Lng Permitting Certainty And Transparency Act
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…
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.