LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

general leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor on behalf of the Rules Committee and the Republican Conference a rule and the underlying legislation which helps address a problem that has been created by the Obama administration.

The administration has decided to slow the export of liquefied natural gas to countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement. This means that American companies have plenty of liquefied natural gas to sell to our allies across the globe but that delays by the administration are preventing them from selling it. This decision, I think, comes at a terrible price for the millions of Americans who cannot find work. This decision comes at a terrible price for those in need of a good-paying job--perhaps even of a long career--that will help support their families, their communities, and, most of all, that will help make America stronger.

The administration's inaction also comes at a terrible price for our friends in Europe who are being bullied by thugs, namely the Russian Government. Currently, many of our allies in Europe are forced to buy natural gas from Russia instead of from the United States of America. We have seen how they use this leverage to push around our allies. Our other friends around the globe, such as India, Japan, and Haiti, also need energy, and this administration's inaction is also costing these allies dearly. Let me see if I can paint a picture of how the administration's decision has been executed.

The administration's Department of Energy has slow walked. It has taken an antiquated approval process for applications to export liquefied natural gas, which is known as LNG. Since 2010, the Department of Energy has only issued final decisions on five of the 37 applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement. These delays have nothing to do with the environment. In fact, natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world. Yes, I think we know what the problem is. The problem is they simply do not want to participate in this marketplace for Americans to have jobs.

As a result of these delays, all of us in America are squandering the boon in liquefied natural gas, which has made the United States the world's largest provider of natural gas in oil beginning, really, in 2013. Here we are now, 2 years later, and it is time for America to come to action. That is, again, why the United States Congress--the Republican Congress--is coming to the American people with a bill to help do something about this.

The administration's broken application process is delaying good- paying jobs at a time when the labor participation rate in our marketplace is at historic lows. That hurts real people. That hurts real people who want and need opportunities to have jobs today, not to look up and find out that Washington is broken and is keeping them from good-paying jobs.

I have much to say about this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This issue about liquefied natural gas and natural gas perhaps comes naturally to Texans. I am from Dallas. I have been around the natural gas industry. I have seen the attributes of energy policy and how important it is.

Let me tell you what: the Republicans have taken a keen interest in this. This is why the marketplace is producing gasoline at $1.72 a gallon. That is why gasoline prices have fallen, that is why natural gas is plentifully available at a great price--but, Mr. Speaker, it is also jobs behind this.

I will tell you one other thing. It is also a bipartisan idea. Yesterday, this gentleman that I am going to introduce, the sponsor of the bill, Bill Johnson, a 26-year veteran of the United States Air Force, came up to the Rules Committee and had one of the most delightful conversations on a bipartisan basis with other Democrats and Republicans and talked about the attributes of jobs and this natural resource.

Thank God we live in America and have these opportunities to where we can help other countries.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the original sponsor of this bill.

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

We really do want to address both of your questions. I think they are both legitimate questions.

First of all, according to Hungary's Ambassador at Large for Energy Security, lifting restrictions on import ``would send an extremely important message of strategic reassurance to the region which currently feels more threatened than any time since the cold war.''

I will yield in a second to the author of the bill because he understands that piece of the pie.

We talk about thuggery from Russia. The Ukrainians had to renegotiate the amount of money that they were paying just to get their natural gas and stay warm because the Russians raised that price on them. We think that is gouging and taking advantage of people.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to discuss this point that you asked about.

Reclaiming my time, it does help us. I thank the gentleman.

Let us keep going on the second part of the question, which was: Can President Obama just get any bit of credit, just any bit, just a small measure? Well, I would respond to the gentleman: yes, but when he earns it.

The President has made it known from the very beginning that he opposed energy policy that the free market tried to produce. Take this example: even though he was at the groundbreaking for the Keystone pipeline, he has been incapable of making a decision for 6 years on something that multiple people, including at least two former Presidents and lots of other people, said it makes a lot of sense to do.

Also, the facts of the case are the Congressional Research Service reported that domestic natural gas production has risen by 19 percent since 2009 but decreased by 28 percent on Federal lands.

