Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bills. First of all, this rule is not open, and it denies some important and germane amendments. This is consistent with the increasingly closed mindset of this Republican leadership.

I want to remind my colleagues that this is now the most closed Congress in history. There have been 62 closed rules in this Congress alone. That is a title I don't think either party would enjoy having, but this is the most closed Congress in history. Speaker Boehner, in his opening speech, said that openness would be the new standard. I guess he misspoke because that is not what is happening on these bills, and it hasn't been happening on most other important pieces of legislation. The approval rating of Congress from a poll, I think, Gallup did last week is at 7 percent. My friends can't blame that on President Obama, and they can't blame that on someone else. They are running the show here in the House. This is a reflection on the work or on the lack of work that is being done here.

I think the American people want a full and open debate on important issues. I think the American people want us to focus on things that will actually make their lives better and that have a chance of actually becoming law. We have millions of our fellow citizens who are unemployed, and we can't even get the Republican leadership to bring an extension of unemployment insurance to the House floor for a vote. We can't even get it on the floor for a vote.

We are trying to raise the minimum wage so that we are not subsidizing McDonald's or Wendy's, which pay their workers minimum wage. We are trying to give people a raise so that work actually pays in this country. We can't even get a minimum wage bill to this House floor for a vote. We can't even debate it, and we can't have a vote on it. They are blocking it.

We need to fix our immigration system. It is broken. An immigration reform bill passed in the United States Senate in a bipartisan way, and it solves many of the problems that some of my friends on the other side are complaining about, but the leadership of this House won't even let us bring a bipartisan immigration reform bill to the House floor so that we can vote on it.

It is no wonder why, under this Republican leadership, the approval rating of this body is 7 percent. I think that is history in and of itself. I don't know whether there was ever a Congress in the history of this country that had such a low rating.

Now here we are with this legislation, H.R. 6, the amazingly named Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, which would improve neither our domestic prosperity nor global freedom. Instead, it would undermine the Department of Energy's approval process for the export of liquefied natural gas. The current process allows the DOE to evaluate the impacts of LNG exports on domestic natural gas prices for consumers and manufacturers as well as environmental impacts.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Energy is already aggressively approving LNG exports. The amounts already approved for exports would transform the United States into the world's second largest exporter of LNG. Further, under the bill, LNG would not be exported any faster. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by the rhetoric that you may hear on the floor today. Passing this bill will not magically solve the natural gas problem in Ukraine or in other parts of the world.

The other bill, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, would dramatically weaken the environmental review process for transborder pipeline and electrical transmission line projects. This bill, which is a blatantly transparent effort to ``rig the game'' in favor of the Keystone pipeline project, would preclude the Federal Government from reviewing a project's full impacts, including oil spills and the consequences for landowners, public safety, drinking water, wildlife, and, yes, Mr. Speaker, climate change. Let me say those two words again because I know that many of our Republican colleagues tend to stick their heads in the sand when they hear them-- climate change.

I think it is important to say a few things. Here is what we know. We know that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We know that carbon dioxide traps heat. We know that the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they have been in 800,000 years. We know that 9 of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have been in the last decade. We know that last month was the warmest month of May ever recorded.

Yet, to hear some of my Republican friends, we should just move along--nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. There is no need to worry that the Arctic ice sheets are melting, leading to rapidly rising sea levels. There is no need to worry about more severe and deadly weather events. There is no need to worry about profound impacts to agricultural production. At best, you will hear them say that the science is still unsettled. It isn't. Climate change is real--it is happening--and we need to figure out what we should do about it.

Sometimes they will say: Well, I am not a scientist, so I can't really comment about it. Mr. Speaker, I am not a scientist either, but I know that, if I drop my pen, it will fall to the floor because of gravity. No, most of us here in Congress are not scientists, but the overwhelming majority of the best and brightest scientific minds in the world have concluded that climate change is real, that it is happening, and humankind is currently making the problem worse.

It would be nice, given the enormity of this problem, if my Republican friends would work with Democrats and would work with the White House to try to fashion a response. Instead, they deny that it is a problem, and we get more of the same old-same old. I regret that very, very much, but I can't quite understand, Mr. Speaker, why my Republican friends continue to ignore this critically important issue. I hope it isn't because of their borderline pathological hatred of President Obama. I hope that it isn't because of the Big Oil special interests and the millions and millions of dollars they pour into Republican campaigns. Whatever the reason, I hope that future generations will forgive them, because this is something that we should have been addressing years and years and years ago, and the continued blocking of any serious attempts to deal with climate change by the majority in this House, I think, is unconscionable.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, vote against the rule because it is not an open rule, and a lot of germane amendments--they were germane-- were not made in order. I am glad one of the authors of the bill got his amendment made in order, but he authored the bill, so I guess he gets special preference. There is no reason why all of the amendments couldn't have been made in order, and there is no reason why this couldn't have been an open process, because we are not really doing much this week. As for this legislation we are dealing with here today, my guess is it ain't going anywhere.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want my colleagues to understand why I think we should reject this rule. Let me just mention two amendments that were germane and that were brought to the Rules Committee by our colleague from California (Mr. Garamendi).

One amendment clarifies that a viable merchant marine is in the public interest and should be taken into consideration when processing applications under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act. The other grants priority to the processing of approvals for LNG facilities that will be supplied with or will export LNG by U.S. flag vessels.

