility is set 
to become operational at the end of this year. That was the DOE's first 
approval to export LNG since the 1960s.
  The dramatic growth of natural gas production and supply in the 
United States was considered impossible a decade ago, so the DOE 
commissioned a study to help it decide how to address additional 
applications. After establishing a transparent and systematic system 
for reviewing and authorizing LNG export applications, the DOE began to 
rapidly issue decisions. The record demonstrates that the DOE has moved 
aggressively to authorize LNG exports, granting three additional final 
authorizations and four conditional approvals since August of 2013.

[[Page 1347]]

  To date, the DOE has approved the export of enough LNG to make the 
United States the world leader in LNG exports. All other pending 
applications are still under review at FERC, not at the DOE, so it is 
important to understand that this bill does not change the FERC review 
process--the site approvals, the environmental approvals. I would also 
remind my colleagues that the DOE automatically deems LNG exports to 
free trade agreement countries to be in the public interest.
  Before the DOE can issue a decision on the pending applications, both 
FERC approval and construction will need to be completed. That could 
take months or, more likely, years, but this bill will not affect that 
timeline, which will be the critical factor in how much more gas can be 
exported. That is why I want to emphasize that this bill is unnecessary 
and will not materially change the LNG export situation anytime soon.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, they say that you can't have too much of a 
good thing, but with our impressive natural gas production, that is 
exactly what we have today. We now have so much natural gas that we 
cannot only meet our own energy needs and still have extra to sell, but 
our natural gas boom can be used as a force for good here at home as a 
source for jobs and across the globe as a source of stable energy.
  There is no question that the whole shale revolution helped break the 
fever of the Great Recession. Thanks to innovation and technological 
advancement, energy production remained a welcome bright spot in our 
national economy, but we aren't out of the woods yet. We all know that. 
Millions of folks, certainly in Michigan and across the country, still 
find themselves unemployed, underemployed, or facing stagnant 
paychecks. This bill, this legislation, will help accelerate their 
return to full employment.
  At the request of the Department of Energy, NERA Economic Consulting 
evaluated the economic impacts of U.S. LNG exports. The NERA study 
showed a net positive impact to the United States economy and estimated 
that LNG exports would actually reduce the average number of unemployed 
workers by as much as 45,000 people by 2018. We will also see tens of 
thousands of additional jobs created in the supply chain. I am talking 
about good-paying jobs that will help families achieve a better life.
  The bill will also advance our foreign policy goals. U.S. LNG exports 
can provide our allies with a secure and affordable supply of energy 
and can reduce the influence of hostile exporting nations like Russia, 
which continues to threaten Ukraine and, really, all of Europe's 
natural gas supply. Passing this bill will send the welcome signal to 
our allies in Eastern Europe that, yes, an alternative source of energy 
is on its way.
  The domestic and geopolitical benefits make increasing U.S. LNG 
exports a win-win, but the Department of Energy continues to hold up 
the process. Since 2010, the DOE has only issued a final decision on 
five applications to export LNG to countries with which we don't share 
a free trade agreement. This bill would help jump-start approvals so 
that we can start creating jobs and sending our surplus gas to those 
countries that need it the most. It would give the DOE 30 days to issue 
a decision following the completion of the environmental review.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. UPTON. The U.S. is now a global energy superpower, and with that 
power, we have a chance to do some real good. Saying ``yes'' to energy 
is good for workers here at home and is good for global allies.
  I thank Representative Bill Johnson for his leadership on this issue, 
and I would hope that everybody would support this bipartisan piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Under the current approval process for LNG exports, the Department of 
Energy has a tool to protect American consumers, and that tool is the 
public interest determination. The DOE has the ability to weigh the 
benefits and costs of additional LNG exports, including the impact of 
increased domestic natural gas prices on consumers, who use gas to heat 
and cool their homes and to turn on the lights. Rigid deadlines, as 
suggested in this legislation, could prevent the DOE from conducting a 
meaningful public interest review, and that means that the DOE might 
not be able to ensure that high levels of LNG exports do not harm 
American consumers by raising the costs of electricity or home heating 
or cooling.
  I think consumers, Mr. Speaker, have reason to be concerned. Experts 
at the nonpartisan U.S. Energy Information Administration examined this 
issue, and here is what they found:

       In the scenarios with additional gas exports, consumers 
     will consume less and pay more on both their natural gas and 
     electricity bills.