So, the idea that the President has tried to help this while reducing it by almost a third from Federal lands, the evidence is just not there to give him credit.

I know that there are people who want to get credit for things even though they didn't do things, even though they didn't complete the task that was in front of them, making decisions, making wise decisions, showing the American people what you stand for.

I would do this for the gentleman and help him out, but the administration clearly has been on simply the other side of that issue and that ball.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Corpus Christi, Texas (Mr. Farenthold), who was with me on the border this last weekend as we looked at border security. He comes from an energy-rich section of our Nation and represents some of the most vibrant companies that are trying to make this country energy-sufficient and to help make sure that what is at the pump is at a great price and is a great product for consumers.

I thank the gentleman very much, not only for taking time to discuss these important issues but really for his representation of an industry that can do so many great things, not only for the American people but, really, to help out our friends around the world.

It becomes a part of a very positive foreign affairs policy that the United States, instead of going overseas to get energy, we can be delivering that energy. Instead of having to have a blue water navy, a navy that is stretched to keep shipping lanes open, we can be handing these off to other countries to take them.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there was a vigorous opportunity, on a bipartisan basis, a discussion that not only did Bill Johnson take part in but also Mr. Garamendi, the gentleman, the Democrat from California, and Ed Whitfield, the subcommittee chairman, about how the delivery of this LNG can be on American ships.

A shipbuilding industry to build the ships to meet the specifications that would be necessary to put them in the water to deliver these around the world can be an American-made product also.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, for the first time in a long time, we did not receive a Statement of Administration Policy that the President is opposed to this.

It was a bipartisan presentation in the Rules Committee yesterday. Not unprecedented but a really good feeling about us working together for the common interest, to make sure that the American worker comes out on top of this, that the taxpayer comes out on top of this, that we are producing good legislation that can go to the United States Senate, this time, to be heard and passed on, so that we can get this legislation so the President does earn that part of his check on the box that says: And thank you, Mr. President, for agreeing and working with us. Thank you for helping us out.

I think this can get through the House. I think it can get to the Senate, and I think the President will sign it.

Mr. Speaker, if that is not a positive declaration about the President seeing great things, and me wanting and needing and expecting the President to do what I think is the right thing, then we are simply miscast today.

This is a good thing for America. This is a good thing for both parties. But this is a good thing for our friends around the world and diplomacy also.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas (Mr. Weber), my dear colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the gentleman stick around for a minute because, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he is most genuinely involved in trying to make sure that discussions about America and our allies and how the world sees us are well understood.

As a man who comes from not only Friendswood, Texas, which, like Mr. Farenthold, is right in the center of this enterprise where we ship our natural resources around the world, I would really like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman to talk about the impact of foreign affairs.

The gentleman, Mr. Hastings, had asked a question about, well, why does this matter?

I thank the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas, who, Mr. Speaker, has a keen understanding about not only what is in America's best interest, by serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but who is also a proud man who understands that people who work hard have jobs-- clean, natural gas, an opportunity for America to get the benefits of one of God's greatest gifts to the United States that we can share with others.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there are a whole lot of ways for us to look at not only what lies ahead with opportunity, but I think we can also look at some models of success, and one of them might be my home State of Texas.

My home State of Texas has incredible opportunities and benefits that have arisen from the ability to have energy abundance, the ability to have oil, natural gas, and other elements that can be used in this industry to make our country stronger, but what is happening is that we have also used it to Texas' benefit and America's benefit. That is right.

Just to tell a story, if it weren't for Texas, net job growth over the last 7 years in America would be flat. That means you take all 49 States, level it out--the minuses, the pluses, net it out--America would not have net positive job growth. But because of Texas, I can tell you that we now have created a net increase of 1.2 million jobs in America, net, and that has come because of Texas. So it is literally entirely a Texas product.

The essence of this has come from not just lower taxes, not just better roads, great schools, better education, good people, but it comes from a philosophy of understanding that we need to utilize these natural resources for the benefit of our world. To make jobs, job creation important, instead of delaying things, Texas had to make sure that what we did is we used it to our advantage.

So instead of not making decisions, like this Federal Government does by delaying major initiatives, we signed them into law. We got them done. We made things happen. So by doing that, when you do that, then you stand a chance to better everybody's life.