These are, basically, two amendments that are germane to this bill that would strengthen our shipping industry, and they were ruled out of order. For no reason, they were just randomly ruled out of order. Those are the kinds of things that Members of Congress do not have an opportunity to vote on when you close the process. Again, this is the most closed Congress in the history of our country--with more closed rules than any other Congress in history. So the tendency of this leadership, notwithstanding what the Speaker promised, which was to have a more open and transparent process, has been to become the most closed Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed the Senate this month. It takes aim at some of the VA's most pressing problems, including the expansion of veterans' access to care, holding VA officials accountable, and increasing medical personnel and needed facilities.

This issue of the VA is something that we need to address. It is important, and it is something on which, I think, there is bipartisan agreement that we ought to focus on, and our use on this floor would be better spent dealing with that.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the Congresswoman from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will insert into the Record the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3301--North American Energy Infrastructure Act

(Rep. Upton, R-Michigan, and 20 cosponsors, June 24, 2014)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, which would

require the specified Secretary to issue a ``certificate of

crossing'' for any cross-border segment of an oil pipeline

(Secretary of State) or electric transmission facility

(Secretary of Energy) within 120 days after the completion of

the environmental review, unless the Secretary finds that the

cross-border pipeline or electric transmission facility ``is

not in the public interest of the United States.''

The bill's 120-day approval requirement would circumvent

the current authority for issuing Presidential Permits for

cross-border pipelines and transmission facilities provided

by Executive Orders 13337 and 10485, as amended, which allow

for the full consideration of the complex issues raised by

the building of such infrastructure. That process dates back

through many Administrations and has effectively addressed

cross-border permitting decisions in a manner that serves the

national interest.

H.R. 3301 would impose an unreasonable deadline that would

curtail the thorough consideration of the issues involved,

which could result in serious security, safety, foreign

policy, environmental, economic, and other ramifications. By

preventing the opportunity for the necessary assessment of

all factors relevant to the national interest, the bill would

create significant policy risks and create legal uncertainty

for permitting applicants. Additionally, the bill would

prevent assessment of whether modifications to border-

crossing pipelines or electric transmission facilities are in

the national interest, which is provided for through the

current process.

H.R. 3301 would also raise serious trade implications by

eliminating the current statutory requirement that the

Department of Energy authorize orders for exports and imports

of natural gas to and from Canada and Mexico.

Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven

processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and

electric transmission facilities are in the national interest

by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if

presented to the President, his senior advisors would

recommend that he veto this bill.

Let me just read one line here. It says:

Because H.R. 3301 would circumvent longstanding and proven

processes for determining whether cross-border pipelines and

electric transmission facilities are in the natural interest

by removing the Presidential permitting requirement, if

presented to the President, his senior advisors would

recommend that he veto this bill.

So we are discussing--we are spending time here discussing a bill that will probably not be brought up at all in the Senate and will be vetoed by the White House. So this is just kind of an exercise in futility, when we should be here trying to figure out how to deal with some of the bigger issues like climate change.

If you don't want to talk about climate change, let's talk about increasing the minimum wage. If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about extending unemployment insurance for people who have lost their jobs.

If you don't want to talk about that, let's talk about immigration reform. Let's talk about something that actually matters, something that--quite frankly, some of the things that are urgent for us to focus on.

Instead, we get these bills that are being brought before us, under a restrictive process, again, which is in keeping with the mindset of this Congress, which is closed.

Notwithstanding what the Speaker said, that there would be this new commitment to openness, this is now the most closed Congress in history.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I find it somewhat interesting here that my colleague from Texas is all upset about the slowness of the permitting process when it comes to these pipelines.

I think that there is bipartisan concern about the way the VA is currently being managed. I think there is bipartisan concern that we ought to make sure that the system is more responsive to our veterans.

Mrs. Kirkpatrick came to the floor and offered a statement, which will be the subject of the previous question, that I think makes a lot of sense. I mean, what she is talking about is a bill that is the companion to the one that Senator McCain introduced in the United States Senate.

I am a little kind of bothered by the fact that there is not more impatience on the other side of the aisle to fix this VA system, to get it right. Again, you could point all the fingers you want at the administration, and they are trying to get it right.

There are things that we can do right now to more aggressively and quickly address some of these issues, and that is what Mrs. Kirkpatrick was talking about. That is what Ms. Sinema was talking about. That is what Senator McCain is talking about in the United States Senate, Senator Sanders as well.

That, to me, seems urgent. We ought to do this right now, and to kind of use the excuse that, well, we passed a couple of these things and maybe there will be a conference committee that will resolve all this stuff--let's just do it. Let's just get this done.

Again, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, so that we can bring up the very legislation that Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Ms. Sinema talked about.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just--I mean, there is just so much that I want to say here, given the fact that there is so much that we need to do to help the American people, and we are not doing it in this Congress.

We are bringing up kind of the same old-same old energy bills that are going nowhere, that don't respond to the needs of our country, and certainly don't address the issue of climate change.

My colleague talks about how the process is broken. He says the Keystone XL has taken 5 years and counting and that shows that the process is broken.

Let me just say that that project is a highly controversial project, with significant environmental impacts. Because the Obama administration took the time to do the environmental review, we have more information on the project's impacts on climate change.

The State Department's final environmental review found that tar sands produce significantly more carbon pollution than conventional oil, that building the Keystone XL pipeline could allow more rapid expansion of the tar sands, and that this expansion would exacerbate climate change. That is something that we can't afford to do.

Last month, our Nation's leading climate scientists released the country's third national climate assessment. The report confirms that climate change is real, is being caused by humans, and is already harming communities across America.