  Furthermore, the EIA calculated that high levels of LNG exports could 
mean increased residential, commercial, and industrial consumer energy 
costs of $7 billion to $14 billion per year between 2020 and 2040.
  Make no mistake. American consumers will foot that bill. Recent 
experience with gasoline and propane exports also offers cautionary 
tales. The Midwest and Northeast experienced sharp propane price spikes 
and shortages last winter. Significant increases in propane exports 
were a key factor in the skyrocketing prices that hurt consumers.
  Just yesterday, the Center for American Progress released an analysis 
on the potential impact of expanded LNG exports on consumers. They 
found that, in 2020, residential consumers would pay 4.3 percent more 
for natural gas per year, and those in the Midwest--in States like 
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas--would be the hardest hit by price 
increases. By 2040, consumers in the mid-Atlantic States would pay 10 
percent more for natural gas per year.
  These figures are not insignificant. We need to make sure that LNG 
exports do not hurt consumers. Right now, the DOE has the ability to do 
that. So, before we disregard any meaningful public interest review and 
allow the unrestricted exporting of LNG, let's be sure that our 
constituents won't be left footing the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting 
Certainty and Transparency Act.
  America's energy producers and the tens of thousands of Americans 
they employ stand ready to meet the demand for a reliable and secure 
source of natural gas from America and the world.
  They have completed their reviews, have passed their tests, and are 
ready to get to work, but there is one big problem--the Obama 
administration is standing in the way. The President and his anti-
American energy agenda have placed a de facto ban on LNG exports by 
logjamming their requests and using bureaucratic red tape to block 
America's progress.
  This bill breaks the bureaucratic gridlock and expedites the approval 
of LNG exports. I have seen firsthand the jobs and the opportunities 
that an LNG facility has created for the people of east Texas, in my 
district. Let's help the American worker by approving H.R. 351.
  Mr. PALLONE. Again, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time that remains on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 11 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment 
Subcommittee.

[[Page 1348]]


  Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are beginning the 114th 
Congress the way we ended the previous one--with legislation that is 
more about message than about solving real problems.
  The message of H.R. 351 is that we are interested in elevating the 
interests of the oil and gas industry above any others. Consumers will 
not benefit from this policy, and manufacturers will not benefit from 
this policy. Eliminating the public interest determination sends that 
message clearly.
  In spite of the assertions by its supporters, H.R. 351 won't do much 
for our allies either, especially those in Europe or Ukraine. The bill 
fixes no problem. There is no backlog of applications at the Department 
of Energy. Japan, our ally and the world's largest purchaser of LNG, 
has three importers who signed contracts in 2013 with three approved 
LNG export facilities, those being Freeport, Cameron, and Cove Point.
  Because natural gas is such an important and strategic resource, we 
should, if anything, be questioning the administration about the wisdom 
of issuing so many approvals. Why? They are relying on assumptions, 
models, and estimates of recoverable domestic gas reserves that are 
very uncertain and that have been decreasing as new information becomes 
available.
  Exporters sign these contracts to guarantee deliveries for some 10 to 
20 years. I am not willing to risk price spikes for consumers, 
families, and small businesses or to risk the benefits of lower gas 
prices for our manufacturing sector for a slightly improved trade 
balance. I am unwilling to repeal the requirement for a consideration 
of the public interest before more export facilities are approved, not 
for a resource that is so strategic and widely used.
  H.R. 351 does not fix any real problems, but it could, indeed, help 
to create some. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this bill.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the President likes to talk about infrastructure. In his 
State of the Union Address, he said that there is bipartisan support 
for infrastructure legislation and that Republicans and Democrats need 
to ``set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.''
  We have listened, and we have done that.
  After passing a bill to approve Keystone, this House passed another 
bill last week to reform the natural gas permitting process. Now the 
House is on its third energy infrastructure bill with Representative 
Bill Johnson's LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. I know 
the President doesn't pay much attention to what goes on here on 
Capitol Hill, but three infrastructure bills in 3 weeks is hard to 
miss.
  Here are some other numbers, Mr. Speaker, that I think the President 
really should remember: though the Department of Energy has received 37 
permits in the past 5 years, it has only approved five permits in that 
time. That is one a year. If the President cared about infrastructure 
as much as he says, I think he would get his administration to process 
the rest of them now.
  Passing this bill would also lead to the creation of an estimated 
45,000 jobs. More permit approvals mean more opportunity. More 
opportunity requires more infrastructure. More infrastructure means 
more jobs. Delay has become a hallmark of this Presidency, but 
Americans are done delaying job creation by ignoring America's energy 
abundance.

