Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1635) to amend the loan counseling requirements under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4606) to provide that applications under the Natural Gas Act for the importation or exportation of small volumes of natural gas shall be granted without modification or delay.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, a bill I introduced with Congressman Guthrie.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and Congressman Guthrie for their leadership on this bill. I would also like to thank the Education and the Workforce Committee staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work to include the shared priorities of Members in this bill.

This bill shows that there are areas of bipartisan consensus in Congress.

Today, a college education continues to be a powerful force for economic and social mobility in our country. I know. Neither of my parents graduated from college. I worked my way first through community college, which opened the door to the university and then to law school.

I am pleased that Democrats and Republicans are working together to take a meaningful step toward addressing the student loan debt crisis, which is now shockingly close to consumer debt in this country.

This bill recognizes and addresses the clear need for enhanced financial counseling. More than 40 million Americans are struggling with student loan debt, and default rates are climbing.

At the same time, there is evidence that student loan debt is a drag on the broader economy. For many borrowers, student loan debt affects the ability to buy a home, to purchase a new car, or to afford childcare. Student loan borrowers may be unable to access capital to start a small business or they may put off saving for retirement.

That is why we need to help current and future students understand their rights and obligations as borrowers, and we need to help them forecast their obligations in the years after college so they can make informed decisions now for the years ahead.

One of the frustrations I have heard from former students in Oregon is that they didn't understand all of the jumble of terms in their loan agreement or all of the differences between Federal and private student loans. With this bill, students, whether they are sophomores or seniors, will have information about how much they have borrowed, what they are expected to borrow, how their loans will accrue interest, and what they can expect their monthly payment to be when they leave college. They will be better able to see their road to repayment.

Importantly, this bill provides annual counseling, so borrowers who don't graduate will still receive information about what to expect when they leave school and have to start repayment.

Borrowers will have more clarity about their monthly payments under two repayment plans: income-based repayment and the standard 10-year option. That is critical for students to see what those differences will be, and they will with this bill. Clarifying and streamlining this information will simplify the repayment process for borrowers and reduce default.

Borrowers will be reminded each year they don't have to borrow the full amount made available to them. They should consider grants, work study, and Federal loans before turning to private lenders.

Unlike current practice, borrowers will receive financial counseling before signing their master promissory notes, and they will be reminded that they can repay interest before it capitalizes.

For the first time, parent borrowers of student loans will be given virtually the same information about their loans that the students receive.

Additionally, this bill will extend counseling to Pell grant recipients so they understand the limits on eligibility for the grants and the circumstances under which they would be asked to repay their grants, helping students to avoid expensive surprises.

Finally, this bill does not interrupt the disbursement of financial aid, and it delivers enhanced student loan information in consumer- tested formats that check for students' understanding. It will make sure we provide personalized borrower information in a way that borrowers understand.

Mr. Chair, again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support, and I encourage all my colleagues to support the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for her remarks.

This bill we are considering today is an important step to protect students and borrowers, but it is not a substitute for an update to the Higher Education Act.

We still have more work to do to invest in our Nation's students, our future leaders. We especially need to do more to keep higher education within reach for low-income students and working families.

We need to strengthen the Pell Grant Program, which has served as a foundation of support and opportunity for many Americans and helped them afford college.

We need to do more to address State disinvestment and partner with States. State disinvestment in higher education has also led to a rise in college costs, and we need to do more to make sure student loan borrowers have access to affordable repayment plans.

The Democratic proposal to update the Higher Education Act, the Aim Higher Act, will do all of this and more.

I am glad we are considering this bipartisan proposal today instead of the PROSPER Act, which would actually make college less affordable and accessible by cutting student aid by billions of dollars.

The Aim Higher Act, on the other hand, invests in students and makes higher education more affordable through robust funding in financial aid programs. It also addresses the rising cost of college through the creation of a Federal-State partnership to reduce

the student debt burden on families. It is a thoughtful package that deserves to be considered on the House floor.

The legislation we are considering today, though not a comprehensive reauthorization, will protect students and families and make a real, positive difference for grant recipients and student loan borrowers.

Mr. Chair, I do urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to again thank Mr. Guthrie for cosponsoring this legislation with me, and thank the leadership, both Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott, for their support, and all of the staff. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support for this legislation.

Mr. Roe from Tennessee mentioned his story, and it is not unlike mine, from a middle-class family, went through 7 years of higher education on my own, working my way through. I ended up with a very modest amount of student debt.

As I say, that is not what I am hearing from families today in Oregon, and I know my colleagues are not hearing that from their constituents across the country.

I also want to point out how the student loan debt crisis is affecting the workforce issues that we all talk about and care about.

An example is that there are many people who wanted to go into primary care. They are going through medical school. They wanted to go into primary care. I just had a conversation with one last week. Too many medical students are choosing higher paying specialties, not because that is where their passion or interest is, but because their student loan debt is so high.

I just had a great conversation on Labor Day with some firefighters in the district I am honored to represent. I thanked them for working, keeping our communities safe. They are concerned about student debt, and they are very concerned about the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which, of course, is threatened under the PROSPER Act.

We need to come back to the table and talk about how we can preserve the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

Today, however, I urge all of my colleagues to take this important step forward on this bipartisan legislation, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act. I encourage broad support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, for her amendment. It improves the bill, and I support its acceptance.

Financing a college education can be a daunting process, especially for first-generation students. It can seem like there are things that everyone else knows but no one is telling them. If we are going to improve student counseling, we need to recognize this fact.