The report tells us the scientific evidence is unequivocal. The impacts are being felt in every region. They are growing more urgent, and they are going to get worse if we don't act.

A record drought is continuing to destroy crops in California. Torrential rains have flooded Florida. Wildfires are getting more intense. Coastal areas are being inundated as sea levels rise.

No sector of our economy, from oyster hatcheries on the West Coast to maple syrup producers in New England, are untouched. Business as usual is no longer an option. The same old-same old doesn't work.

If we are serious about taking action on climate change, saying no to the Keystone XL pipeline, to me, is an obvious place to start; and the pipeline would produce more carbon pollution than any other project pending in the United States.

The additional carbon pollution from this single project is equivalent to building seven new coal-fired power plants.

Now, if we can't say ``no'' to this project on climate grounds, where are we going to draw the line?

So I commend the Obama administration for taking the time to get this decision right.

The environment matters. For years, my friends on the other side of the aisle ignored the environment. I mean, it was always that the environmentalists were the enemy. You know, being good stewards of the environment was somehow a bad thing to do. Well, look at what is happening around us.

So I think it is time that there be a change of attitude, and it is time that we actually bring serious legislation to the floor that deals with, how do we meet our energy needs but how do we also deal with this issue of climate change?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment that I am going to offer if we defeat the previous question in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Again, I just want to remind my colleagues what we would like to bring up. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up an amendment to the rule that brings legislation forward that mirrors the bipartisan measure that overwhelmingly passed in the Senate this month dealing with some of the VA's most pressing problems. So that is why defeating the previous question would be important.

Let me just close by saying, again, on the environmental issues here, listening to my friend from Texas talk about the issue of climate change, all you hear is excuses why we can't do something, and why we need to do the same old-same old.

I have to tell you that if we don't deal with this issue sooner, rather than later, then history will not look kindly upon us. We may not have a history in the future if we don't address this issue sooner, rather than later.

This is a big deal. This is a big deal. This is something that we ought to be talking about on the House floor at this very moment. If you want to talk about an energy policy, we ought to also talk about climate change. But

yet there is nothing. There is nothing. It really is appalling.

And the legislation that is being brought before us today is going nowhere. So we are wasting our time talking about bills that are going nowhere. They are going nowhere in the Senate. The White House has already issued a veto threat. So we are just kind of spinning our wheels here.

Instead, maybe we could use this week to do something productive. If you defeat the previous question, we could actually bring up the Senate-passed VA bill and get that done and help our veterans. And get it done quickly. Maybe that would be a good thing to do. Maybe that would make this week worth it, rather than a week spent talking about things that are going nowhere.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 636 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 636 provides for consideration of two energy bills designed to

provide certainty for those American businesses that have been given excuse after excuse as to why their permit applications have been delayed by the President, the Department of Energy, and other Federal agencies.

The President and his administration have used every delaying tactic they can think of to put off approval of job-creating projects in the natural gas and oil sectors. Quite frankly, the American people are fed up with it. Republicans are here today to stand up for citizens, unions, and businesses that have stood up and called for a more expeditious process that removes politics from the permitting decisionmaking.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of two bills, H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act. Both bills receive a standard structured rule under this rule.

For H.R. 6, the Rules Committee makes in order four amendments--two from Democratic sponsors and two bipartisan amendments. For H.R. 3301, the rule makes in order three amendments, all sponsored by Democrats.

This is a straightforward and fair rule that will allow the House to fully debate the issues of liquefied natural gas exports and cross- border pipeline and transmission line projects.

House Republicans have been focused on this country's energy independence for years. The Energy and Commerce Committee has been out in front of this effort, holding hearings on the Obama administration's harmful policies, holding hearings on the job-killing regulations and those that place restrictions on development on public lands and thereby increase the cost of producing electricity and fuel.

Although President Obama is quick to take credit for an increase in natural gas and oil production in this country over the last few years, any honest observer knows that any increase in production has come as a result of efforts on private, not public land, and certainly not lands controlled by the Federal Government.

In continuing the Republican majority's focus on domestic production issues, utilizing the resources that we have here in North America, Representative Cory Gardner introduced H.R. 6, the bipartisan Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, to provide for the expedited approval of exploration of natural gas to World Trade Organization countries. I am an original cosponsor of the legislation.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have had hearings about the gridlock which has held up dozens of applications from domestic production companies looking to export liquefied natural gas. Since the first non-free trade agreement application was submitted to the Department of Energy nearly 4 years ago, seven have been approved. Twenty-four are awaiting action.

Interestingly enough, to counter what the Department of Energy knew would be the inevitable bipartisan criticism of its delays at the last hearing we held on this topic, the Department of Energy announced just days before the hearing the approval of another LNG export application.

For anyone who thinks that this activity in the House is futile, given Harry Reid's intransigence in taking up any legislation that comes to the Senate from the House, this action by the Department of Energy highlights that efforts taken in this body--the House--can have meaningful impacts beyond simply having legislation signed into law.

Sending a clear signal to the Obama administration that the people's House is fed up with its delaying tactics and refusal to move forward with the approval of legitimate permit applications is key to making progress toward a more robust domestic energy sector.

The delays which President Obama's administration has imposed on these applications make it more and more difficult. As applications sit collecting dust for these companies trying to secure financing and countries looking to do business with American suppliers, they will soon lose patience and look elsewhere for their needs. The window for these opportunities is closing, and it is the President's hand that is pushing it down.

