The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 351, LNG PERMITTING CERTAINTY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H611-H616 on Jan. 27, 2015.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 351, LNG PERMITTING CERTAINTY AND
TRANSPARENCY ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 48
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings, my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
general leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Today, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor on behalf of the Rules Committee and the Republican Conference a rule and the underlying legislation which helps address a problem that has been created by the Obama administration.
The administration has decided to slow the export of liquefied natural gas to countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement. This means that American companies have plenty of liquefied natural gas to sell to our allies across the globe but that delays by the administration are preventing them from selling it. This decision, I think, comes at a terrible price for the millions of Americans who cannot find work. This decision comes at a terrible price for those in need of a good-paying job--perhaps even of a long career--that will help support their families, their communities, and, most of all, that will help make America stronger.
The administration's inaction also comes at a terrible price for our friends in Europe who are being bullied by thugs, namely the Russian Government. Currently, many of our allies in Europe are forced to buy natural gas from Russia instead of from the United States of America. We have seen how they use this leverage to push around our allies. Our other friends around the globe, such as India, Japan, and Haiti, also need energy, and this administration's inaction is also costing these allies dearly. Let me see if I can paint a picture of how the administration's decision has been executed.
The administration's Department of Energy has slow walked. It has taken an antiquated approval process for applications to export liquefied natural gas, which is known as LNG. Since 2010, the Department of Energy has only issued final decisions on five of the 37 applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement. These delays have nothing to do with the environment. In fact, natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world. Yes, I think we know what the problem is. The problem is they simply do not want to participate in this marketplace for Americans to have jobs.
As a result of these delays, all of us in America are squandering the boon in liquefied natural gas, which has made the United States the world's largest provider of natural gas in oil beginning, really, in 2013. Here we are now, 2 years later, and it is time for America to come to action. That is, again, why the United States Congress--the Republican Congress--is coming to the American people with a bill to help do something about this.
The administration's broken application process is delaying good-
paying jobs at a time when the labor participation rate in our marketplace is at historic lows. That hurts real people. That hurts real people who want and need opportunities to have jobs today, not to look up and find out that Washington is broken and is keeping them from good-paying jobs.
I have much to say about this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.
The enduring reputation of the 113th Congress will be as the least productive ever. The previous House was also the most closed ever as it pertains to rules, passing more closed rules than any other Congress. Despite controlling both Chambers of the 114th Congress, my friends across the aisle have picked up the dysfunction right where they left off in trying to jam through another piece of legislation regardless of its merits and without giving the House a chance to review it through regular order. It must be understood that there are a significant number of new Members here who didn't have an opportunity, as I did and as the chairman did, to vote on this measure in the previous Congress.
Dysfunction reigns supreme, but don't just take my word for it. Last week, my friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Dent, offered a summary of the 114th Congress' accomplishments so far:
Week one, we had a Speaker election that did not go as well as a lot of us would have liked. Week two, we got into a big fight over deporting children, something that a lot of us didn't want to have a discussion about. Week three, we are now talking about rape and incest and reportable rapes and incest for minors . . . I just can't wait for week four.
That was from my colleague Mr. Dent.
Here we are in week four, in my view, wasting time and taxpayer money in debating a solution for a problem that does not exist.
Since the Department of Energy completed its economic impact study, export applications are receiving a decision within about 2 months. In fact, four LNG export projects have already won all of the necessary Federal permits from the Energy Department and from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with the first project scheduled to come online this year. Therefore, despite H.R. 351's clever name, the only uncertainty regarding the bill is why the House is considering it at all.
This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. Let me repeat that. This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. I would like for some of my colleagues on the other side to tell me how Ukraine will be able to benefit from this legislation in light of what I believe the fact to be, and that is that they are not prepared to receive liquefied natural gas from us. In my view, since most of this takes place in the spot neverland of oil and gas sales, I don't believe, when completed, that this gas will reach Ukraine.
Do you know where the highest prices for all liquefied natural gas are both now and, apparently, in the near future? Asia. This gas is going to Asia, not to Ukraine and not to Eastern Europe. I heard some discussion yesterday evening about Hungary, and I dispute whether or not any of it will go there as well.
