PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 28, 2015
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act
(Sec. 2) Directs the Department of Energy (DOE), for proposals that must also obtain authorization from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the United States Maritime Administration to site, construct, expand, or operate liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities, to issue a decision on an application for authorization to export natural gas within 30 days after the later of: (1) the conclusion of the review to site, construct, expand, or operate the LNG facilities required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); or (2) the date of enactment of this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Deems any NEPA review to be concluded: (1) 30 days after publication of a required Environmental Impact Statement if the project needs one; (2) 30 days after publication by DOE of a Finding of No Significant Impact if the project needs an Environmental Assessment; and (3) upon a determination by the lead agency that an application is eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant to regulations under NEPA.
(A "categorical exclusion" under NEPA is a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementing environmental regulations and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.) Confers original and exclusive jurisdiction upon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the export facility under an application will be located over any civil action for the review of: (1) a DOE order regarding the application, or (2) DOE failure to issue a final decision on the application.
Requires the Court, if it finds in a civil action that DOE has failed to issue a final decision on an application, to order DOE to issue one within 30 days.
Requires the Court to set any civil action brought under this Act on the docket for expedited consideration as soon as practical after the filing date of the initial pleading.
(Sec. 3) Amends the Natural Gas Act to set as a condition for approval of any authorization to export LNG that the DOE Secretary require the applicant to disclose publicly the specific destination or destinations of any such authorized LNG exports.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Bill [R-OH-6] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 277 - 133 (Roll no. 50). (text: CR H645)
House roll call 50 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 277 - 133 (Roll no. 50).(text: CR H645)
House roll call 50 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 175 - 237 (Roll no. 49). (consideration: CR H652-653)
House roll call 49 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H652)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Garamendi motion to recommit with instructions, pending a reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add a new section at the end of the bill pertaining to Protecting National Security and Creating American Jobs. Subsequently, the reservation was removed.
Mr. Garamendi moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (consideration: CR H651-652; text: CR H651-652)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H651)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 351.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 351 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 48. (consideration: CR H645-654)
Rule H. Res. 48 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 48 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 351 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.351 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.351 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.351 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.351 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.