Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act

Madam Chair, I have said it many times this week, and I will say it again. The legislation before us today, H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, will help the United States fully realize its economic potential regarding small- scale liquefied natural gas exports and associated technologies.

This bill addresses current permitting concerns, but it is also forward looking. H.R. 4606 will help the United States to grow as a reliable, trusted trading partner. It can help reduce trade deficits, promote new job opportunities at home, and strengthen ties with our allies abroad.

Specifically, this bill provides that applications under the Natural Gas Act for the importation or exportation of small volumes of natural gas will be granted without delay, but only if they do not require an environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. This means that both FERC and DOE must continue to fully comply with NEPA regulations and that they must evaluate the potential direct and indirect impacts, consult with other agencies, and receive public input.

Importantly, this bill is the product of bipartisan compromise and work. During markups at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Gene Green and I worked together so that both sides of the aisle could support this commonsense legislation. I appreciate his hard work, along with the work of many of my other colleagues.

As a result, this bill has support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Laborers' International Union of North America, the American Petroleum Institute, and Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions.

Now, as the Representative for rural eastern and southeastern Ohio, I have long recognized the benefits of excess natural gas exports. Because of the shale gas boom, new opportunities are emerging for Ohio and the surrounding States virtually daily, as ethane cracker plants and ethane storage hubs begin to take shape.

Reports show that this trend will only continue, as one study predicts that the region has sufficient ethane feedstock to support up to five ethane cracker plants.

These opportunities are huge and have become viable thanks to new technologies that have led to an increase in natural gas production. But it is also due to an increase in production resulting from the growing demand for excess U.S. natural gas.

In fact, natural gas production is at an all-time high, and reserves are so large that they are predicted to meet domestic demand for almost a century. Ohio alone reached new highs in October 2017, as natural gas production reached 5.5 billion cubic feet per day.

H.R. 4606 can play a role in furthering America's economic progress by allowing our domestic producers and gas providers to export small quantities of natural gas to neighboring countries in a more efficient manner.

Don't misunderstand this. There is an interest for U.S. natural gas in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, although not in the quantities that the current large-scale domestic exporting facilities were built to address via conventional liquefied natural gas tankers.

This bill will help our job creators meet that demand and take full advantage of our economic opportunities throughout our Western Hemisphere. And, with the certainty provided by H.R. 4606, companies currently in operation or those exploring new small-scale possibilities will be incentivized to move forward with new investments with the increased certainty provided by H.R. 4606.

This is especially important considering that the Dominican Republic is the only country in the Caribbean with a free trade agreement that can get our excess natural gas easily. And, as Puerto Rico continues to rebuild after the devastating hurricane in 2017, increased shipments and availability of American small-scale LNG can help the island meet its energy needs.

H.R. 4606 will also better allow our domestic providers the opportunity to deliver a stable source of U.S. energy to countries currently relying on Venezuelan fuel oil, which has been used to gain influence within countries throughout the region.

This effort to increase U.S. energy opportunities within this area of the world is not new, as the previous administration also sought increased engagement through the creation of the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative. Similarly, the Department of Energy recently issued a final rule very similar to H.R. 4606.

Now I would like to quickly address a few concerns that we have heard about this bill during debate. Some of my colleagues have said that the bill is unnecessary because it would replicate a Department of Energy regulation that was recently finalized, while at the same time arguing that this bill would lead to an unrestricted natural gas export policy with dire consequences.

I disagree with both of those statements, as it is important for Congress to exercise its authority and not leave policy solely up to the administration, and this bill by no means promotes an unrestricted policy. What is telling about these conflicting statements is that they simply cannot both be true at the same time, and it leads me to question the sincerity behind the statements.

Additionally, I have heard arguments that this bill could allow companies to skip the review process for larger projects by splitting them into smaller pieces.

Now, these LNG companies are building to economies of scale. These are expensive projects. The financial viability of stacking or combining many small-scale trains is simply not viable, and the operating costs would surely cause the cost of gas to be uncompetitive in the global market.

Madam Chair, the benefits of natural gas exports are clear. As numerous Department of Energy studies and various independent studies have concluded, they are a net positive to our U.S. economy. These studies have found that LNG exports support thousands of American jobs, many of them within manufacturing.