{time} 1500
Furthermore, what was true then remains true now: even when the United States finally becomes capable of exporting liquefied natural gas, Ukraine does not have, as I have pointed out, the capability to receive it. I hope you will understand my uncertainty as to why this bill is on the floor.
H.R. 351 will not make gas prices cheaper here either. LNG is already cheap. In fact, this bill is more likely to increase our natural gas prices, since we are going to be sending more gas overseas, and it will be hardworking Americans paying the cost.
It is not like there are a whole lot of projects waiting to be approved either. With natural gas futures and crude oil prices well below the levels where natural gas is competitive, companies are putting LNG export and development projects on hold, leaving only more uncertainty as to why we are considering this bill today.
This bill is also incredibly misguided. We cannot solve our energy problems with fossil fuels. It requires a certain kind of arrogance to deny an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change. Importing or exporting more fossil fuels, more drilling, more fracking, more pipelines, it doesn't matter; fossil fuels are a dead end, full stop.
A serious renewable energy plan is the only way to ensure energy independence. Clean energy is the only way we can be sure that we don't leave a devastated planet for our children.
This Congress is starting just like the last one, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This issue about liquefied natural gas and natural gas perhaps comes naturally to Texans. I am from Dallas. I have been around the natural gas industry. I have seen the attributes of energy policy and how important it is.
Let me tell you what: the Republicans have taken a keen interest in this. This is why the marketplace is producing gasoline at $1.72 a gallon. That is why gasoline prices have fallen, that is why natural gas is plentifully available at a great price--but, Mr. Speaker, it is also jobs behind this.
I will tell you one other thing. It is also a bipartisan idea. Yesterday, this gentleman that I am going to introduce, the sponsor of the bill, Bill Johnson, a 26-year veteran of the United States Air Force, came up to the Rules Committee and had one of the most delightful conversations on a bipartisan basis with other Democrats and Republicans and talked about the attributes of jobs and this natural resource.
Thank God we live in America and have these opportunities to where we can help other countries.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the original sponsor of this bill.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 48, the rule for H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.
During the 113th Congress, identical legislation to H.R. 351 passed the House of Representatives as H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Long before its passage, the bill moved through the entire legislative process at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This process included a hearing as well as an eventual markup at the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. A subsequent full committee markup followed, and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar.
The House Committee on Rules then established H. Res. 636, the rule for consideration of H.R. 6. After that rule was adopted, the legislation was debated, amended, and ultimately passed the House of Representatives with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. The President did not issue a veto threat.
The energy renaissance that has swept across America over the last years has transformed the United States from an increasingly energy dependent Nation--beholden to the whims of OPEC--to our current position as the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world.
This transformation has provided us with a historic and unprecedented opportunity not just to bolster our economy, but to also fully leverage our energy abundance on the international stage by selling a portion of our natural gas abroad.
Through this abundance of natural gas, America has an opportunity to significantly affect geopolitics if we enact smart policies. It could--
and should--be a game changer.
Allowing the export of liquefied natural gas, for instance, will create significant American jobs and wealth for the United States, enhance our energy security, and provide a reliable source of fuel to our allies, some of whom depend on the mood of Vladimir Putin to meet their energy needs.
Unfortunately, our policies have not kept pace with the industry's development. Producers seeking to export LNG face a constantly changing approval process which costs millions of dollars and takes years to navigate.
Not only does this undermine regulatory certainty, but with dozens of projects seeking approval, Washington is making it difficult for businesses to make the investment decisions needed to take advantage of this abundant resource. This delays job creation here at home and reduces our ability to positively influence global politics abroad.
My bill, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, aims to address this growing problem by cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and implementing a deadline on the Department of Energy to issue a final decision on LNG applications.
Given the amount of time that has already passed since many of the LNG export applications have been filed and their dockets closed, there is no more information to consider and no reason for DOE not to adhere to a deadline.
There is very real risk to inactivity. If Washington waits too long to move forward with export licenses, other countries with their own natural gas resources--Canada, Qatar, and Australia, to name three--
will step in to meet the demand. Our competitive advantage, along with the opportunity to create more domestic energy jobs and serve as a check on Russia, will be lost.
Numerous studies have found that LNG exports will create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, many of them in manufacturing, including the refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors. ICF International estimates that these jobs will occur across the entire value chain, translating into roughly $1 billion in new wages for American workers over a 6-year period.
