John Baranowski – 4/16/15

This page was last updated on April 16, 2015.

Why did congressmen vote against bill?; John Baranowski; Beaver County Times; April 16, 2015.

You’ll find this letter is nearly an identical copy of a post entitled “HR 351 State Sponsors of Terrorism & PA Congressmen Un-American Act” on thepoliticalforums.com by saturdaysarebetter (3/21/15). I don’t know if Mr. Baranowski and saturdaysarebetter are the same person.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The House on Jan. 28 defeated a Democratic bid to deny natural-gas exports under HR 351 to state sponsors of terrorism or to countries or firms that use cyber attacks to steal U.S. intellectual property or military secrets.”

[RWC] Mr. Baranowski is referring to a proposed amendment to H.R. 351 (LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act), not the bill itself. That proposed addition to H.R. 351 read,

“SEC. 4. PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND CREATING AMERICAN JOBS.

“In reviewing an application for authorization to export natural gas under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b), the Department of Energy--

“(1) shall deny such application if the natural gas would be exported to any nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism or otherwise threatens America’s national security, or to any nation or corporation that steals America’s military technology or intellectual property through cyber-attacks; and

“(2) shall require, as a condition for approval of any such authorization, the applicant to ensure that United States-flagged and built ships and shipping containers are used to export the LNG as such vessels become available for charter.”

You’ll notice Mr. Baranowski chose not to mention section 2. Over time, section 2 would give U.S. container and shipbuilders a monopoly, similar to what happens with the Jones Act and maritime traffic between U.S. ports. The Jones Act also requires U.S. ownership and crews must be U.S. citizens and permanent residents. We have the Jones Act because – for whatever reason – U.S. shipbuilders tend not to compete successfully with foreign shipbuilders.

“Mike Doyle, a Democrat, voted yes to adopt the bill, yet the local congressmen, Republicans Keith Rothfus, Bill Shuster, Mike Kelly and Tim Murphy, all voted against it.”

[RWC] Again, Mr. Baranowski is referring to the amendment, not the bill. All five reps, including Mr. Doyle, voted for H.R. 351.

“Why would you vote against something like that? So if some country cyber attacks us and steals military secrets, Rothfus, Shuster, Kelly and Murphy all think, ‘Sure lets sell and export natural gas to that country.’

“I’ve attempted to ask each of them via twitter but not one has responded. I would love to hear why Congressman Rothfus against it.”

[RWC] When addition sponsor Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) spoke on the House floor to garner support, he never mentioned section 1 because he knows existing laws and procedures already deal with section 1’s content. Instead, Mr. Garamendi spent his time talking about section 2, something Democrats knew most Republicans would oppose. In my opinion, this amendment was mostly a political stunt. Why? It put Democrats in a no-lose position. If Republicans opposed the addition, as expected, Democrats would get headlines and letters like Mr. Baranowski’s, falsely claiming Republicans support “natural-gas exports under HR 351 to state sponsors of terrorism or to countries or firms that use cyber attacks to steal U.S. intellectual property or military secrets.” Had enough Republicans voted for the addition, Democrats would get headlines touting how they sponsored/passed a bill intended to generate union jobs. If this amendment had not been a stunt, Mr. Garamendi would have offered each section separately.