In fact, the Department of Energy once again highlighted the benefits of LNG exports with a study it released in June. This study, which is in addition to four other studies commissioned by the DOE since 2012, presented additional data that demonstrates how

LNG exports are a net benefit to our economy.

With U.S. natural gas reserves as large as they are, and with new technological advancements allowing our producers to access an increasing amount of natural gas each and every day, it is imperative that the United States takes full advantage of this important and abundant energy resource.

H.R. 4606 is a step in that direction. It will strengthen U.S. geopolitical ties, increase job creation, and promote domestic economic growth as a result.

Madam Chair, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important bipartisan legislation today.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment adds an additional round of DOE hearing and public comment on proposed small-scale LNG exports. Unfortunately, this amendment is designed to undercut the important benefits of this legislation, and we simply cannot accept it.

H.R. 4606 was narrowly drafted with bipartisan input throughout the committee process, as the ranking member knows very well. In fact, at committee, I worked with Mr. Green and other Democrats on a bipartisan amendment that ensures that DOE and FERC must fully comply with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations under this bill. This means they must evaluate the potential direct and indirect impacts, consult with other agencies, and, most importantly, receive public input.

Not only has this idea been vetted through hearings and markup on the Energy and Commerce Committee, but, additionally, this concept has already been thoroughly vetted and subjected to a fully transparent rulemaking process at the Department of Energy, complete with public comment and input.

We simply want to put this in the right lane. It should be the Congress that is passing law, not putting it solely in the hands of the administration.

Today's amendment serves only one purpose, and that is delay.

The purpose of H.R. 4606 is to help the United States fully realize its economic potential regarding small-scale liquefied natural gas exports and associated technologies. It will strengthen U.S. geopolitical ties, increase job creation, and promote domestic economic growth as a result.

This amendment jeopardizes those goals and it denies nations in the Caribbean and Latin America the opportunity to have an inexpensive, reliable source of energy from right here in the United States.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I include letters of support in the Record.

CLNG, Center for Liquefied

Natural Gas,

December 11, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone: Regulatory

certainty is vital to U.S. LNG and bipartisan legislation

like the Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act (H.R. 4605)

and The Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act

(H.R. 4606) take steps to provide a clear and straightforward

path for the industry. Providing a certain pathway for U.S.

natural gas to be sold abroad will create thousands of good

paying jobs right here in the United States, generate

millions in tax revenue for the federal, state, and local

governments, and supply our allies and trading partners with

a reliable, clean, safe source of energy.

The United States is awash with natural gas, with more

discoveries almost daily, and in order for the U.S. natural

gas industry to continue to be an engine for growth, reliable

exports offer a perfect solution. Legislation by Congress

that creates a more certain regulatory process enables our

country to capture this narrow window of opportunity to

export LNG internationally and sends a strong signal to our

allies and trading partners that the U.S. is committed to its

role as a global energy leader.

Bi-partisan support for LNG certainty highlights how

important the issue is. Policymakers from both sides of the

aisle can appreciate good paying jobs here at home and energy

choices for allies around the globe. Representatives Johnson

and Ryan have a long history of support for U.S. LNG and we

look forward to working with them and others in the future on

LNG issues.

We urge support for Representative Johnson and Ryan's

Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act and The Ensuring

Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act.

Sincerely,

Charlie Riedl,

Executive Director, Center for LNG.

Madam Chair, I have before me a letter from the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas. It says: ``The United States is awash with natural gas, with more discoveries almost daily, and in order for the U.S. natural gas industry to continue to be an engine for growth, reliable exports offer a perfect solution.''

They go on to say: ``Bipartisan support for LNG certainty highlights how important this issue is.''

I also have a letter here in front of me from LIUNA, and they say this: ``On behalf of the 500,000 members of the Laborers' International Union of North America, LIUNA, I want to express our support for H.R. 4606, Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act.''

They go on to say: ``LIUNA believes in an all-of-the-above energy policy.''

Madam Chair, that is exactly what H.R. 4606 promotes.

I also have a letter here in front of me from Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. There is nobody any more concerned about our energy policy than the American people. We talk about it here all the time in Washington, D.C., oftentimes in political terms, ideological terms, but it is the American people who are going to benefit from the results of LNG exports, whether it is along the Ohio River or all across America.