                              {time}  1000

  American energy supports American jobs. It supports a strong economy. 
It also gives our friends--like Ukraine, our allies--an alternative 
source of energy, diluting the power countries like Russia and Iran who 
use their oil to coerce and even oppress.
  Mr. Speaker, the President should know that here in the House we have 
set our sights very high; but, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Will the 
President set his sights higher than his veto pen?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, again, I wanted to return to the floor because 
the thought occurs to me, as it should to all of the American people, 
that we should consider the impact of this bill, the impact of LNG 
exports, and the impact that it would have on U.S. manufacturing.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, let us protect, by all means, 
American jobs. Let us protect American manufacturing. Cheap domestic 
natural gas prices are providing a big boost and competitive advantage 
to U.S. manufacturing. We can all agree on that on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, the disagreement occurs when the other side, the 
Republicans, are asking us in this Congress to make a hasty decision 
that could undermine the advantage that we are now experiencing in the 
rapid increase in manufacturing.
  This bill runs the risk of reducing our competitive advantage that we 
have now in the manufacturing sector. It requires DOE to rush its 
process and make final decisions on pending applications to export a 
huge quantity of LNG.
  If all of the pending applications are granted, DOE will authorize 
the export of approximately 38 million cubic feet per day of LNG. That 
is more than half of the total U.S. natural gas consumption. It is more 
than the world's largest LNG exporter, Qatar, currently makes each and 
every day.
  There is no question, Mr. Speaker, in my mind or in the minds of the 
American people that exports of that magnitude will increase the 
domestic price of natural gas. It just makes common sense, and it is 
what the EIA found when it studied the economic impact of increased LNG 
imports.
  Where is your study? How do you answer the conclusions of the EIA 
when it found again that the economic impact of increased influence 
will increase the domestic price of natural gas? What amount of 
American manufacturing? What amount of American jobs? Let's protect 
American manufacturing. Let's protect American jobs.
  Because this bill truncates DOE's public interest review, the 
Department may not even be able to fully analyze the impacts of the 
very high level of LNG exports on American consumers, on American jobs, 
and on American manufacturing.
  My friends on the other side--and they are indeed my friends--always 
want to talk about American manufacturing, how we have to support 
American manufacturing, how we have to raise the level of American 
manufacturing, how we have to increase the American manufacturing 
sector, how we have to increase the American manufacturing jobs. This 
very bill could undermine all that sense of goodwill and all those 
pronouncements from the other side.
  What about American manufacturing and what about American 
manufacturing jobs? Don't abandon American manufacturing. Don't abandon 
American manufacturing jobs. Don't abandon the American people. Let's 
slow this process down.
  All we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is jeopardizing American manufacturing 
and American manufacturing jobs.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, as the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, I am committed to developing sound energy policy, 
and that policy surely includes consideration of the role that natural 
gas can play in our energy mix.
  Our energy picture is changing every year. The latest development is 
low oil prices, but we have other developments in recent years, 
including rapidly increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas 
and a welcomed increase in wind and solar electricity production.

[[Page 1349]]