I would now like to give the gentleman from Florida a chance to finish his time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, Texas is the great American jobs machine. We talked about how we create jobs because we have effectively used the resources that, in many instances, Mother Nature and God have given us. So now it is time for Washington, I think, to learn from models that we do in Texas, where we learn to capitalize on all of

our resources--in this case, the energy revolution that is at hand.

Look, what Republicans have done today is brought a bill that is common sense to the floor to unleash our natural resources, to make sure that it helps out not only our foreign policy, but workers and jobs in this country, and that is important. So it is a policy issue. The Republican Party is dead-on. There is going to be a bipartisan vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

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.

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. 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.

Again, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time that remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.

The enduring reputation of the 113th Congress will be as the least productive ever. The previous House was also the most closed ever as it pertains to rules, passing more closed rules than any other Congress. Despite controlling both Chambers of the 114th Congress, my friends across the aisle have picked up the dysfunction right where they left off in trying to jam through another piece of legislation regardless of its merits and without giving the House a chance to review it through regular order. It must be understood that there are a significant number of new Members here who didn't have an opportunity, as I did and as the chairman did, to vote on this measure in the previous Congress.

Dysfunction reigns supreme, but don't just take my word for it. Last week, my friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Dent, offered a summary of the 114th Congress' accomplishments so far:

Week one, we had a Speaker election that did not go as well

as a lot of us would have liked. Week two, we got into a big

fight over deporting children, something that a lot of us

didn't want to have a discussion about. Week three, we are

now talking about rape and incest and reportable rapes and

incest for minors . . . I just can't wait for week four.

That was from my colleague Mr. Dent.

Here we are in week four, in my view, wasting time and taxpayer money in debating a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Since the Department of Energy completed its economic impact study, export applications are receiving a decision within about 2 months. In fact, four LNG export projects have already won all of the necessary Federal permits from the Energy Department and from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with the first project scheduled to come online this year. Therefore, despite H.R. 351's clever name, the only uncertainty regarding the bill is why the House is considering it at all.

This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. Let me repeat that.

This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. I would like for some of my colleagues on the other side to tell me how Ukraine will be able to benefit from this legislation in light of what I believe the fact to be, and that is that they are not prepared to receive liquefied natural gas from us. In my view, since most of this takes place in the spot neverland of oil and gas sales, I don't believe, when completed, that this gas will reach Ukraine.

Do you know where the highest prices for all liquefied natural gas are both now and, apparently, in the near future? Asia. This gas is going to Asia, not to Ukraine and not to Eastern Europe. I heard some discussion yesterday evening about Hungary, and I dispute whether or not any of it will go there as well.

Furthermore, what was true then remains true now: even when the United States finally becomes capable of exporting liquefied natural gas, Ukraine does not have, as I have pointed out, the capability to receive it. I hope you will understand my uncertainty as to why this bill is on the floor.

H.R. 351 will not make gas prices cheaper here either. LNG is already cheap. In fact, this bill is more likely to increase our natural gas prices, since we are going to be sending more gas overseas, and it will be hardworking Americans paying the cost.

It is not like there are a whole lot of projects waiting to be approved either. With natural gas futures and crude oil prices well below the levels where natural gas is competitive, companies are putting LNG export and development projects on hold, leaving only more uncertainty as to why we are considering this bill today.

This bill is also incredibly misguided. We cannot solve our energy problems with fossil fuels. It requires a certain kind of arrogance to deny an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change. Importing or exporting more fossil fuels, more drilling, more fracking, more pipelines, it doesn't matter; fossil fuels are a dead end, full stop.

A serious renewable energy plan is the only way to ensure energy independence. Clean energy is the only way we can be sure that we don't leave a devastated planet for our children.

This Congress is starting just like the last one, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reiterate that I would hope that some of the speakers from the other side would answer the question as to whether or not this liquefied natural gas is going to reach Eastern Europe. I dispute that.