This is a job creator. It is an opportunity creator. It strengthens our geopolitical ties. And we can't underestimate the strength of that geopolitical tie factor in what we are doing.

We have countries like Russia that are using their energy resources to hammer other countries, to use it as a leverage point to force them into obedience. The last thing that we want is for countries in the Caribbean and Latin America to have to face going to Russia or other countries to get their energy resources when they could be getting those from us.

Right here, this letter from Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions says: ``On behalf of Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, CRES, I am writing in support of H.R. 4606, Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act. CRES urges the House to pass this legislation.''

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill is unnecessary because the Department of Energy is aggressively approving liquefied natural gas exports. DOE currently conducts a public interest review of all applications to export LNG to a country without a free trade agreement with the United States, and this process is working just fine.

To date, DOE has granted final approval for 29 applications to export LNG. Over the past few years, the U.S. has emerged as one of the largest exporters in the world.

There is no backlog of applications or delay at DOE to speak of, and the Trump administration has taken every opportunity to promote U.S. natural gas abroad.

In July, the Department of Energy finalized a rule to automatically approve applications to export less than 0.14 billion cubic feet per day of LNG. It declares in this rule that all small-scale exports are always in the public interest, removes longstanding consumer protections of the Natural Gas Act, prevents the public from having the opportunity to know about or provide input on export proposals, and violates the public hearing requirements of the Natural Gas Act.

Rather than stand up for American consumers and manufacturers who benefit from low natural gas prices, the Trump administration is boosting the profits of oil and gas special interests by allowing them to export LNG without any regard for domestic impacts.

This bill is intended to codify DOE's small-scale LNG rule, but proponents have not justified the need for swift congressional action on a rule that was just finalized.

There are drawbacks to codifying the rule with such a prescriptive volume requirement. For example, should the circumstances arise where exporting this amount of LNG is no longer in the public interest, Congress would then have to enact a new law to make any necessary changes.

In addition, Madam Chair, an unrestricted export policy could lead to even higher levels of LNG exports, which could have significant impacts

on domestic natural gas prices and adversely affect American consumers and manufacturers.

Unfettered exports would also exacerbate climate change by encouraging more fossil fuel extraction and displacing carbon-free sources of power. High methane leak rates and increased demand for LNG exports would likely offset any climate benefits associated with natural gas use.

For Congress and the Trump administration to prioritize such a policy at a time when methane pollution from U.S. oil and gas operation is expected to warm the planet as much as coal is, in my opinion, completely reckless.

Madam Chair, beyond that, the use of floor time on such an unnecessary bill is just the latest example of our current reality. Republicans are running a government of, by, and for the corporate interests, not a government for the people.

This bill will not create a single new job.

Madam Chair, the House has just 16 legislative days remaining before the election and just 8 legislative days before the end of the fiscal year. The farm bill expires this month. So does authorization for FAA and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We also need to fund the government to prevent another Trump shutdown.

We should be focusing our limited time on legislation that would fix our crumbling infrastructure, create jobs that pay a livable wage, and move America toward a smarter, greener energy future.

We need a practical balance and sustainable energy policy. What we do not need are bills like this that target problems that don't exist. We don't need to be throwing more bones to the fossil fuel industry.

I will be opposing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Madam Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I understand the previous speaker, my colleague from Arizona's interests in helping our friends and neighbors in the Caribbean, but nothing in this bill or the rule requires small-scale shipments to go to the Caribbean area. And, in fact, Puerto Rico is the largest importer of LNG in the region, and the problems associated with getting them natural gas are due to Jones Act restrictions, not DOE approval of export applications.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have no additional speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, LNG exports are clearly a priority for this administration, and I see no indication that this trajectory is changing, so we don't need this bill to enshrine the prescriptive and problematic small-scale LNG rule into law.

Passing this bill will not create new jobs or approve any small-scale LNG applications. It is solely a political win for the fossil fuel industry at the expense of American consumers and manufacturers.

Those who are against unrestricted export of natural gas argue that cheap, domestic natural gas prices are providing a big boost and competitive advantage to U.S. manufacturing. They are worried that exporting large volumes of LNG will drive up domestic natural gas prices, harming American manufacturers and consumers.

