LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are beginning the 114th
Congress the way we ended the previous one--with legislation that is
more about message than about solving real problems.

The message of H.R. 351 is that we are interested in elevating the
interests of the oil and gas industry above any others. Consumers will
not benefit from this policy, and manufacturers will not benefit from
this policy. Eliminating the public interest determination sends that
message clearly.

In spite of the assertions by its supporters, H.R. 351 won't do much
for our allies either, especially those in Europe or Ukraine. The bill
fixes no problem. There is no backlog of applications at the Department
of Energy. Japan, our ally and the world's largest purchaser of LNG,
has three importers who signed contracts in 2013 with three approved
LNG export facilities, those being Freeport, Cameron, and Cove Point.

Because natural gas is such an important and strategic resource, we
should, if anything, be questioning the administration about the wisdom
of issuing so many approvals. Why? They are relying on assumptions,
models, and estimates of recoverable domestic gas reserves that are
very uncertain and that have been decreasing as new information becomes
available.

Exporters sign these contracts to guarantee deliveries for some 10 to
20 years. I am not willing to risk price spikes for consumers,
families, and small businesses or to risk the benefits of lower gas
prices for our manufacturing sector for a slightly improved trade
balance. I am unwilling to repeal the requirement for a consideration
of the public interest before more export facilities are approved, not
for a resource that is so strategic and widely used.

H.R. 351 does not fix any real problems, but it could, indeed, help
to create some. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source