Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access 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, the purpose of this House Energy and Commerce Special Order is to talk about America's energy dominance, especially with natural gas.

This conversation is very important today because the World Gas Conference happens in this town, Washington, D.C., next week. What a difference a decade makes.

When I joined Texas Senator Phil Gramm's office in 1998, one ugly word described American oil and natural gas. That word was peak.

Experts, here and around the world, said America had peaked in our production of oil and natural gas.

Every year, we would buy more oil and gas from foreign sources, and we had to buy oil from some companies that didn't like us very much and hurt us by taking oil away.

No one cared about a group called OPEC until they stopped the flow of oil that they had and that we needed.

OPEC was led by Arab nations who were upset that we resupplied our best ally ever, Israel, when they were invaded by their neighbors. It happened

in 1973. It happened again in 1979. Gas prices doubled overnight.

In 1979, I had just gotten my driver's license. My job was to take our family cars and fill them with gas that had gotten down to a quarter of a gallon in the tank. I got in line for 45 minutes or maybe as long as an hour. We could only purchase 20 gallons of gasoline. We could only buy that gasoline on days per your license plate. If the last number was odd, buy gas on an odd day. Even, even day.

Heck, a guy on a lawn mower was behind me getting gas one day. That is how bad it was just one decade ago.

But thanks to the American private sector and our ingenuity, hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling, America has a whole new world order for energy. We have global energy dominance, and that is what we are here to talk about today, that special happening right now in America.

Right now, our country, America, is the number one producer of oil and gas in the entire world. Our natural gas increasingly powers our homes and our businesses, making our air cleaner and our economy stronger, especially on the Gulf Coast, where I am from.

OPEC knows their days of controlling the market and punishing people for bad actions they perceive are over. They have right now, as we speak, flooded the market with oil to try to keep prices low and stop America's newfound energy dominance. They have tried and they have failed.

We had more oil and gas than they had. We have that gas, and now we are letting the free market take over, and we have a lot more who can tap that in a moment's notice.

And this doesn't just mean affordable power and gasoline at home. It also means American jobs.

One study last year said over 800,000 jobs in the gas and oil industry came to our country for this renaissance. This renaissance, this dominance, has allowed us to export natural gas and oil for the first time since 1975. Over 40 years not on the market.

We are going from basically zero exports of natural gas to 10 billion cubic feet per day in exports.

It wasn't long ago we were building terminals to import natural gas, and now we are reversing them to export natural gas. That is what American energy dominance looks like.

And as we say in Texas, there is a new sheriff in the global natural gas market, and that sheriff's name is Uncle Sam.

And these huge exports of natural gas are helping America export liquid freedom to friends we want to help, and hurt those who use energy as a weapon to control other countries.

For too long, a former KGB spy and Russia's de facto dictator, Vladimir Putin, has controlled nations that escaped the Iron Curtain when the Berlin Wall fell in 1991. Nations like Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Ukraine were still beholden to what Ted Poe calls the Napoleon of Siberia, Mr. Putin.

If they did not do what Mr. Putin wanted, they lost all power. Summers were scorching; winters were bitter cold. Comply or punish. You are not free.

America, right now, is taking these weapons away from Mr. Putin. Cheap natural gas takes away the hooks of tyranny.

This is important even for countries that don't buy our gas because our gas is making the market a true market with competition and lower prices. That market puts a lid on bad actors and what they can charge.

But sadly, this explosion, this dominance, caught the previous administration by surprise and we were way behind the curve in getting our natural gas on the global market.

Good news: The Energy and Commerce Committee stepped up in this Congress to make sure we get these exports going and these projects approved quickly.

We made sure they are safe, great for our environment, with minimal impacts, and we take all of the local concerns into account. But red tape and these silly delays hurt us. We have stopped that and have got a free market going in so many important ways.

In this Congress, the 115th Congress, we are using this new opportunity to expand our Nation's energy dominance with natural gas. This means, for the whole world, cheaper, cleaner power, the jobs that come with that, and it brings American jobs back home from overseas.

Right now, America is exporting freedom to friends and allies and taking away a monopoly from bad actors. Get ready, world. Uncle Sam is coming to your neighborhood, your hometown.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walden for his comments to remind the American people and the entire world that this American dominance of natural gas has made America's air cleaner for global emissions.

As the chairman knows, America has reduced gas emissions 11 percent in the last decade. I told that to people in India this past March and they were stunned.

How did you guys do that? Our air is so dirty? What should we do?

It is simple: Buy American liquified natural gas.

And they are doing that right now.

The next speaker is a good friend from Ohio, a man who Mr. Putin fears because he has control of what is called the Utica shale play in Ohio.