Just sort of as an aside, I know no one will say anything regarding same, but the fact of the matter is that, for years, the discussion was the price of regular gasoline. Now that it is nearing $2 and we are the world's biggest producer of natural gas and moving pretty well, I might add--and I am glad to see--along the clean energy line, I just am curious whether President Obama gets any credit at all for any of these changes because those who argued that gasoline would be at $6 and $7--I even saw one at $8 a gallon--I am just curious, since that didn't occur, what the thought is.

I recognize we are here on another subject, but I would hope that we would get an answer regarding the LNG and Ukraine especially.

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

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

You know, I don't want to in any way disparage the lovefest of my friends from Texas. I recognize that everything is big in Texas.

Also, as a child, I even learned the songs of Texas, ``The Yellow Rose of Texas,'' ``Deep in the Heart of Texas,'' a whole of bunch of them which I hold dear from my childhood.

I would like to have the gentleman who was called upon as a foreign affairs expert--because he serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee--to know, then, that I guess I too am a foreign affairs expert since I served on that committee for 8 years, served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years. All of the countries that the gentleman mentioned, I have been to.

I assuredly never got an answer from the chairman or anyone else regarding whether or not Ukraine--and it is not ``the Ukraine''; it is ``Ukraine''--didn't get an answer as to whether they were prepared to receive liquefied natural gas.

I also know that we are mindful of the sanctions on Russia and how it is impacting them.

I didn't only just go to Ukraine. In their first election after the Orange Revolution, I was the lead election monitor for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

I don't come to this dance without having some understanding, and I would urge that I still didn't get--although my friend, the chairman, seemed to suggest that the President is deserving of something that he earns, my belief is that the President has allowed for more gas leases than I would have had him do.

I would urge that just off the press, embargoed until noon today, is a press release from the United States Department of the Interior, which receives a lot of negative comment from my colleagues regarding regulations. ``Interior Department Announces Draft Strategy for Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing.'' The draft proposal program includes 14 potential lease sales in eight planning areas--10 sales in the Gulf of Mexico, three off the coast of Alaska, and one in a portion of the mid- and south Atlantic.

Now, let me make it very clear. That might make a whole lot of people happy. It does not make me happy because they are discussing leases in the Gulf of Mexico where, I believe, there is substantial infrastructure from areas like Louisiana and Texas in the western portion of the gulf. I guess we just ignore things like the BP oil spill, and we ignore the potential for those kinds of disasters.

So I can't disagree very much with the chairman regarding much of his statistics, but I want the administration and my friend from Texas, the chairman, to know that, as I have said repeatedly, I will be the last person standing in this House of Representatives opposed to offshore drilling in my State of Florida no matter the views that others have. I believe there is enough wind from our respective oceans to double the amount of energy that we have, and, yes, my friend, there are aircraft that are powered without fossil fuel.

We were originally scheduled this week to also consider a border security bill, but that bill was scuttled yesterday amidst a number of things.

My friends, the Republicans, are pretty lucky. As bad as the snowstorm is, particularly for the New England area of our country, many of our colleagues could not get back here yesterday and probably won't be able to get back here today as well. The reason I say they are lucky is they can hide--by pulling the border bill--under the fact that there was a snowstorm and people couldn't get in here, and that is legitimate, in my view.

The other part of the concern--and we will see about it next week and the week after--is that many conservatives in the Republican Party are jumping ship on the border bill, and that was out there as well. Just like last week, just like last Congress, there is a rift in the majority, leaving it unable to even pass legislation that all of its Members can agree on.

Unfortunately, we have real problems in this country that my friends are going to have to address. So I look forward to my friends' plan to repair our crumbling roads and bridges in this country, and I can't wait to see how this body will combat the national security threat of climate change, in spite of all of your denials.

I hope that my friends intend to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that many of the reforms in our tax structure allow for those persons who are ultrawealthy to pay their fair proportion of what they earn and to reform our Tax Code so that middle-income Americans can benefit and poor Americans can rise to the middle class.

With America's workers' wages stagnant for so long, including our own here in the House of Representatives, we are entering the seventh year without any increase in wages. And those of us who are poorer Members of Congress have experienced the kinds of difficulties of just being here in Washington and the cost for being here. I am seeking no sympathies. It is just a fact.