Mr. Gardner's legislation is straightforward. Indeed, it is a two- page bill with a clear purpose and intent. The legislation expedites the decisionmaking process for authorization to export natural gas by requiring the Department of Energy to issue a decision within a finite number of days.

This legislation does not force the Department of Energy to make a decision or to make a decision a certain way. It simply says: make a decision.

Moreover, an increase in liquefied natural gas exports in the United States can have major positive ramifications on international relations.

I recently traveled to the Ukraine for their elections. I saw firsthand how Russia's cruel restrictions on natural gas are affecting the region's social and political atmosphere. Officials from the Ukraine and other Eastern European countries have told members of the Energy and Commerce Committee that the mere mention that the United States is increasing its LNG exports can have dramatic impacts on Russia's influence over the region. Mr. Gardner's bill achieves that goal.

The passage of this bill will move the United States yet another step closer to both assisting our allies abroad as well as creating a more robust domestic industry at home.

The second bill included in today's rule, H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, authored by Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee, further improves the laws governing the permitting of oil and gas pipelines which cross the United States border between either Mexico or Canada.

As the country has witnessed over the past few years, despite overwhelming support from the American people for the project, President Obama and his Secretary of State--first Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry--have refused to approve the Keystone pipeline to bring oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Those of us who have followed the process over the many years that this administration has had the Keystone application under its review know that the delays which the President has imposed on this approval process have been done purely for political considerations and, in the process, have harmed the country's relationship with one of our closest allies, our neighbor to the north.

If the goal of the President's delays--which he is clearly doing for his friends in the environmental lobby and certainly not for the many unions who have loudly called for the project's approval--was to stop development of the oil sands in Canada, the President again has failed.

Canada recently approved the exploration of a new pipeline to its western coast, where oil would be transported and exported to Asia. Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been highlighting this possibility for years. Apparently, our predictions are about to come true.

H.R. 3301 is about more than simply the Keystone pipeline. This legislation is about preventing the President--and future Presidents, regardless of their party--from playing politics with decisions that should be made on the merits of the project.

This President has repeatedly ignored the State Department's comprehensive environmental review of the application, which found that minimal adverse impacts would occur from the building and operation of a cross-country pipeline, and has instead decided to base the decision purely on those special interests.

This is not how major national projects should be evaluated in this country, and Chairman Upton's legislation ensures that future decisions will be done without the shadow of politics looming over them.

However, although the legislation removes the politics out of such decisionmaking, it still ensures that other key safeguards in the approval process remain in place. Cross-border pipelines would still have to meet the Natural Gas Act's requirements, and they would still comply with all relevant Federal, State, and local siting and environmental law.

The Department of Commerce and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission both will play roles in this process, as well as the Department of Energy. Decisions must be made within a 120-day timeframe to prevent the types of delaying tactics that we have seen from the administration with regard to energy projects.

To be clear, this legislation applies only to projects which cross national borders and does not make changes to the application process for interstate and intrastate energy projects.

Mr. Speaker, both bills before us today are commonsense responses to the problems we have experienced when the President decides to play politics with the Nation's domestic energy industry.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of a response.

Two months ago, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, this House agreed to loan guarantees for the country of Ukraine as they dealt with an internal crisis in their country. It is interesting that, probably less than 24 hours after this House passed that loan guarantee, Vladimir Putin said: Do you

know what? Your natural gas price just doubled. In fact, next year, it is going to cost you an extra $1 billion. So, in effect, he used natural gas pricing policy to offset the loan guarantees that we had provided to the country of Ukraine to deal with their internal problems.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that this Congress can adjust and affect right now. We can remove the stranglehold that Vladimir Putin holds over Ukraine and, indeed, over the entirety of Eastern Europe, and we can do it with the passage of this bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have very little to add to what my colleague from Texas just said.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The fact of the matter is that a conference committee is meeting on this very issue. In fact, they are having their first meeting this afternoon.

The issues of access, the issues of accountability for VA personnel who have not held themselves to high standards, those are provisions that have already passed the floor of this House, some on suspension and some under a rule.

These bills are before the conference committee with the Senate. It is appropriate that they be acted upon expeditiously, but in no way does defeating the previous question enhance that flexibility or the rapidity with which those questions are taken up.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, access and accountability are parts of the VA reform bills that have been passed by this House and currently that is in conference. Even today, they are having their first meeting of the conference committee.

I, too, wish the administration would fire someone for incompetence. Whether it be at the VA, the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, healthcare.gov, the list of incompetencies grows larger every day and just begs the question: What do you have to do to get fired by the Obama administration?

I have got to share with you something else. This Statement of Administration Policy--and this is the first time I have seen it here as we are presenting the bill today--but it closes with the statement: ``Because H.R. 3301''--that is the permitting bill--

``would circumvent longstanding and proven processes.''

Proven processes? These processes are broken. That is why the legislation is necessary--because the administration refuses to act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, I would reiterate that the veterans bills passed by this House, passed by the House of Representatives, have now gone to conference with the Senate. The most expeditious way to accomplish the goals the gentleman referred to is for the conference committee to give its report and bring that back to the floor of the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, the oil produced in the Province of Alberta belongs to the country of Canada. Yes, it may traverse the United States, if the Keystone pipeline is built. But if it is not, the oil will traverse western Canada and be shipped to China. The oil will still be burned. The carbon will still go into the air.

Who would you rather have in charge of the refining process: refineries in China who do not have the environmental controls, or refineries in Texas who do?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if it were really true that the actions we take here don't mean anything, then why did the Department of Energy suddenly release one of the export licenses merely on the fact that the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on H.R. 6, the bill offered by the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, to require a time certain for the export license to be decided upon?