A man from India, Prime Minister Modi from India, loves Bill Johnson from the great State of Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio. I also thank my dear friend for reminding me that Utica is the Marcellus in your district. It also reminded me over and over of the benefits the gentleman has had in Ohio. Rough parts in the country had some bad years, some down times. We have something that Texas called the Eagle Ford shale play that goes down from basically San Antonio to Laredo, a rough part of Texas, not very much growth there. When Zavala happened back home--I was down there about 3 years ago--a man got his first royalty check. He was thrilled. He goes to his bank to deposit, in his Sunday best suit, and says to the guy there: Put this in my account.

His banker said: Great, I got it.

He puts it in his account. He comes back and says: Okay, that is 100,000--whoa, whoa, whoa--100,000? I thought it was 1,000.

His mind could not see the zeros, the periods, and the commas. We changed his world with American ingenuity.

The next person up is the former leader of this committee, the chairman, a proud Texas Aggie, and the single most strongest force to get the crude export ban lifted that was installed in 1975, Chairman Joe Barton from Ennis, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from Texas. I want to thank my dear friend for also saying the name of George Mitchell. As you know, George Mitchell revolutionized our energy with hydraulic fracturing, directional drilling of the Barnett shale play by Fort Worth. It took Mr. Mitchell 35 or 36 wells to drill before the first one came back viable.

That money was private sector money, not money from D.C. The private sector made this revolution possible. I thank the gentleman for reminding us about what happened.

By the way, people think the gentleman's car may be there, the Corvette convertible, in the background. It looks like a 1959, maybe a 1963.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a good friend and also a doctor

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), my cohost, to follow up the comments of Dr. Bucshon as we transition to going overseas.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), from the home of William Barret Travis, the commander of the Alamo.

Mr. Speaker, since I have known the gentleman, he has been a champion for American energy independence. Drill, baby, drill. Frack, baby, frack.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, this was not coordinated. We came together with pictures of the Independence. But my friend knows this better than I do. How many people turn out--those are ordinary people--to watch a tanker come into port? Why are they coming out to watch that tanker? It is because they know that tanker is their freedom from Mr. Putin and Russia.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for his comments. The gentleman is always welcome here. I thank my friend for pointing out the fact that, we think oil and gas in America, we think the coasts: the Gulf Coast, Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast.

But my friend enlightened us. It is not just the coasts. It is the heart and soul of America, the interior, States like Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota. All these States have shale plays. All these States are booming now with American energy production.

I would like to close with a couple comments and maybe take a tour of the world as it stands today.

We started exporting our natural gas less than 2 years ago. Right now, 29 countries have received American liquified natural gas. Those countries are Argentina, the Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, and the UK.

American energy has touched the entire world. They are feeling our dominance in a very healthy and great way. We are giving them their freedom. Liquid American freedom is on the market right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1049 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1049, which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, and a structured rule for H.R. 1635, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. These bipartisan bills provide commonsense changes that will strengthen our economy by removing unnecessary regulatory burdens and improving financial counseling for our students.

Student loan debt in our country hit a record high of $1.5 trillion in the first quarter of this year, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, both the number and size of student loans are increasing, while the repayment rates are decreasing. Students are not receiving the proper counseling when they enroll in Federal aid programs. This has the potential to cost them immense amounts of money.

Right now, schools are only required to provide entry and exit financial counseling to students who receive Federal loans. Often, the counseling offered does not give students a realistic understanding of their anticipated finances and income during their studies and after graduation, or information about other Federal aid programs they could turn to before a private loan.

By enhancing the financial counseling offered and expanding it to students who receive Pell grants and to the parents of students who take out Federal loans to pay for their children's education, students will better be able to manage their finances and maximize their opportunities, saving themselves and the taxpayers money every single year.

Mr. Speaker, we provide over $120 billion of Federal student aid every year, without providing adequate education and support about how to use those funds. This must change. With this bill, we will begin to give our students the tools and resources necessary to ensure they put themselves in the best financial position for the future. H.R. 1635 does just that.

Additionally, the rule we are considering today makes in order several bipartisan amendments that are aimed at making this good bill even better.

The rule that we are debating this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, also provides for consideration of H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act. This rule makes in order two Democrat amendments to this bipartisan bill which also will help strengthen our economy and create more American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the United States is now the world's leading producer of oil and natural gas. And my home State of Wyoming ranks sixth in production of crude oil, and eighth in natural gas production. However, despite the important and even monumental efforts by the Trump administration so far, uncertainty and burdensome regulations still stifle operations and further growth.

Currently, the Natural Gas Act does not specify an amount threshold for the Department of Energy's lengthy regulatory process for the exportation of liquefied natural gas. This means that producers wanting to export a small amount of gas are forced to go through the same process as major producers.

By providing greater regulatory certainty and a clear timetable for the

process of exporting small amounts of LNG, we will better enable exporters to move forward with capital-intensive projects that create American jobs.