So with those wages stagnant for so long, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on how they plan to raise the minimum wage in this country. Because until my friends can address their dysfunction and inability to lead, I am afraid our country is in for 2 more years of uncertainty.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that most Presidents get a lot of credit on their watch and a lot of negative when things go wrong. For once, our gas prices are down, and my friends can't even bring themselves to say that this President deserves some credit. I do. I see it. He deserves some credit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information. The last bill he says will be on the floor, I presume that it will be on the floor on Wednesday. Is that accurate?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As the gentleman knows, in the last Congress the Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Mr. McCaul, passed out of the committee a bipartisan bill that was supported--as a matter of fact, I think it was reported out by voice vote, and it was supported by Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson, as well as Republicans and Democrats from the committee.

As you know, so far this month in January we have spent time, frankly, recycling what we perceive to be partisan bills from the last Congress. Unfortunately, it appears that we are going to do the same thing next week, and I ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan bill that just months ago was supported by Democrats and Republicans, reported out of committee, not brought to the floor, unfortunately, but reported out of committee I think unanimously, or at least without voiced opposition, and now instead of taking that bill up, which we know has broad bipartisan support, we have a bill that is now going to be reported to the floor without going to committee, without being marked up--excuse me, it was marked up yesterday. I am corrected. It was filed and marked up within hours of one another, no considered judgment, no hearings. It may have been marked up, but no hearings, no notice to the public that the bill was pending, no opportunity for the public or Members to look at it. As I understand it, the committee was organized yesterday at 10 a.m., and this bill was considered at 2 p.m. or some time in that timeframe.

But my concern, Mr. Leader, is that we continue to go down the path of having bipartisan agreements worked out in committee, and now at the beginning of this Congress we are simply seeing partisan bill after partisan bill.

I understand that your side had a victory in the election and expanded your membership. However, the President, as he pointed out, is still in office, and in order to get something done--we are all for border security. That is why the committee reported out the bill in the last Congress. We had agreement on it. I lament the fact that we didn't bring the bipartisan bill, which would have gotten overwhelming support, in my opinion. Substituting that on Wednesday, where we are going to come in at

9 and go out at 12, we will have a rule on that, maybe the rule the day before. There will be a very short time to consider this.

We are bringing a partisan bill that is going to engender a lot of opposition on our side. It is going to be opposed by Mr. Thompson. It is so unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that having achieved bipartisan agreement on a priority item, that is, border security, that within hours yesterday we turned that into a partisan bill on which there is neither consensus nor widespread agreement.

I am sure the gentleman had the opportunity to hear a quote about the first 3 weeks of this session from one of his Republican Members, Mr. Dent, who talked about week one being, of course, the Speakership election.

Then week two, we got into a big fight over deporting children under DREAMers, which I thought we had a consensus on, but we got into a big fight about that.

And week three, we talked about rape and incest and, frankly, a partisan bill on a very, very important subject which did not have significant consideration and was substituted at 9 p.m. last night, no committee hearing, no committee input, no testimony available for that bill.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, we understand there are going to be differences between the Republican side and the Democratic side on issues, but repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, I hear the Speaker and the majority leader and others talk about a transparent Congress. I hear them talk about regular order and how they are going to return to that, and how they are going to have consideration of bills. The majority leader himself was quoted a number of times saying we are going to have 72 hours.

The bill that we just considered on this floor had less, frankly, than 12 hours before it was brought to this floor out of the Rules Committee. I would hope, Mr. Leader, that if you are going to go through with this border security bill--we will have an argument about it, and it will be largely a partisan vote on it. That is unfortunate, because we ought to be coming together, working together, creating consensus on making sure our borders are secure, as happened in the last Congress but is not repeated here.

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

I don't know whether this is going to be a closed rule or not. If I were betting, though, based upon the first 3 weeks of this session, I would bet it is going to be a closed rule or a structured rule with very, very few amendments, given the timeframe available to us.

I would say that we are very concerned on this side of the aisle, Mr. Leader, I will tell the Speaker that we are concerned about the closed processes that we are going through, the partisan processes that we are going through, and the lack of transparency and consideration that is being given to the bills that are coming to this floor.