Export terminals will also generate millions of dollars in new tax revenue for Federal, State, and local governments, while increasing our GDP and lowering the trade deficit.
It is worth noting that this won't come at the expense of domestic consumers. The U.S. Energy Information Administration stressed that it expects increased overseas demand for LNG will be met by the development of new resources.
In fact, the DOE has concluded that each of the different export scenarios considered ``are welfare improving for U.S. consumers'' and would result in ``an increase in U.S. households' real income.''
The recent turbulence in Eastern Europe--and throughout the Middle East--has shown all too clearly that energy can be used as a geopolitical tool. Adding a new and reliable source of natural gas onto the world market will diversify our allies' energy sources and greatly reduce their vulnerability to a single monopolistic supplier.
I am proud to author this legislation. It is a job creator. It helps America in leveraging the geopolitical stage across the globe. We have seen enough delay. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I reiterate that I would hope that some of the speakers from the other side would answer the question as to whether or not this liquefied natural gas is going to reach Eastern Europe. I dispute that.
Just sort of as an aside, I know no one will say anything regarding same, but the fact of the matter is that, for years, the discussion was the price of regular gasoline. Now that it is nearing $2 and we are the world's biggest producer of natural gas and moving pretty well, I might add--and I am glad to see--along the clean energy line, I just am curious whether President Obama gets any credit at all for any of these changes because those who argued that gasoline would be at $6 and $7--I even saw one at $8 a gallon--I am just curious, since that didn't occur, what the thought is.
I recognize we are here on another subject, but I would hope that we would get an answer regarding the LNG and Ukraine especially.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We really do want to address both of your questions. I think they are both legitimate questions.
First of all, according to Hungary's Ambassador at Large for Energy Security, lifting restrictions on import ``would send an extremely important message of strategic reassurance to the region which currently feels more threatened than any time since the cold war.''
I will yield in a second to the author of the bill because he understands that piece of the pie.
We talk about thuggery from Russia. The Ukrainians had to renegotiate the amount of money that they were paying just to get their natural gas and stay warm because the Russians raised that price on them. We think that is gouging and taking advantage of people.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to discuss this point that you asked about.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, right now, today, about 50 percent of Russia's revenue comes from taxes on oil and gas. About 80 percent of that resource goes through the Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are under tremendous pressure, as are other European allies, by the Russians.
Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is shipped, increasing supply and competition in the global marketplace will help provide international consumers with greater choice.
In fact, a representative of the U.S. State Department made a similar statement on the benefits of U.S. natural gas exports at a January 8, 2015, Atlantic Council forum. This is from the State Department:
Now, where the gas will go doesn't matter. The fact that we have approved exports of natural gas has already had an impact on Europe.
Just the fact that America is getting into the game has put the Russians on notice that our friends and allies and people that they are currently putting under pressure--the Ukrainians and others--are going to have a choice, and it is going to make a different conversation happen at the table.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that helped clarify it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, it does help us. I thank the gentleman.
Let us keep going on the second part of the question, which was: Can President Obama just get any bit of credit, just any bit, just a small measure? Well, I would respond to the gentleman: yes, but when he earns it.
The President has made it known from the very beginning that he opposed energy policy that the free market tried to produce. Take this example: even though he was at the groundbreaking for the Keystone pipeline, he has been incapable of making a decision for 6 years on something that multiple people, including at least two former Presidents and lots of other people, said it makes a lot of sense to do.
Also, the facts of the case are the Congressional Research Service reported that domestic natural gas production has risen by 19 percent since 2009 but decreased by 28 percent on Federal lands.
{time} 1515
So, the idea that the President has tried to help this while reducing it by almost a third from Federal lands, the evidence is just not there to give him credit.
I know that there are people who want to get credit for things even though they didn't do things, even though they didn't complete the task that was in front of them, making decisions, making wise decisions, showing the American people what you stand for.
I would do this for the gentleman and help him out, but the administration clearly has been on simply the other side of that issue and that ball.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Corpus Christi, Texas (Mr. Farenthold), who was with me on the border this last weekend as we looked at border security. He comes from an energy-rich section of our Nation and represents some of the most vibrant companies that are trying to make this country energy-sufficient and to help make sure that what is at the pump is at a great price and is a great product for consumers.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, it is important we get this rule done and move on to consideration of H.R. 351.