Why does the gentleman from New Mexico, Senator Udall, have very similar legislation pending over in the Senate? I would say this is one proposal that perhaps has a very good chance of becoming law, even in divided governments, such as we have today.

On the issue of the previous question, I would remind the body that the most expeditious way to get to a solution for the problems that are being experienced by our Nation's veterans within the VA system is for the conference committee to proceed.

If we pass something today, it still goes back over to the Senate. It doesn't expedite a darn thing. The conference committee is the correct way for that to go. So I do urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of two key pieces of legislation to move our country toward a more energy-independent environment. I certainly thank Chairman Upton and Cory Gardner for producing bipartisan pieces of legislation to address real problems that have arisen in the permitting process, when politics are injected into what should be a merit-based system.

H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, and H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act, are thoughtful pieces of legislation that deserve the support of this body.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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. 3301.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

May I inquire how much time remains?

At this time, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to point out that H.R. 3301 really, in a way, corrects the inequity. Today, natural gas pipelines are treated one way if they cross international boundaries, and oil pipelines and transmission lines are treated in a different way.

For example, a natural gas pipeline crossing into Canada would not require a Presidential permit, but oil pipelines and transmission lines crossing international boundaries do require a Presidential permit. And I might add that Congress never passed legislation requiring a Presidential permit. That was a power that a President, by executive order, took even before President Obama did it.

But here is the key factor. This law, H.R. 3301, would treat all pipelines the same, whether it is natural gas, whether it is oil, or whether it is a transmission line.

Now, I know that arguments are being made here primarily based on Keystone, and a lot of arguments are being made about climate change.

I would say to all of the American people that we have people coming into Congress on a regular basis from developing countries of the world who say that climate change is not their number one concern. They are more concerned about food. They are more concerned about sanitary living conditions. They are more concerned about

clean water. They are more concerned about jobs and the ability to provide income for their families. And, as a matter of fact, polls in America have shown that climate change is way down the list of primary concerns of people.

Now, I know that for Tom Steyer--who I understand is at the White House today--it is his number one issue. And he has said that he is going to spend $100 million against Republican candidates or any candidate that does not recognize climate change as one of the most important issues facing mankind.

So I simply wanted to make that comment. Sure, climate change is important. And I might add that emissions from energy-produced causes in America today are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not have to take a back seat to anyone on addressing emissions from greenhouse gases.

And I will tell you that we are the only country in the world where, if natural gas prices go up, we won't even be able to build a new coal plant in America because the technology is not commercially available at a cost that any utility could afford.

So even in Europe, natural gas prices went up. They mothballed natural gas plants. And last year in Europe, they imported 53 percent of all our coal exports.

But yet this President, in the White House today, has such extreme views that if our gas prices go up, we don't have the option in an affordable way to build a new coal plant to help us meet our base loads. And if we are going to have an economy that is not sluggish--the way it has been consistently under President Obama--we have to have affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. And that is what this bill is about.

Now people are saying, if you pass H.R. 3301, you are exempting oil and transmission lines from a NEPA review. But I want you to know, there are 33 other environmental laws--like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water, Rivers and Harbors, National Historic Preservation, Clean Air Act--that would trigger. If Federal action is triggered, then it would be triggered even under H.R. 3301. That is, unless, of course, it is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which this administration has granted windmills an exemptions from. So you can kill all the migratory birds you want and bald eagles. If you are a windmill company, you won't be prosecuted, but if you are an individual timber owner in North Carolina, you will be find $100,000 and convicted of a felony.

So in conclusion of my remarks at this point, I would simply say that the bill is not designed to expedite the Keystone pipeline, because it can't be approved under H.R. 3301. It is under the Presidential permit process. But the Presidential permit process is arbitrary. Even the State Department has said that it would be of negligible environmental impact to approve the Keystone pipeline. But all H.R. 3301 does is it says, we are going to treat oil pipelines and transmission lines that cross international boundaries with Canada or Mexico exactly the way natural gas pipelines are treated today.

So it is not anything extraordinary. It is not anything radical. It is the way natural gas pipelines are created today. And we believe that is the way to go, and that is what H.R. 3301 is all about.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry on the amount of time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, we don't have any more speakers on our side, so I will reserve the balance of my time and let the gentleman from California proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the American people that, certainly, energy is vitally important, and that is why we have introduced this bill, and that is why we brought this bill to the floor.

Because when you talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy, you have to have low-cost, affordable, abundant, and reliable energy, or you cannot compete in the global marketplace.

As I had said earlier, I just want to reiterate, once again, that this bill does nothing but make the decision that we are going to treat oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines all the same.

Right now, a natural gas pipeline that crosses an international boundary does not require a Presidential permit, but an oil pipeline and a transmission line to bring electricity across the border does require a Presidential permit.

As many speakers have said today, that Presidential permit or authority was not granted by the Congress; it was taken by executive orders. So all we are doing is saying that we are going to treat all of them the same.

Now, some people are saying that: well, you are eliminating the need for NEPA, you are not allowing NEPA review.

I had pointed out that there are 33 environmental laws that all of these pipelines or transmission lines would be subject to, and any Federal action, like crossing a stream that would create a necessity for a Clean Water Act permit, could very well generate a need for a NEPA review.

Nothing in this bill would limit the application of NEPA to the rest of the project. It would certainly apply to the cross border, but it would not limit application to the rest of the project.