We also are able, Mr. Speaker, through this bill, to preserve existing environmental laws and ensure that small-scale export facilities receive the proper review.

Wyoming's petroleum industry directly employs over 7,000 people, with an annual payroll of over $668 million, contributing over $900 million to our economy.

The small scale LNG export market is a growing sector of our economy with immense potential that can further expand the economic benefits the petroleum industry yields to my State and to the Nation. This bill will open up markets where large-scale exports are simply not economical and help jump-start growth in this important industry.

H.R. 4606 places small-scale exports on a level playing field with exports to free trade agreement nations. Many of our neighboring countries are forced to rely on unstable or unfriendly nations for their energy needs because the regulations we currently place on our small-scale LNG exporters makes exporting to these nations uneconomical.

Mr. Speaker, by reducing these regulations, U.S. LNG exports can play an important role in rebuilding parts of the Caribbean devastated by hurricanes in 2017, as well as provide a stable source of energy. It will also prevent our neighbors from having to turn, potentially, to our adversaries to meet their energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of an energy boom that is revitalizing our economy. It is also putting us in a position where we can greatly assist our neighbor countries by providing them a stable source of energy and offering support in the event of a natural disaster.

The current unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations on small LNG exporters prevent us from taking full advantage of this unprecedented growth in our energy production and industry. H.R. 4606 allows us to address this issue and to provide an additional boost to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the bills that will be considered under this rule are bipartisan bills that will help strengthen our economy and support our students. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule that will allow consideration of H.R. 4606 and H.R. 1635, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mrs. Torres, for her comments today.

I think that Mrs. Torres and I both agree that Congress needs to ensure that we are playing our constitutional role, and that is why I find it particularly surprising that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to further empower the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is a completely unaccountable and, I would argue, unconstitutional agency.

In fact, statutorily, Mr. Speaker, with the regulation of student loans under the Higher Education Act, Congress has charged the Department of

Education with this obligation and responsibility, not the CFPB, and that is where we think it should belong. We don't think that the answer to congressional oversight and to increasing congressional oversight is to give further power to a completely unaccountable Federal agency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I again would like to thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for her work and her participation in this debate.

I hope that the minority leader of the United States Senate, Mr. Schumer, might have been listening to her arguments just now, and I would just recall for our colleagues that it was the Democrats in the Senate, led by Mr. Schumer, who shut the government down earlier this year, not the Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Democrats in the House and the Senate who walked away from the negotiations on the budget deal that we finally were able to strike, but not before they refused to show up for at least one meeting at the White House.

So it is the case that the Republicans are in control of this body. It is the case that we have a majority in the Senate. As my colleague knows, we don't have 60 votes in the Senate, and so Mr. Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate are able to gum up the works pretty extensively.

But as for us in the House, we have, Mr. Speaker, been successful in passing all 12 appropriations bills. We have been successful in passing the necessary appropriations bills without the help of the Democrats in order to make sure that we are providing the funds that we need to keep the government open and keep the government functioning.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to participate in a good-faith manner, particularly in the coming weeks as we deal with the Defense Appropriations bill once again on this floor, and just remind them how important it is that we make sure that our men and women in uniform receive the funds that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) for their important and hard work on these bills. We must continue to roll back the regulatory burdens that make doing business in our country so difficult.

We also have to give our students the tools they need to maximize their opportunities for success and to understand the financial liabilities that they are undertaking when they receive these student loans. We don't want them to have a future that is diminished by the burden of unnecessary debt that they can't repay once they graduate.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and passage of the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank Congressman Olson for his leadership as vice chairman of the subcommittee and a tireless leader on behalf of energy in this country.

Also, I want to thank Congressman Johnson for his strong efforts and also compliment him on his playing in last week's Congressional Baseball Game. Congressman Duncan was also on the team and played well as shortstop.

Oil was discovered in Pennsylvania back in the mid-1800s. As the oil industry began to develop, they more and more would run into what we would today call associated gas. Every now and then while drilling for oil they would hit a well that didn't have any oil, but all it had was what today we call natural gas.

They didn't know what to do with it. They used the oil to make kerosene, lubricants, and home heating oil and things like that, but they didn't have a real purpose for natural gas. So they would just flare it, just literally in the field, light a match, put a flare pipe up and flare it. As time went on, they discovered that it had a fairly high Btu energy content, and they discovered a way to contain it, to store it, and to transport it through pipelines. Because it was a gas, it was not a liquid in its natural state, so while it was not as valuable as oil, it had enough value that it was worth looking for and worth keeping.

You rock along and you rock along, and in the 1950s and 1960s, we began to set price controls on natural gas in interstate commerce. The Federal Government would regulate the price and as a consequence people stopped looking for it, because it wasn't economic to find it unless you could find a well that you could sell in intrastate commerce, within the State.