I am from Corpus Christi, Texas. One of the first things that happened when I came to Congress is, I was visited by some folks from a company that was looking to put a LNG liquefaction plant in the district that I represent. In fact, we have got two pending in the district that I represent.
But the first one, Cheniere Energy, a billion-plus dollar plant to liquefy natural gas and export it, has been waiting since I was elected to Congress, longer than I have been in Congress, over 4 years now, to get this plant approved and online to start selling energy.
I want to address some of the questions that the gentleman from the other side has raised with respect to this.
First and foremost, the technology is there. There is no point for Ukraine or any other country to build the facilities to receive this natural gas until there is a sure and steady supply of this natural gas. And it is a lot easier to get these facilities built in other countries where they don't have to go through the exhausting and sometimes, I would go so far to say, insane permitting process that we have to go through here in the United States.
In fact, there is a company looking at putting in another LNG facility in Port Lavaca that is going to build the facility to liquefy the natural gas on a barge, pull it up, hook up to the pipeline, and liquefy it. This same barge technology can be used for re-gasification.
You could literally pull a barge into a seaport in the Ukraine, hook up the ship, hook it up to a pipeline, and they could be receiving LNG in a very short order. So it is there for any country.
And listen, there is this talk about how it could possibly run up energy prices and natural gas prices here in the United States. The liquefaction process consumes some of the natural gas. The numbers I hear vary from around 20 percent or so, and so it will always be cheaper to deliver the gas by pipeline here in the United States, so we will always have a competitive advantage with the natural gas that we produce.
But we have got to have a market for that natural gas. Right now, pretty much the only natural gas we are seeing produced out of the Eagle Ford shale in Texas is produced with oil. You drill a well, you get both oil and gas.
We have seen a huge dropoff in drilling for natural gas because the demand is so low and the supply is so high, to the point where we are drilling wells and we have discovered gas, and we shut that well then and don't produce it.
We have got to strike while the iron is hot. We can help improve our balance of trade with the world. We can put people back to work, and it can all be done at no government expense. We have just got to get the regulators in Washington, D.C., out of our hair and let our country do this so we can improve the economy for everybody in America.
We can have a much more secure economy. We can have people back to work. We can have a plentiful supply of energy for the foreseeable future.
You have got Marcellus shale, you have got the Eagle Ford shale, you have got the Barnett shale, you have got Pennsylvania, you have got Texas, you have got North Dakota. There is plentiful natural gas. We need a market for it.
By approving this rule and the underlying legislation, that will happen. Americans will go back to work, and America, as a whole, will prosper.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman very much, not only for taking time to discuss these important issues but really for his representation of an industry that can do so many great things, not only for the American people but, really, to help out our friends around the world.
It becomes a part of a very positive foreign affairs policy that the United States, instead of going overseas to get energy, we can be delivering that energy. Instead of having to have a blue water navy, a navy that is stretched to keep shipping lanes open, we can be handing these off to other countries to take them.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there was a vigorous opportunity, on a bipartisan basis, a discussion that not only did Bill Johnson take part in but also Mr. Garamendi, the gentleman, the Democrat from California, and Ed Whitfield, the subcommittee chairman, about how the delivery of this LNG can be on American ships.
A shipbuilding industry to build the ships to meet the specifications that would be necessary to put them in the water to deliver these around the world can be an American-made product also.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. I do want to point out that the President even understands that there is an ability there for the Ukraine. Speaking in Ukraine recently, he said: ``We welcome the prospect of U.S. LNG efforts in the future since additional global supplies will benefit Europe and other strategic partners.''
That is a quote somebody sent me from President Obama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, for the first time in a long time, we did not receive a Statement of Administration Policy that the President is opposed to this.
It was a bipartisan presentation in the Rules Committee yesterday. Not unprecedented but a really good feeling about us working together for the common interest, to make sure that the American worker comes out on top of this, that the taxpayer comes out on top of this, that we are producing good legislation that can go to the United States Senate, this time, to be heard and passed on, so that we can get this legislation so the President does earn that part of his check on the box that says: And thank you, Mr. President, for agreeing and working with us. Thank you for helping us out.