So if a project required a right-of-way across Federal lands, the NEPA review would be initiated. Nothing in the bill would exempt the project from requiring applicable Clean Water Act permits, clean air permits, endangered species permits, or any other Federal permit.

So I would respectfully request the Members to support this commonsense bill. It would bring certainty to entities that are trying to bring more energy to America by treating gas pipelines the same as oil pipelines, the same as a transmission line.

In concluding, I would just like to say this: nothing in the bill creates a Federal right of eminent domain or supersedes a State's exercise of eminent domain authority.

In concluding, I would just like to say that, while the gentleman from California and I are on opposite sides of this issue--and a lot of issues--he has been a real leader in the U.S. Congress.

He announced earlier that he is not going to be seeking reelection, but the gentleman from California, Henry Waxman, has been a leader in the U.S. Congress and recognized so throughout the country.

Even though he is going to be with us for 6 or 7 more months until the end of the year, I did want to acknowledge that he is recognized as a congressional leader, with great empathy and commitment to his views, although sometimes we disagree with his views.

With that, I urge the adoption of H.R. 3301 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), his amendment would, in effect, codify the Presidential permit not only for oil pipelines and transmission lines, but also for natural gas pipelines, which are now exempt from the Presidential permit. So he is going in the wrong direction, and would make it even more difficult.

As I said earlier, NEPA would apply anytime Federal action is triggered, and there are 33 different environmental laws that can trigger Federal action. So I am very much opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that if we pass H.R. 3301, the Keystone pipeline is still caught up in the Presidential permitting process. And if we adopt the Waxman amendment, the Keystone pipeline

would never, ever be able to come back with a new application.

Since they filed an application in September of 2008, and despite the State Department saying that there is no negligible environmental impact by approving it, President Obama continues not to approve it. So if after 2016 the Keystone pipeline entity wants to submit a new application under the new law, they would certainly and should have a right to do that. That is the only reason we oppose the Waxman amendment. I urge that Members vote against the Waxman amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I might say I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) on the committee, and he does great work in the area of efficiency and other areas relating to energy, but I do oppose this amendment.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for his comments on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. First of all, ``minor'' is an undefined term that gives little certainty to agencies or industry. One of the things that we are trying to get away from is the uncertainty of a Presidential permit and be treated like natural gas pipelines. As I said, in H.R. 3301, we are trying to treat all of them exactly the same: transmission lines, oil pipelines, natural gas lines.

I would also say that, under the gentleman's amendment, any modifications, such as volume expansion, downstream or upstream interconnections, or adjustments to maintain flow, would potentially be required to obtain a Presidential permit for the modification, even if the original project already has one. Then even operational changes may be subject to a Presidential permit, and ownership changes would be.

So, for those reasons, as I said, I respectfully would oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask the Members to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face, so before approving a multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure project that will last for decades, we need to evaluate its climate impacts. That is the standard the President rightly set last June, but this test is a significant obstacle for tar sands pipelines because they would carry the dirtiest fuel on the planet. Over the last few years, House Republicans have repeatedly tried to short-circuit the process and mandate the approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The bill we are considering today goes even further. It creates a new process to rubberstamp every pending and future tar sands pipeline.

The bill makes an end run around the National Environmental Policy Act. Under this bill, instead of conducting an environmental review of a whole pipeline that crosses the border with Canada or Mexico, the NEPA review, which is the environmental review, would be limited to just the small segment of pipeline crossing the border. That eliminates any meaningful Federal review of the environmental impacts of oil pipelines.

For example, under this bill, the environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline would only examine the environmental impacts of that small piece of pipeline that crosses the border with Canada. The review could not look at the impacts on climate change of all of the other tar sands oil moved through the pipeline. It could not look at the impacts on the aquifers or landowners in Nebraska, for example, or at the public safety or oil spill concerns here in the United States. That dramatically narrowed scope of review is just another way to gut the Federal environmental review of tar sands pipelines.

The bill doesn't stop there. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines are in the public interest, which tips the scale in favor of their approval. That is a subtle but significant change that makes it much more likely that these projects will go forward; and if the President rejects the Keystone XL or another pipeline because it is not in the national interest, which is a requirement in the law today, the bill would allow the rejected project to rise from the grave and reapply under the new, much weaker process. That is why I call this bill the ``zombie pipeline'' bill.

In the northeastern part of the United States, another controversial pipeline project would carry tar sands oil from Canada through New Hampshire and Vermont to Portland, Maine, where it would be loaded onto tankers. That project wouldn't require any approval at all under this bill's new permitting process because the bill exempts major expansions of existing pipelines and reversals of pipeline flows from even that minimal process. The bill would also allow for unlimited exports of liquified natural gas through Canada and Mexico with absolutely no controls or conditions. That is why domestic manufacturers like Dow, Alcoa, and Nucor have criticized this bill.

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, citing the unreasonable 120-day deadline imposed by the bill, which would curtail the thorough consideration of issues involved with these projects, noting that the bill's provisions on natural gas exports would raise serious trade implications. The Statement of Administration Policy says that, if H.R. 3301 is presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Faced with the threat of dangerous climate change, we have a responsibility to think through the impacts of proposed cross-border energy infrastructure projects. If Congress is going to establish a new permitting rule or rules through legislation, it should do so in a thoughtful and balanced way. Instead, this bill creates a process that rubberstamps projects and eliminates meaningful environmental review and public participation. This will undoubtedly benefit TransCanada and other multinational oil companies. It will undoubtedly help them, but it will harm the American people, whom we are here to represent.

I oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. Even if you support the XL pipeline, this is a bad bill, and I would urge all Members to vote against this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mrs. Capps), who is a senior member of our committee and a very respected Member as well.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Tonko), our colleague who is an active leader in energy policy.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the comments of the gentleman from Kentucky, and I couldn't really follow a lot of it.

After all, if the price of natural gas goes up, that would perhaps help the coal industry because the coal industry is not able to compete economically when the price of natural gas is low because if you are building a utility, you might as well buy natural gas because it is cheaper. Of course the coal people say, it is the government that is doing it. But it is the marketplace that is doing it.

And the other comment that I found peculiar was, we don't need to have the National Environmental Policy Act evaluation because we have got the Endangered Species Act evaluation.

Well, the Endangered Species Act is looking at endangered species. But what about the rest of the environmental review that would be eliminated if this bill were adopted, especially when we are talking about the impact on climate change and all of the other environmental considerations?

So I must say that, while I came here with a clear view, I am reaffirmed in my view. The gentleman from Kentucky did not even come close to persuading me.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to say that the President has looked at this bill, and they just cited a number of concerns about it, and they very seldom come in with a Statement of Administration Policy, but they did say on this bill that they would be against it.

They think that this bill raises serious trade implications by eliminating the current statutory requirement that the Department of Energy authorize orders for the natural gas exports. I don't think this bill is going anywhere because I think the Senate is unlikely to take it up.

There are serious and urgent problems facing this Nation: unemployment, the need for immigration reform, climate change, gun violence in our children's schools, foreign policy challenges; but, once again, House Republicans are ignoring the real issues. Instead, they are wasting time on counterproductive legislation that has no prospect of enactment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we have better things to do. I would urge opposition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides, if it is a cross boundary with Canada or Mexico, you cannot have a NEPA review, an environmental review, except right around there, right around where the boundary is. Now, if you built a pipeline in the United States and it went a thousand miles, you would have a review of it. But they are saying just because it goes across the boundary for a thousand miles, let's say, there would be no review. Even though it crosses streams and aquifers, it would not get a real environmental review that would be required if it were solely domestic. That makes no sense.

I urge support for the Pallone amendment because it fixes a problem and preserves meaningful environmental reviews. That is what we need for these projects. It corrects that part of the bill which I think is a glaring, glaring loophole.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this bill's supporters claim that it is just about the approval process for cross-border energy projects. They say it is not about approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because that is under review now. But, in fact, that is what this bill really does.

If the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest, this bill would allow TransCanada to reapply under this new process designed to rubberstamp permits, and Keystone XL would almost certainly be approved under that process.

This bill establishes a new permitting process which would ensure rapid approval, and not particularly a clear evaluation. The bill makes it very difficult for Federal agencies to do anything other than approve the proposed project for two reasons.

First, the new permitting process narrows the approval and environmental review. And, secondly, the bill establishes this rebuttable presumption of approval, meaning the Federal agency must approve the project unless it finds that the cross-border segment of the project is not in the public interest.

I think this bill, which I have called the ``Zombie Pipeline Act,'' is just for the Keystone XL pipeline. They keep on trying to push that thing and not let it go through the process by which it is still being evaluated. So I urge that we close this backdoor way to ensure Keystone XL itself is brought up again, and I would urge support for this amendment because this bill is not a proper way to deal with that particular project.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of the nice words, but let's recognize this amendment. We just heard the statement that this doesn't apply to the Keystone XL pipeline because that is pending, and the bill says it doesn't apply to any project with permit approval pending on the date of enactment. But that doesn't exclude them if they are denied from coming right back and getting rubberstamped under the easier process under this bill.

So if this is not about the Keystone XL pipeline, adopt this amendment which says that the Keystone XL pipeline may not come back as a zombie for approval later if it doesn't get approved under the existing process.

I am just trying to keep people honest. I still have got 6 months to do that, so don't say good-bye to me yet. While I am here, and even after I have left the Congress, I will continue to point out when things are said that just don't add up. It doesn't add up to say that this doesn't apply to the Keystone XL pipeline; it could, and in fact it is a backdoor way to do that. And one might suspect that that is the whole purpose of the legislation. I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was going to talk about this bill, and I will, but I really want to talk about the inflation in the naming of these bills. This is a bill to allow a faster process for exporting natural gas to other countries.

So what is it called? The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. What do you follow after that? Peace and prosperity in our time, whatever that may, in fact, involve. I just think this bill is overrated in its title. I also want to say it is overrated in what it does.

There are 17 or 18 free trade countries, and they can have the export of natural gas to them right away. They are free trade countries that have an agreement with us. There is no problem in getting the approval for them. The question is: Are we going to approve export of natural gas to non-free trade countries?

The premise of this bill is that we are not doing enough to export natural gas to them or anyone else, I guess. Congressman Gardner's bill would change the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports, presumably because the Department of Energy is moving too slowly, because they can approve an application now for export anywhere around the world.

In fact, DOE has moved--quite properly, it seems to me--to authorize these LNG exports. They have already approved seven export proposals, and they are continuing to evaluate additional applications.

What these approvals that we have already granted--had granted--the U.S. is poised to transform into the world's second largest exporter of LNG in the world, just behind Qatar. If they approve one more application, we would go from exporting no LNG today to being the largest exporter in the world in just a few years.

So why do we need this legislation? Certainly not to get domestic prosperity and global freedom because this bill doesn't accomplish either goal.