When I ran for Congress in 1984, I ran on the platform of repealing what was called the Natural Gas Price Act of 1978 where Congress had set a price control on interstate natural gas in some cases as low as 2 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. Gas in the intrastate market, deep gas, was selling as high as $15 per 1,000 cubic feet. There is a big difference between $15 and 2 cents.

One of my first accomplishments in Congress under President George Herbert Bush, the first President Bush, was to see the NGPA repealed. The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 was repealed, and it was my amendment that did that. So I was very proud of that.

Rock along a few more years, and in 2005, I was chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and we were doing a major energy bill, the Natural Gas Policy Act of 2005. We did a lot of things in that bill. We felt at that time that there was going to be a shortage of natural gas in this country. Some of the States, States like Massachusetts, California, and New York, were trying to prohibit import terminals for natural gas, for liquefied natural gas, LNG, being built. The States would not give the permits.

So in the infinite wisdom of the Congress, we passed, as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a section, an amendment to the bill, that gave ultimate decisionmaking authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. Because we thought we were going to need to build these import terminals to import natural gas and the States were going to try to thwart it, we required a consultation with the States. The States had to be involved in the process, but the ultimate decision would be made by the Federal Government under the auspices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

A funny thing happened, Mr. Speaker. Some oil producers and gas producers down in Texas--one of them was a Texas Aggie, a guy named George Mitchell--decided that you had all these shale formations, and there were hydrocarbons in them, but they were like rock. Literally, if you look at a core sample of some of these shale formations, which you all had mentioned today in this Special Order, it is just like solid-- it is solid rock.

George Mitchell and others decided, by golly, we can get natural gas out of that if we fracture the rock under pressure and create tiny little cracks where natural gas can escape from. Come to find out it worked. Then they also decided: Do you know what? Instead of drilling the classic vertical well, what if we bent the drill bit at a 90-degree angle and drilled horizontally?

Son of a gun if that didn't work too.

So the combination of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling made all of these shale formations economic, and the result was an absolute bonanza of natural gas available at economically recoverable prices in the United States of America.

Congressman Johnson has mentioned some of the formations up in his part of the country, the Marcellus and the Utica. Of course, Mr. Olson talked about the Eagle Ford shale down in Texas, the Barnett shale in my part of Texas. All over this country--Pennsylvania, even in New York, California, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, Ohio, and Kansas--there are shale formations--literally almost everywhere in the United States--and in most of those shale formations, it is economically recoverable

to drill for natural gas--and in some cases for oil also--but tonight we are talking about natural gas.

Funny things happened. We didn't need to import natural gas. We had so much of it, we could export it. We used that provision we put in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to begin to license, not import terminals but export terminals. Congressman Olson, Congressman Johnson, and Chairman Walden have talked--and I am sure Mr. Bucshon and Mr. Duncan will talk later--about the economic consequences of that. We are exporting or going to export about 2 billion cubic feet a day this year of liquified natural gas.

We are going to quadruple that in the next few years. If you look at the economic value of that, if you assume that you are selling it overseas about $4 per 1,000 cubic feet, this year we will export three- quarters of a trillion dollars--a trillion dollars is a thousand billion. And not in the near future, we are going to be exporting several trillion dollars worth of natural gas every year, hundreds of thousands of jobs, just an economic--I don't know what you would call it--a bonanza. It is not a windfall because it is not luck. It is hard work. It is American ingenuity and American technology. It is revolutionizing the energy markets.

As has been pointed out, we are also beginning to export oil as a consequence of the ban being repealed for crude oil exports. That is a story for another Special Order.

The future for natural gas in this country as a source of fuel is unlimited. The economic benefits are obvious, but there is another benefit, and it is the ability to export freedom. When we export our natural gas, in many cases we are exchanging the source of the supply from a totalitarian--not quite totalitarian, but certainly not a totally democratic country like Russia--with a free country like the United States.

Now, it has been mentioned that Qatar, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia are also large exporters of natural gas, and they are allies of the United States, friends of the United States. But they don't have, as of yet, the purely democratic institutions, the totally free markets, and the free market capitalistic system that we have here.

So when we send our natural gas overseas, we are also sending to the countries that use it, economic, and in some cases, political freedom. They cannot be held hostage to sources of supply that don't have the same democratic values that we do.

So, as Congressman Johnson pointed out earlier, the World Natural Gas Conference is here in Washington next week. A number of us will participate in that conference. It is really a tribute to the natural gas industry in the United States that they have used the American innovative spirit and American technology to create a product which brings benefits economically not only here but overseas, and it really helps, in my opinion, put freedom in the driver's seat.

So this is a great Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Olson for leading it and the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for participating. I am proud to be a part of this group.