I think this can get through the House. I think it can get to the Senate, and I think the President will sign it.
Mr. Speaker, if that is not a positive declaration about the President seeing great things, and me wanting and needing and expecting the President to do what I think is the right thing, then we are simply miscast today.
This is a good thing for America. This is a good thing for both parties. But this is a good thing for our friends around the world and diplomacy also.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas (Mr. Weber), my dear colleague.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Folks, the world is an inherently dangerous place. Watch the news.
Think with me for a minute. When the world has a catastrophe--and it doesn't matter whether it is a tsunami, an earthquake, whether it is fire, pestilence, whether it is war--when the world has a catastrophe and dials 911, who is it that answers?
It is America, isn't it? With our military.
It is America that answers that 911 call. Now, how do we do that?
It is because this country has the strongest, most stable, most reliable, affordable energy capacity and capability in the world.
America is able to produce goods. I often say the things that make America great are the things that America makes, and our fossil fuel energy supply is what underwrites that.
You don't think that's right?
And I would argue that not only is it America's security; when America is strong, the world is strong. You don't think fossil fuel energy is important, try powering a tank or a jet plane with a solar panel, Mr. Speaker. You won't get very far.
We must remain strong. As I said, for the world to be safe, America has got to be strong. This rule and this bill, H.R. 351, are important not only to America's economy but also our national security and, I would argue, by extension, with the world depending on us, international security.
Yes, we have a stable, long-lasting reliable source of energy here in America. We have the opportunity to export that to our friends around the globe and help them to be safe, help them to be productive.
We will produce American jobs in the process. We will improve our balance of trade, as my friend from Corpus Christi said earlier.
LNG is helping not only with the economy, Mr. Speaker, but with national and, by extension, international security.
I have three plants in my district. The permitting process needs to be expedited and move forward. That is why I rise today in support of the rule, in support of H.R. 351.
Two LNG facilities in my district and one more on the books. They mean jobs. They mean security.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support this bill, put Americans to work, help America continue to be a leader, to be safe, and, indeed, help keep this world safe.
I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the gentleman stick around for a minute because, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he is most genuinely involved in trying to make sure that discussions about America and our allies and how the world sees us are well understood.
As a man who comes from not only Friendswood, Texas, which, like Mr. Farenthold, is right in the center of this enterprise where we ship our natural resources around the world, I would really like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman to talk about the impact of foreign affairs.
The gentleman, Mr. Hastings, had asked a question about, well, why does this matter?
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Thank you. Great questions.
I didn't talk about the fact that I have five ports in my district on the Gulf Coast of Texas, more than any other Member of Congress. Some have four. I have five LNG plants, LPG plants.
Sixty percent of the Nation's jet fuel is produced in my district, 60 percent of the Nation's jet fuel. An extremely large amount, a classified amount of the military's fuel. They won't tell us how much, but a large amount of the military's fuel.
Strategic petroleum reserves abound in my district. Again, we can't find out how much, but it is a huge amount.
From a foreign affairs initiative--and I have been over to Japan, I have been over to the Philippines, I have been to Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan--they want our LNG. They would much rather buy it from us than from the Russian bear.
Don't you know the people in Ukraine would much rather be dependent on us because we are not a dictatorship, at least not supposed to be, and we are not going to cut off their fuel because we have a disagreement with the way the Russian separatists activate or believe?
So it is a foreign affairs, it is a foreign policy initiative. As I said earlier, it helps make the world safer. It helps create jobs over here. It helps with our balance of trade, or imbalance of trade. It is an important issue, and it is one that bears supporting.
Support the rule, support this bill because it is not only important for America from an energy perspective, from a security perspective, but an international or world trade perspective, as well as world security. For foreign policy, it matters.
I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas, who, Mr. Speaker, has a keen understanding about not only what is in America's best interest, by serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but who is also a proud man who understands that people who work hard have jobs--
clean, natural gas, an opportunity for America to get the benefits of one of God's greatest gifts to the United States that we can share with others.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there are a whole lot of ways for us to look at not only what lies ahead with opportunity, but I think we can also look at some models of success, and one of them might be my home State of Texas.
{time} 1530
My home State of Texas has incredible opportunities and benefits that have arisen from the ability to have energy abundance, the ability to have oil, natural gas, and other elements that can be used in this industry to make our country stronger, but what is happening is that we have also used it to Texas' benefit and America's benefit. That is right.