  We are becoming more efficient, but our energy infrastructure is 
becoming outdated. We need to look at the ways we produce and use 
energy, but we also need to look at the ways that we move, transmit, 
and store energy.
  We need to innovate in the energy space, but we also need to maintain 
reliability and lower energy bills. We need to look at all our energy 
issues through the lens of climate change and public health.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are legitimate questions about whether we 
want to send our natural gas to other countries. That might help our 
trade balance, but it would have negative impacts on our domestic 
manufacturing sector.
  I don't claim that I have all the answers. I know that we looked at 
some of these issues last Congress, but I don't agree that a clear 
consensus emerged. In any event, this is a new Congress with scores of 
new Members who have never looked at this issue before.
  I think we should take these issues back to the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and let the committee and its 12 new members do its job. Let 
us look at the facts again as they are today, not last year or last 
Congress. I think if we were to do that, we would see that even if this 
legislation was once necessary, it isn't anymore.
  DOE has modernized its process and any backlog that once existed 
isn't an issue at this point. DOE and the administration have opened 
the way for LNG exports, but I think it continues to be necessary for 
us to assess whether approving an application for additional export is 
in the public interest because becoming the world's largest exporter of 
natural gas is not something we should do lightly, unadvisedly, or 
without the latest facts.
  This January, we have spent much of our time bringing bills from last 
Congress to the floor and rushing them through to the Senate, which is 
still considering the Keystone legislation we passed the first week of 
this year.
  I think we might well have served ourselves and the American people 
better by sitting down together in the Energy and Commerce Committee 
and working carefully on an energy policy aimed at the future rather 
than at an energy policy aimed at the past.
  I am going to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I encourage my 
colleagues to oppose it as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The former speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, talked 
a lot about the impact on the manufacturing base in America this 
legislation might have. I would like to point out that the National 
Association of Manufacturers, which is the largest manufacturing 
association in the United States, representing manufacturers in every 
industrial sector in all 50 States, in a letter dated yesterday, urges 
Members to support H.R. 351.
  They go on to say that it is important to ensure that ``market 
forces, rather than bureaucratic inertia, govern international trade.'' 
That is really what this legislation is all about; it is about market 
forces.
  Representatives from countries around the world are coming to us and 
asking for this product. We are fortunate in America that we have an 
abundance of natural gas. In fact, the Energy Information Agency 
reported today that it is so abundant that natural gas prices have 
dropped to their lowest level since September 2012.
  Earlier, there was an expression of concern about increased natural 
gas prices. We understand that prices go up and prices go down, but 
right now, they are at their lowest level since September 2012, and 
when natural gas prices go down too low, you see less production. That 
increases prices as well.
  We didn't just wake up one day and decide to introduce this 
legislation. Concerned groups involved in this business came to 
Congress and said: We need some help.
  When we started having hearings on this a year and 2 years ago, the 
Department of Energy started trying to speed up the process a little 
bit, but we are not dictating what their decision should be on allowing 
the export to non-free trade agreement countries. We are just saying: 
You need to make the decision sooner, and we want some transparency. 
That is all this legislation is about.
  Now, we understand that any time you talk in today's world about 
exporting a fossil fuel, one of the undercurrents is climate change, 
and I would remind everyone that CO2 emissions in America 
are the lowest that they have been in 20 years.
  This country does not have to take a backseat to any country in the 
world, and so we want the market to play its role. This is a good, 
commonsense piece of legislation that will create jobs in America, will 
encourage the expansion of more natural gas production at a time when 
the world needs it and we need it.
  I would urge every Member of this House to vote in favor of H.R. 351, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 
351, the ``LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not anti-trade. I 
am, however strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,'' and ``pro-
sustainable environment.''
  As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of 
the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy 
policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and 
create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.
  That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal 
brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when 
they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.
  Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to 
improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.
  Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased exports of 
natural gas, the legislation before contains several provisions that 
are of great concern to me.
  Pursuant to Section 2, subsection (a) of the bill, an application for 
authorization to export LNG is ``deemed'' approved if the Department of 
Energy (DOE) or other federal agencies do not approve or deny the 
application within 30 days of the conclusion of the site review.
  I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.
  First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a 
problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.
  Thus, the provision is unwise.
  Second, this provision is a remedy in search of a problem. There is 
no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas export 
authority applications awaiting action by DOE.
  The provision is unnecessary because DOE has to date authorized the 
export of over 10 billion cubic feet per day of LNG to non-Free Trade 
Agreement countries.
  Together with exports to FTA countries, this level of LNG exports 
that would transform the United States into one of the world's largest 
exporters.
  Third, the provision is irresponsible because it would require DOE 
and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or 
information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, 
and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but 
for lack of sufficient review time.
  Supporters of this bill argue that it is vital, in the face of 
Russian aggression and restrictions, to provide our allies in Europe 
with additional exports of LNG.
  However, because actual exports through approved terminals are not 
expected to begin until late 2015, this legislation will have no impact 
on current exports.
  And, limiting the time for review would prevent DOE from properly 
analyzing the domestic impact that of exporting large amounts of LNG.
  The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that increased 
exports could result in an increase of as much as 8 percent in domestic 
LNG prices.
  Given the inherent delicacy involved in assessing the impact of trade 
authorizations, both domestically and abroad, this state of affairs is 
likely to lead to DOE erring on the side of caution and denying 
applications that may otherwise have been approved if it had more time 
and more resources to carry out its responsibilities.
  For these reasons, I urge all Members to oppose the bill before us 
and urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 351--the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.