Madam Chair, I believe it is reasonable to question the wisdom of exporting too much of our natural gas and to consider whether such an approach will hurt our domestic manufacturing base, and giving the fossil fuel industry a green light to extract and export unlimited amounts of natural gas will only lead to greater methane leaks and the displacement of carbon-free energy sources. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, one of my biggest concerns with this bill, and DOE's Small-Scale LNG rule, is the removal of public hearing requirements for LNG export applications. This is drastic change in the approval process, and my amendment seeks to restore the ability for public input through a public hearing.

Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act requires DOE to grant an application to export natural gas to a non-Free Trade Agreement country, unless it finds that the proposed export is not consistent with the public interest. And typically, notices of non-FTA applications are posted in the Federal Register for public comment, which ultimately informs DOE's evaluation of an application's consistence with the public interest.

DOE evaluates a range of factors when performing a public interest review, including economic impacts, international considerations, U.S. energy security, and environmental considerations. And these are important considerations that are unique to each export application, and the public plays a key role in DOE's decisionmaking process.

But DOE recently turned this process on its head for small-scale exports.

Hidden in its small-scale LNG proposed rule, DOE proclaimed that: ``This proposed rule, and the 45-day comment period for this proposed rule, would constitute the notice and opportunity for hearing on all prospective small-scale natural gas export applications.''

What that means, Madam Chair, is that all qualifying small-scale export applications would be approved without any public notice or comment, or need for a unique public interest determination, in perpetuity.

I think that is pretty outrageous, and I would argue it violates the public hearing requirements of the Natural Gas Act.

DOE failed to justify the sweeping change to the existing approval process. Congress should avoid the same mistake.

Congress should not be in the business of limiting the participation of the American public in such a debate, but that is exactly what H.R. 4606 does.

By codifying the DOE rule, this legislation reduces the ability of communities directly impacted by these projects to give meaningful input during the review process.

Exporting America's resources to foreign nations while creating domestic environmental and public health impacts is not in the public interest, nor is cutting the public out of the process by which we express our interest.

Congress should not create laws to export our natural resources wealth at the expense of our environment and our manufacturers while simultaneously limiting the rights of Americans to comment on natural gas export projects in their communities.

My amendment is a commonsense proposal to fix this problem in the underlying bill. It is good government. It is in the public interest that consumers and communities have the ability to provide input on export applications, no matter how small.

Madam Chair, for these reasons, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to read some parts of a letter from the Industrial Energy Consumers of America in support of the amendment.

Let me just say to my colleagues on the other side, the purpose of the amendment is not delay, but public input for the public interest.

The Industrial Energy Consumers write: ``In behalf of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, IECA, we support your amendment to provide consumers of natural gas an `opportunity for hearing and public input' for small-scale LNG export applications, in advance of final approval by the U.S. Department of Energy. It is good government and in the public interest that consumers have the ability to provide input.

``Every study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy on the potential economic impacts of LNG exports concludes that exports of LNG increase the price of natural gas and electricity. Although we do not anticipate this being a significant problem in the short term, public policy must consider longer term potential impacts. It is for this reason that it is wise to provide for public input. Consumers of natural gas deserve that option.

``The manufacturing sector consumes about 25 percent of all U.S. natural gas and demand is increasing annually. IECA members are mostly energy intensive trade exposed, EITE, companies, which means that relatively small changes to the price of natural gas and electricity can have relatively large impacts to competitiveness and jobs. For the majority of our applications, there is no substitute for natural gas.''

And then it is signed by the president, Paul Cicio.

Again, Madam Chair, I would urge support of my amendment. There is nothing wrong with public input. It is part of the democratic process.

I do think we need to be concerned about the increased price of natural gas from LNG exports and what it might mean not only for consumers, but for manufacturing. If manufacturing is decreased because of the increase, then that means fewer jobs for Americans.

So I appreciate the support from the Industrial Energy Consumers.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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 the bill, H.R. 4606.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, a bill written by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

This important bill will speed up the review of applications to export small amounts of natural gas to the emerging small LNG markets in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. This bill will strengthen our energy security, create jobs at home, and open new markets for Americans.