Currently, the Department of Energy goes through a process, and they perform a public interest determination when reviewing export applications, so they can carefully consider the effect of LNG exports on natural gas prices here and the impact of higher prices here on American consumers and these manufacturers that are benefiting from the lower price that they have seen for LNG here.

The public interest determination provides DOE an opportunity to examine a number of factors: energy security, geopolitical, and environmental considerations.

If we would have this bill adopted, it would short circuit this established review process for pending and future LNG export applications. The bill establishes a new deadline for DOE to decide on applications within 90 days of the close of the public comment period or enactment of the bill, whichever comes later.

That is a deadline that is established, so they are forcing the DOE to act, but if DOE looks at an application and they don't feel that they are ready to make a decision in that period of time, they are more likely than not to just turn it down. That doesn't seem to be a worthwhile goal, if we want to have more export of LNG.

This provision would require DOE simultaneously to review and make a decision on all the pending applications within 90 days. It is not realistic, and it certainly isn't responsible.

With few exceptions, environmental reviews haven't been completed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for any of these applications, so the deadline would force DOE to rush its review of each application and make its final decision without a final environmental review.

The other thing I want to comment on is all those ambassadors that told us they want this bill--because of the hold that Russia has over them--they might not even benefit if this bill were adopted because they are not free trade countries.

So there has to be an approval of an export for LNG to a non-free trade country. There is not an approval through the Department of Energy to any particular country. It simply approves the request of a company here to export the LNG.

Under our capitalist system, a business usually seeks the highest reward for its investment. The export of LNG to a non-free trade country is going to be better rewarded in Asia than it will be in Ukraine or in Eastern Europe, where they are so concerned, rightfully so, about what Russia is going to do. It

may not even help those countries, as so many of these ambassadors hoped it will.

I would say that this bill is not going to get us to export LNG any faster. Nothing in the bill affects the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's permitting of the actual LNG export terminals.

Rushing the DOE review is not going to speed up the construction of these projects. We need the construction of the infrastructure for the export of natural gas.

The last thing I want to say is there are some controversies about exporting LNG, not exporting it at all, but opening it up to export in a process where the export will be wide open.

A lot of manufacturers in this country are worried that, if we are exporting our LNG, that is going to raise the price of natural gas here at home. Well, of course it will. It will go to a lower price of LNG here at home to eventually a world price, if it could be freely exported around the world the way we have for oil. If that happens, they are afraid that this boom we have seen in manufacturing in the United States may be curtailed.

So it is not without controversy that people are looking at this legislation. In other words, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, if you lose your job because the price of natural gas goes up and you are working for a manufacturer that is benefiting from a lower price for natural gas here in the United States, they are not going to look at this as a bill that leads to domestic prosperity and global freedom, as the authors of this bill would have us believe.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana, I respect him greatly, and he made an argument. I don't fully agree with his argument, but that is the purpose of the debate, to discuss ideas and air our point of view.

The author of this legislation, I guess, couldn't help himself because he said: imagine the consternation when they found that the Affordable Care Act was named the Affordable Care Act. There are millions of people around the country, for the first time, who are able to buy insurance that is affordable.

I don't believe, if this bill passed, that it would lead to domestic prosperity and global freedom. With all due respect to those who have a different point of view, what gall to say that this bill, which is controversial, and many Americans oppose because they feel it will hurt their prosperity here at home or our national security here at home, would think that an appropriate name is to say this bill is the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act.

Now that I have got that off my chest, Mr. Chairman, I want to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Will the gentleman yield?

You don't think the bill is needed. Does that mean you are against domestic prosperity and global freedom?

Thank you. I just wanted that clarification.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, 7 percent of the American people approve of the United States Congress. I think one of the reasons for that low approval rating is that we have overpromised and underperformed what they expect of us.

If anybody would think that this bill in and of itself deserves to be called the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, I think they lose credibility with the American people. And there is not much more credibility to lose when they only support us at a rate of 7 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), for whom I have an enormous amount of affection, even though today we have had two bills where we have disagreed. He doesn't overpromise. He just states his views and supports what he believes in. Sometimes he even convinces me, but he is not doing a good job today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the gentleman from Colorado how many more speakers you have?

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Then I presume the gentleman from Colorado will want to close on his bill. So after your two speakers, we will close on our side, and then you can close.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For those who want to export natural gas, this bill really isn't necessary because the Department of Energy is approving enough export of natural gas that will allow us, in a few years, to be the largest exporter of LNG in the world. So DOE is acting.

For those of you who are concerned about global freedom, well, when we get all the facilities going to be able to export the natural gas and once we get all of the approvals to export natural gas, the countries who are going to receive this natural gas are most likely going to be China, Japan, and India, because that is where they are paying higher prices for natural gas. It is going to be more profitable to ship the LNG there.

I don't fault the companies for doing that. They are in business to make money. It is going to provide more money to ship the natural gas there.

Well, what about Ukraine? What about the countries that are under threat from Russia?

Angela Merkel, the head of Germany, may not realize it, but natural gas is not going to be there for quite a long time. It is going to take years. Therefore, if you think domestic prosperity is hinging on the ability to export natural gas, we don't need this bill.

If you think global freedom is hanging on the balance waiting for this bill to become law--and by ``global freedom'' you don't mean freedom for China to get more natural gas or India or Japan, but Ukraine and countries in eastern Europe--don't count on this bill to bring about global freedom.

The bill is grossly titled because it is promising more than this bill can ever deliver, and I would urge that this bill is not necessary and ought to be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.