Just to tell a story, if it weren't for Texas, net job growth over the last 7 years in America would be flat. That means you take all 49 States, level it out--the minuses, the pluses, net it out--America would not have net positive job growth. But because of Texas, I can tell you that we now have created a net increase of 1.2 million jobs in America, net, and that has come because of Texas. So it is literally entirely a Texas product.
The essence of this has come from not just lower taxes, not just better roads, great schools, better education, good people, but it comes from a philosophy of understanding that we need to utilize these natural resources for the benefit of our world. To make jobs, job creation important, instead of delaying things, Texas had to make sure that what we did is we used it to our advantage.
So instead of not making decisions, like this Federal Government does by delaying major initiatives, we signed them into law. We got them done. We made things happen. So by doing that, when you do that, then you stand a chance to better everybody's life.
I would now like to give the gentleman from Florida a chance to finish his time, so I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You know, I don't want to in any way disparage the lovefest of my friends from Texas. I recognize that everything is big in Texas.
Also, as a child, I even learned the songs of Texas, ``The Yellow Rose of Texas,'' ``Deep in the Heart of Texas,'' a whole of bunch of them which I hold dear from my childhood.
I would like to have the gentleman who was called upon as a foreign affairs expert--because he serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee--to know, then, that I guess I too am a foreign affairs expert since I served on that committee for 8 years, served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years. All of the countries that the gentleman mentioned, I have been to.
I assuredly never got an answer from the chairman or anyone else regarding whether or not Ukraine--and it is not ``the Ukraine''; it is
``Ukraine''--didn't get an answer as to whether they were prepared to receive liquefied natural gas.
I also know that we are mindful of the sanctions on Russia and how it is impacting them.
I didn't only just go to Ukraine. In their first election after the Orange Revolution, I was the lead election monitor for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
I don't come to this dance without having some understanding, and I would urge that I still didn't get--although my friend, the chairman, seemed to suggest that the President is deserving of something that he earns, my belief is that the President has allowed for more gas leases than I would have had him do.
I would urge that just off the press, embargoed until noon today, is a press release from the United States Department of the Interior, which receives a lot of negative comment from my colleagues regarding regulations. ``Interior Department Announces Draft Strategy for Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing.'' The draft proposal program includes 14 potential lease sales in eight planning areas--10 sales in the Gulf of Mexico, three off the coast of Alaska, and one in a portion of the mid- and south Atlantic.
Now, let me make it very clear. That might make a whole lot of people happy. It does not make me happy because they are discussing leases in the Gulf of Mexico where, I believe, there is substantial infrastructure from areas like Louisiana and Texas in the western portion of the gulf. I guess we just ignore things like the BP oil spill, and we ignore the potential for those kinds of disasters.
So I can't disagree very much with the chairman regarding much of his statistics, but I want the administration and my friend from Texas, the chairman, to know that, as I have said repeatedly, I will be the last person standing in this House of Representatives opposed to offshore drilling in my State of Florida no matter the views that others have. I believe there is enough wind from our respective oceans to double the amount of energy that we have, and, yes, my friend, there are aircraft that are powered without fossil fuel.
We were originally scheduled this week to also consider a border security bill, but that bill was scuttled yesterday amidst a number of things.
My friends, the Republicans, are pretty lucky. As bad as the snowstorm is, particularly for the New England area of our country, many of our colleagues could not get back here yesterday and probably won't be able to get back here today as well. The reason I say they are lucky is they can hide--by pulling the border bill--under the fact that there was a snowstorm and people couldn't get in here, and that is legitimate, in my view.
The other part of the concern--and we will see about it next week and the week after--is that many conservatives in the Republican Party are jumping ship on the border bill, and that was out there as well. Just like last week, just like last Congress, there is a rift in the majority, leaving it unable to even pass legislation that all of its Members can agree on.
Unfortunately, we have real problems in this country that my friends are going to have to address. So I look forward to my friends' plan to repair our crumbling roads and bridges in this country, and I can't wait to see how this body will combat the national security threat of climate change, in spite of all of your denials.