[[Page 1350]]

  H.R. 351 eliminates the ability for Washington bureaucrats to 
needlessly block the construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export 
facilities. Once the Department of Energy receives an application and 
environmental reviews have been completed, this legislation will place 
a thirty day deadline on the DOE in order to expedite permitting. One 
month is plenty of time for a determination to be made once all studies 
have been completed.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past five years this process has been painfully 
slow. Since 2010, the DOE has only fully processed five of the 37 
applications received for LNG export to countries where a Free Trade 
Agreement is not in place. These delays have inhibited our ability to 
reach our potential as a global energy producer, and the bill we have 
before us will remove some of the burdensome regulations that currently 
exist.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 351 will help put hardworking 
Americans back to work. A NERA Economic Consulting report informs us 
that making the needed investment to construct LNG export facilities 
will put 45,000 of our nation's unemployed back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also has the ability to be used as a 
strong economic foreign policy tool. Less than a year ago, Vladimir 
Putin attempted to increase his power through force with the 
acquisition of Crimea and the prolonged stand-off in Eastern Ukraine. 
As a result, a number of our allies in Europe were placed in a tough 
spot because Russia is such a significant natural gas producer across 
the continent.
  Despite the current economic woes that plague the Russian Federation, 
in order for us to prevent future aggressive posturing by Putin, we 
must undercut his ability to hold the region hostage because of energy. 
H.R. 351 will allow us to build our domestic infrastructure, which will 
give our European allies a place to turn in the event of future Russian 
aggression.
  Mr. Speaker, for our own economic benefit, as well as the economic 
diplomacy that expanded LNG exports will provide, I ask all of my 
colleagues to support H.R. 351.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 351, which 
would create arbitrary and rigid deadlines for Department of Energy 
(DOE) approval of LNG exports. Rather than speeding up the approval 
process, this unnecessary legislation would likely force the Department 
to deny projects because they will not have the time to fully consider 
their impacts.
  The Department of Energy is one of two agencies that must approve LNG 
export terminals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must first 
approve the terminal infrastructure, and then DOE must consider whether 
or not each facility's exports are in the national interest. That DOE 
review encompasses a number of considerations, including the 
environmental and domestic energy price impacts.
  DOE has been working to refine this process and has approved several 
terminals, dramatically increasing the amount of LNG that will be 
exported from the United States. This shift in U.S. energy policy, from 
import to export, requires a complete review of the cumulative impact. 
For example, we should carefully monitor and control methane leakage 
along the natural gas supply chain, which has a potent impact on 
climate change. And a number of domestic manufacturers have expressed 
concern about the impact of exports on energy prices here at home.
  I am not opposed to some responsible expansion of LNG exports, but it 
must be done in a way that protects the environment and American 
taxpayers. The Department of Energy has been charged, rightly, with 
protecting the public interest in this process. We should not 
arbitrarily short-circuit that critical effort. I urge a no vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 48, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 351, to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4. PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND CREATING 
                   AMERICAN JOBS.

       In reviewing an application for authorization to export 
     natural gas under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 
     717b), the Department of Energy--
       (1) shall deny such application if the natural gas would be 
     exported to any nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism 
     or otherwise threatens America's national security, or to any 
     nation or corporation that steals America's military 
     technology or intellectual property through cyber-attacks; 
     and
       (2) shall require, as a condition for approval of any such 
     authorization, the applicant to ensure that United States-
     flagged and built ships and shipping containers are used to 
     export the LNG as such vessels become available for charter.

  Mr. WHITFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of 
order against the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment to the bill will not 
kill the bill. Frankly, it will substantially improve it. It won't send 
it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will come to the floor for a 
vote later this morning.
  We have heard a lot of discussion here about jobs in the Rules 
Committee, and I thank the chair, Mr. Whitfield, for his interest in 
this particular proposal and for the Rules Committee listening to the 
debate very carefully about how we can significantly advance America's 
national interest.

                              {time}  1015

  Natural gas is a strategic asset. It has allowed us to substantially 
reduce our energy costs in the United States; replace, re-power many of 
our power plants; bring down the cost; and, frankly, lead to an 
increased manufacturing sector.
  Shipbuilding is also a strategic national asset. Our Navy depends 
upon it. However, 107,000 Americans work in the shipbuilding industry 
in our ports and ship yards. It is a strategic asset, as are the 
mariners. American mariners are also a strategic asset.
  What we are trying to do with this amendment is to bring together 
these three strategic assets of America and advance the American 
economy and our national security at the same time.
  This amendment would simply require that if we are going to export 
liquefied natural gas, a strategic asset, then we should do it in a way 
that advances our national security and our economy by requiring that 
those ships be manned and ``womanned'' by American mariners, the 
captains, the engineers, the sailors, that they be American.
  This is a safety issue. Natural gas is a very volatile issue, and, 
under current law, when it is imported, it has to have American 
mariners on board.
  Similarly, by requiring that the ships be American-built, we will be 
able to employ several hundred thousand new men and women in our 
shipyards. If it is about jobs--and we all claim this bill is about 
jobs--then let's take it another step. Let's take it another step, so 
that we really rebuild the American shipping industry, that we put 
American mariners to work, that we revitalize our shipyards, so that 
our U.S. Navy will be able to have a robust competition for their 
ships.
  There are 117 shipyards in the United States that build ships. None 
of them, yet, build these tankers. They could if we pass this 
amendment.
  Let's build it in America. Let's make it in America. This is a 
strategy that is employed by India, which has a tender out to buy gas 
from the United States. That tender requires that three of the ships 
used to transport that be built in India.
  I say let's build the other seven in the United States. They want 
American natural gas; build the ships in America.
  We know that this is a big industry. Cheniere needs 100 ships when 
they begin to ship natural gas, LNG, from