This bill is about creating a level playing field for the smallest projects. Right now, to export natural gas to a country that we have a free trade agreement with, it is approved without red tape. We want to do that for very small projects, too, no matter the buyer.

H.R. 4606 is truly focused on ``small-scale'' projects. We are talking about projects that amount to maybe one-tenth of 1 percent of the natural gas America consumes every single day. It is only 0.14 billion cubic feet per day. The big LNG products that you hear about are more like 2 billion cubic feet per day. That is 0.14 versus 2 billion cubic feet. These are tiny projects worth looking at. We want them to make their way to the emerging markets.

But don't let the small size fool you. Just as larger LNG exports help us push back against Vladimir Putin and help free Eastern Europe, small LNG will preserve American influence in Latin America. We can give our trading partners a cleaner, more dependable option than unreliable and unstable Venezuelan exports. That is why I call our LNG exports ``liquid American freedom.'' America will never turn off the spigot over politics.

Madam Chair, this is a bipartisan bill. It went through regular order in the Energy and Commerce Committee, where we held hearings and accepted a bipartisan amendment to perfect the bill.

The Department of Energy is also in support of this bill's intent. Passing this bill, they said, means ``saving several months of review time, at a minimum.''

We have also heard from LNG producers, terminal operators, and overseas developers. One said it will provide certainty and speed up ``America's rise as a world-class exporter of natural gas, creating U.S. jobs, growing our economy, strengthening global energy security, all while reducing emissions and pollution.''

I believe it is important to point out that H.R. 4606 makes absolutely no changes to environmental law. In fact, at our markup we accepted a bipartisan amendment that clarifies that any project would have to qualify for a broad exclusion under NEPA to be put on the fast track. This bill is not about waiving environmental laws.

Most importantly, DOD is working on the same problem and is improving their rules as we speak. They say that many of the countries in the Caribbean and Latin America don't have enough demand to cover the costs of enormous import terminals for huge ships. The small-scale LNG export market is the only path that makes sense to bring affordable American energy to these projects and countries.

Congress needs to put DOE's policy into law. That is the only way we can create certainty. No one wants to make investments on a single administration's policy. Congress must create certainty, and this bill does just that.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. It is good for our economy, our jobs, and our economic diplomacy.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the author of the bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the current chairman and a senior member of the Texas delegation.

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chair of the Western Caucus.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is real simple. This bill is about good-paying, American jobs, American energy going to our neighbors in Latin America, South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.

This bill does not skate around any environmental laws. You have to comply with all the rules as they exist today to export this natural gas.

This bill is bipartisan as here today, two speakers from the other side spoke in favor of this bill. I ask my colleagues to join those Members and our Members and vote for this good bill for American jobs, American security, and great foreign relations.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment is unnecessary and misguided because emissions from natural gas wells are already regulated by the EPA and States under the Clean Air Act.

H.R. 4606 applies only to projects that have already undergone rigorous environmental review and are eligible for an exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Other than the Natural Gas Act, DOE has the responsibility to protect the public interest. In doing so, DOE must consider whether the project applicant is following the laws and regulations, including those under the Clean Air Act.

Let's be clear about the environmental benefits of natural gas in general and this legislation, specifically.

U.S. carbon emissions in 2017 were the lowest they have been since 1992 because we are using more clean natural gas. Unfortunately, carbon emissions are increasing in other parts of the world because they don't have access to clean-burning natural gas. Our friends in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean are still burning Venezuelan fuel oil in places where our U.S. LNG can replace that fuel oil.

H.R. 4606 is good for our economy. It is good for new American jobs, and it is good for our environment. This legislation will start America's rise as a world-class exporter of natural gas, which will help reduce emissions and pollution all across the globe.

If you really care about reducing emissions, you can't deny the benefits of this legislation.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, this bill is all about good-paying American jobs.

American exports of liquified natural gas help our neighbors in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean. This bill makes our air cleaner. Let's lock those benefits in for years to come.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4606 and oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, is far from perfect, as several of our colleagues have noted. The amendment I am offering today would reverse most of the bill's most egregious shortcomings and help ensure that liquefied natural gas exports benefiting from expedited approval truly are in the public interest, as the original bill purports to do.

This amendment would help keep methane waste to a minimum for the LNG exports permitted by the bill. It requires export applications to show that the natural gas was produced using available techniques and technologies to minimize methane emissions from leaks or venting.