I yield to my friend.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I heard. Do you think it is going to come up on a closed rule or a structured rule? I am sorry. Did you mention that?

Mr. Speaker, I would find it shocking if a bill ever came to this floor that precluded all debate. The gentleman is telling me it is going to come up and there will be time for debate. I don't know that I have ever been here where a bill came up that had no time for debate, so I assume that, Mr. Speaker, to be the case.

The question is: Will there be an opportunity for Members to offer amendments so that perhaps we can get back to the bipartisan bill that was reported out of the committee and leave the partisan parts of that bill for further discussion, debate, and amendment? We would like to have the opportunity to vote on such an amendment.

I ask my friend again, there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that I believe there will be time for debate. It won't be very much time, I presume, but I presume there will be time for debate.

But will there be time to offer alternative views and provisions to that bill as it is debated?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman--I don't know the answer, but I thank the gentleman for his observation.

I would observe, though, he mentioned a heroes bill. That was obviously overwhelmingly a bipartisan bill. You didn't hear me complain about that or anybody else complain about it.

Right.

The Keystone bill, however, which I think is a very important issue, was made partisan. The 30- to 40-hour workweek was made partisan.

The Regulatory Accountability Act, as the gentleman mentioned--excuse me, the Financial Services--that bill was changed. It was changed without a hearing. It was changed without public testimony, as I had a personal discussion, Mr. Speaker, with the majority leader about the change that occurred from the House bill that was passed.

So that bill was made, again, a partisan piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it could have passed on suspension, I think, as it did the year before, had it not been changed.

On the pipeline permitting legislation, again, not a bipartisan bill. This bill that we just considered, obviously very partisan, but no hearings and a closed rule.

Again, very important issues brought up and, I would suggest to the gentleman, nontransparent. He mentioned the bill that was filed last Friday, the border security bill, which is coming up Wednesday. The committee organized at 10. This bill was passed sometime shortly after 2--or thereafter. Debate started at 2.

When we talk about transparency, when we talk about regular order, very frankly, on pieces of substantive legislation, regular order, I would suggest,

Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader, is not introducing a bill, then we are off for 3 days, coming back, and the day after organizing the committee without hearings, without any testimony, then passing the bill, and bringing it to the floor, when clearly it is a partisan difference.

We will move on, Mr. Leader. I know you are happy about that.

As the gentleman knows, after next week, we have two 4-day weeks scheduled in February prior to the President's Day recess.

Can the gentleman give me a sense of what legislation will be on the floor in February, again, Mr. Speaker, so that Members can have some knowledge of what might be brought to the floor, so that they can prepare and the public knows what legislation is going to be considered?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman and, again, would emphasize that the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has made it clear in his statements, both in a book that he and two others coauthored prior to their taking the majority, but he has said numerous times since then about his commitment to transparency, openness, 72-hour rule, which has been 3- day rule--it used to be 72 hours, now 3 days.

Three days, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, can be 26 hours. That is the last hour of the third day and the first hour of the third day. I understand that, but that is not regular order. We have all breached that. We all understand that.

Having said that, this Congress has started with closed rules, no hearings, and anything but regular order. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the majority leader try to adhere to that.

As he has observed in the past, if we do that, I think we will have better legislation, greater participation by Members, and reflect better the voice of the American people.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't want to be very cynical, but talk is fine. Performance--as Ronald Reagan said: ``Trust, but verify.'' We can read the talk, we can read the assertions, we can read the promises, but if it is not carried out, the American people are going to be--and continue to be, as they were when the gentleman appealed to them in his book--they are going to be cynical about our actions.

I think Mr. Dent observed it correctly. For the first 3 weeks, we have gone through a partisan practice. Hopefully, we can, Mr. Speaker, skew that in the future, give notice, make sure everybody has the opportunity to participate, make sure that we have the ideas from both parties and the American people, given opportunity to be expressed and, yes, to be included.

Next week, we will bring to the floor, as we have in the past, a bill that skews and abandons bipartisanship, which was achieved in the last Congress through the same committee for a partisan bill on which there will not be agreement. That is unfortunate for the security of our country. It is unfortunate for the due process of this institution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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 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. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of this legislation.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

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.