[[Page 1351]]

their new terminal in Texas--100 ships. Are those American ships?
  No, not without this amendment. Those ships will be Chinese ships in 
Chinese shipyards built by Chinese.
  How about America? How about building it in America?
  That is what this amendment is about. We can all agree that we want 
American jobs. Is there one among the 435 of us who wants the jobs to 
be in China or Korea or Japan? I don't think so.
  Let's do it in America. This is an American-made amendment. This is 
an amendment for American workers, American shipyards.
  This is not going to kill the bill. This is going to make this bill 
into a real ``Make It In America,'' a real American jobs bill with 
hundreds of thousands of jobs spread throughout this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, work with us. Make this into a real, robust American 
jobs bill. Adopt this amendment. Put aside the normal game we play with 
MTRs, which is just kind of a Kabuki dance here.
  Let's do it for the American workers, for the American shipyards all 
across this Nation. That is what this is about.
  This is an unexpected opportunity that has come about because of our 
great natural gas industry here. Take advantage of it. Think about the 
national security. Think about our shipyards, the U.S. Navy, the 
mariners. Make it in America. Adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation of the point of order is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the 
gentleman from California for offering this motion to recommit. It has 
two basic parts to it. The first part relates to denying applications 
of natural gas that would be exported to any nation that is a state-
sponsored terrorist.
  We feel quite confident that, under the existing law and under H.R. 
351, the Department of Energy is not going to approve the export of 
natural gas that is going to be in the public interest to any terrorist 
state.
  The second question, which is a very important question--and as I 
said in the Rules Committee and say on the floor, I am delighted that 
Mr. Garamendi has raised this issue about U.S.-flagged ships being 
involved in the export.
  As you know, his amendment goes to the Jones Act, and the Jones Act, 
as we all know, requires U.S.-flagged ships between ports here in the 
United States, but it does not expand to export and the use in other 
countries, and that raises a much broader issue than this very narrow-
focused bill.
  I do think that that discussion needs to take place at some point in 
time, but, at this time, I am going to respectfully request the Members 
to reject the motion to recommit.
  I, and others, would look forward to talking to Mr. Garamendi in more 
detail about a broader debate on what impact expanding the Jones Act 
would have on our international trade.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Speaker 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 175, 
nays 237, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 49]

                               YEAS--175

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

                               NAYS--237

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

[[Page 1352]]


     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Clay
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Gutierrez
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     Lee
     Lieu (CA)
     Marino
     Meeks
     Neal
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Slaughter
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. ROUZER, Mrs. COMSTOCK, Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, MARCHANT, BUCK, 
CRENSHAW, PALMER, JORDAN, HANNA, and NUNES changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WELCH, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Messrs. POLIS, TAKAI, JOHNSON of Georgia, 
and TONKO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 277, 
nays 133, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               YEAS--277

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

                               NAYS--133

     Adams
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Amodei
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Clay
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DeSaulnier
     Duckworth
     Engel
     Gutierrez
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     Lee
     Lieu (CA)
     Marino
     Meeks
     Neal
     Nunnelee
     Perlmutter
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Slaughter
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1057

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          Personal Explanation

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
Roll Call vote numbers 49 and 50. Had I been present, I would have 
voted aye on Roll Call vote number 49, and no on Roll Call vote number 
50.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on January 28, 2015 I was unable to be 
present and missed the following votes:
  On Roll Call vote 49, on Agreeing to the Motion to Recommit With 
Instructions to H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency 
Act, I would have voted AYE.
  On Roll Call vote 50, on Passage of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting 
Certainty and Transparency Act, I would have voted NO.

                          ____________________