In other words, this amendment would require companies developing liquefied natural gas for export to actually develop and export the natural gas rather than venting vast quantities into the atmosphere or lighting it on fire.

This requirement is easy to implement with readily available technologies. Many companies are already working to reduce their methane emissions.

Sara Ortwein, president of XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, just this week stated her company's continued support for Federal methane regulations, and she is far from alone.

In Colorado, we have had strong methane rules in place since 2014, and our oil and gas industry has continued to thrive, even as it is required to find and stop the leaks.

Stopping these leaks has real benefits. There is widespread scientific consensus that methane leaks into the atmosphere significantly contribute to climate change. The volatile organic compounds released with the methane increase ground-level pollution and harm public health. When natural gas is produced on public land, it leaks rob taxpayers of royalties on the wasted gas.

So we can and we must prevent such needless harmful emissions wherever possible, and this measure is one way to do it. It would increase the royalties collected for taxpayers; it would reduce climate-changing emissions; and it would protect public health.

Vote for it and you will vote for a better future for our constituents, for our children, and for generations to come.

Now, colleagues who are considering whether to support this amendment may be interested to learn that natural and regional polling consistently show strong bipartisan support for methane rules. Sixty to 80 percent or more of those polled expressed their approval.

Now, there may be many reasons for which some people will oppose this amendment, but I can't think of any that would stand up to scrutiny. I would look forward to discussing those reasons here. And if you oppose this amendment, let's talk about it.

Otherwise, we can reduce these emissions; we can pass this bill; and it would go a long way toward cleaning up our environment and saving money.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, just quickly, these rules that the gentleman referred to, alleging that they solve the problem, I would just say the BLM Methane and Waste Prevention rule was eliminated by the Trump EPA under Scott Pruitt, and so that is not controlling the public lands emissions right now, which is what this amendment would do. And the EPA rule under the Clean Air Act is also under attack.

Really, if it is current law, why not just support it? Why not say, if we are going to be developing this LNG, let's stop these leaks? Because it helps our environment, it helps with our air and our climate change, and it also helps with profits. And, frankly, for the BLM lands and the other Federal lands, it will help the taxpayers recover money.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I want to thank our ranking member for yielding me the time.

I rise in support of H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act. This bill has been worked on in good faith with Mr. Johnson--I thank him for his kind words--which would expedite U.S. small-volume LNG exports, so long as they do not require an environmental impact assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

Natural gas production has dramatically increased all across the country thanks to the energy revolution that we have seen in the last 10 years. We are now able to get gas out of shelves long thought impossible.

The U.S. has enough natural gas to meet our own energy needs for over a century. Soon, we also will be able to be a net exporter of these petroleum products.

Despite being the world leader in production of natural gas, many companies are unable to export the small quantities of LNG, or liquefied natural gas, to neighboring countries in the Caribbean.

If the U.S. does not have a free trade agreement with another nation, natural gas exports must go through a lengthy national determination at the Department of Energy. Currently, the U.S. has only a free trade agreement with the Dominican Republic in the region.

DOE recently recognized that this placed an undue burden on small volume exports and issued a rule similar to this bill to address the issue. The dominant fuel source in the region for these countries is Venezuelan fuel oil, a source that is not geopolitically friendly or environmentally sound.

What we would like to have is more natural gas being used for electricity in the Caribbean and Puerto Rico instead of fuel oil, which is an environmental disaster.

U.S. LNG in the region would drastically reduce emission rates from burning fuel oil for power generation. The benefits of H.R. 4606 are not limited to other countries. As I said, Puerto Rico continues to rebuild with the devastation of Hurricane Maria.

Madam Chair, to rebuild from the devastation of Hurricane Maria, this LNG has the potential to reshape the Puerto Rican grid, making it safer and more reliable and more environmentally safe.

This bill also protects the environment. No application for export under the Natural Gas Act will be granted unless the applicant qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NEPA, ensuring that there won't be an adverse environmental impact.

Study after study has shown natural gas exports are a clear net positive to our domestic economy. Moreover, energy ties develop diplomatic ties with countries that they go to. This bill will strengthen U.S. ties with countries throughout the region.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.