I hope that my friends intend to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that many of the reforms in our tax structure allow for those persons who are ultrawealthy to pay their fair proportion of what they earn and to reform our Tax Code so that middle-income Americans can benefit and poor Americans can rise to the middle class.
With America's workers' wages stagnant for so long, including our own here in the House of Representatives, we are entering the seventh year without any increase in wages. And those of us who are poorer Members of Congress have experienced the kinds of difficulties of just being here in Washington and the cost for being here. I am seeking no sympathies. It is just a fact.
So with those wages stagnant for so long, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on how they plan to raise the minimum wage in this country. Because until my friends can address their dysfunction and inability to lead, I am afraid our country is in for 2 more years of uncertainty.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that most Presidents get a lot of credit on their watch and a lot of negative when things go wrong. For once, our gas prices are down, and my friends can't even bring themselves to say that this President deserves some credit. I do. I see it. He deserves some credit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, Texas is the great American jobs machine. We talked about how we create jobs because we have effectively used the resources that, in many instances, Mother Nature and God have given us. So now it is time for Washington, I think, to learn from models that we do in Texas, where we learn to capitalize on all of our resources--in this case, the energy revolution that is at hand.
Look, what Republicans have done today is brought a bill that is common sense to the floor to unleash our natural resources, to make sure that it helps out not only our foreign policy, but workers and jobs in this country, and that is important. So it is a policy issue. The Republican Party is dead-on. There is going to be a bipartisan vote today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 48 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 469 and H.R. 246, each by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, nays 169, not voting 23, as follows:
YEAS--241
AbrahamAderholtAllenAmashAmodeiBabinBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBilirakisBishop (MI)Bishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBlumBostBoustanyBrady (TX)BratBridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuckBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)Carter (TX)ChabotChaffetzClawson (FL)CoffmanColeCollins (GA)Collins (NY)ComstockConawayCookCostello (PA)CramerCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonCurbelo (FL)Davis, RodneyDelaneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersEmmerFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGarrettGibbsGibsonGohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)Green, GeneGriffithGrothmanGuintaGuthrieHannaHardyHarperHarrisHartzlerHensarlingHerrera BeutlerHice (GA)HillHoldingHudsonHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurd (TX)Hurt (VA)IssaJenkins (KS)Jenkins (WV)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJollyJordanJoyceKatkoKelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)Kinzinger (IL)KlineKnightLabradorLaMalfaLambornLanceLattaLoBiondoLongLoudermilkLoveLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMacArthurMarchantMassieMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMcSallyMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)MoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNewhouseNoemNugentNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPaulsenPearcePerryPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PoliquinPompeoPoseyPrice (GA)RatcliffeReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRogers (AL)Rogers (KY)RokitaRooney (FL)Ros-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRouzerRoyceRussellRyan (WI)SalmonSanfordScaliseSchweikertScott, AustinScott, DavidSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSinemaSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)StefanikStewartStiversStutzmanThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTrottTurnerUptonValadaoVelaWagnerWalbergWaldenWalkerWalters, MimiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestermanWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IA)Young (IN)ZeldinZinke
NAYS--169
AdamsAguilarAshfordBassBeattyBecerraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBonamiciBoyle (PA)Brady (PA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCaardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Castro (TX)Chu (CA)CicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeGetteDeLauroDelBeneDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle (PA)EdwardsEllisonEshooEstyFarrFattahFosterFrankel (FL)FudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGrahamGraysonGreen, AlGrijalvaGutieerrezHahnHastingsHeck (WA)HigginsHimesHinojosaHondaHoyerHuffmanIsraelJackson LeeJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLevinLewisLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMatsuiMcCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMooreMoultonMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNolanNorcrossO'RourkePallonePascrellPaynePetersPetersonPingreePocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRangelRice (NY)RichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Saanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchakowskySchiffSchraderScott (VA)SerranoSewell (AL)ShermanSiresSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakaiTakanoThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TitusTonkoTorresTsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaazquezViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWaters, MaxineWatson ColemanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
BeraBuchananCapuanoCrowleyDeFazioDuckworthEngelHeck (NV)JonesLeeLieu (CA)MarinoMeeksMengNealNunneleePelosiPerlmutterRoe (TN)RohrabacherSchockSlaughterWalorski
{time} 1606
Ms. MATSUI changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