This amendment requires that as part of the annual counseling students receive, they be made aware, if their financial circumstances change, they can and should contact their financial aid office on campus. There they can seek someone with the professional background, judgment, and assistance to help them make changes to awards, or they may find out about other aid for which the student may be eligible.

Additionally, students may not know that while they are eligible for a certain amount of Federal aid, they are not required to take the full amount. Many debt-conscious students may prefer to fund a smaller portion of their education through loans but may not know that this is an option. This amendment clarifies that in cases where the student specifies they would like to receive less aid, that is an amount that is discussed in their counseling.

Again, I support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his amendment. It improves the bill, and I support its acceptance.

Students may be eligible for many different forms of financial aid, and in our effort to improve financial counseling, we should make sure that appropriate disclosures and information are being shared with the borrowers based on the type of aid they are receiving.

This amendment addresses Parent PLUS loans, loans that parents or guardians can take out to pay for the education of a dependent student. Parent PLUS loans have a higher interest rate than direct loans, and because they can cover unmet need up to the cost of attendance, the loan balance can grow rather quickly. As such, parents should be counseled that there may be other forms of aid that their student can take advantage of to help reduce the size of the Parent PLUS loan that is needed. A robust counseling program will also inform parents, as the gentleman stated, that there is no penalty to prepaying either the interest or the principal on these loans.

Again, Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment because it improves the underlying legislation, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia for his amendment. It improves the underlying bill, and I support its acceptance.

I rise in support of the amendment to clarify that institutions have the ability to provide additional financial counseling beyond the requirements established in the underlying bill while making sure that the additional counseling will in no way preclude students from receiving their aid on time.

Although the underlying bill does not prohibit institutions from providing this counseling, this amendment makes explicit the institution's ability to provide that additional support.

Institutions know their students and the individual capacity of those students, and it is important to provide this flexibility so schools can provide more counseling as needed.

Again, I support the gentleman's amendment, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am supportive of this amendment because it simply allows institutions to encourage in-person counseling, but I would be remiss if I did not state that this provision is not necessary. The underlying bill already permits institutions to provide either in-person counseling or use the consumer-tested online tool that would be created by the Department of Education.

H.R. 1635, the underlying bill, was written intentionally in this way to provide flexibility to institutions. Some institutions will be able to provide high quality in-person counseling, but underresourced institutions may find it difficult to do so.

This is why the bill contains provisions to have the Department of Education create a standardized tool to ensure at least a base level of quality within and across institutions. Because the success of in- person counseling is informed not only by the content but also by the individual providing the counseling, this online tool will make sure that students receive the same caliber of counseling regardless of where the counseling is provided or who provides the counseling.

To confirm effectiveness, the tool will be tested by students, financial aid advisers, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders.

Again, in-person counseling would be fine and best for some students when the institution can provide it, but having that flexibility is important as well.

Mr. Chair, I do urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. As someone with a consumer protection background, I thank her for her amendment.

It has already been stated during the debate that there is close to $1.5 trillion in outstanding student loan debt. It should be no surprise that there are companies and individuals poised to make money on the backs of student borrowers through fraudulent means.

In recent years, there has been an explosion of third-party debt relief scams targeting student loan borrowers. These businesses claim that, for a fee, they can cut through the red tape for borrowers and get their student loan house in order. They misrepresent services, make promises they can't keep, and charge for activities that cost nothing.

State and Federal consumer protection groups have already started cracking down on these groups. State attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have either sounded the alarm or conducted enforcement actions targeting these fraudulent companies.

We should use this opportunity in this bill when conducting loan counseling to remind students that their loan servicer is paid through the Department of Education to provide assistance with these services free of charge. They should be wary of any third-party company attempting to facilitate repayment of their Federal student loans.

It is a commonsense addition to the bill, and I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment.

Again, I support this amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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 have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1635.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak today in support of H.R. 1635, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act, which I introduced earlier this Congress with my friend, Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon.

As the school year begins, high school seniors across the country are trying to figure out their next steps. Many of these students will ultimately decide to attend a traditional 4-year university or community college program.

Parents and students know too well that the cost of college tuition has climbed dramatically over the last decade. I know that many families are worried about how to afford a college education. As college tuition has risen, student loan debt has surged to more than $1.4 trillion, surpassing both national auto loan debt and credit card debt.

This should be a concern to everyone, not only to those with loan debt to their names. Many borrowers are entering the workforce with overwhelming debt that will play a role not only in their own lives, but in the health of the American economy as a whole.

Student loans can, of course, play a positive role in helping students attend college when they borrow mindfully and responsibly. Unfortunately, many students enter into binding loan contracts with their respective universities without fully appreciating the gravity of the financial decision they are making and the consequences it can have on their futures.

A recent survey of current students and new graduates with a high level of debt found that more than 40 percent had no recollection of having received financial counseling, even though current law requires that students receive entrance counseling before receiving their first loan.

It is vitally important for students to be equipped with all the facts of their loan agreement so they can finance their postsecondary education responsibly and with eyes wide open. The Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act is designed to improve financial aid counseling for students receiving a Pell grant or a Federal loan. H.R. 1635 increases the timing, frequency, and content of mandatory student loan counseling.

Under current law, borrowers are required to receive counseling only when they arrive on campus and upon graduation, which makes it easy for borrowers to lose sight of just how much debt they are acquiring each year and the responsibility they bear to pay it back. H.R. 1635 requires financial counseling for students and parents who participate in Federal loan programs before they sign the dotted line on their loans. After that, students would participate in annual counseling so they can continue to understand their financial obligations and how new loans would affect their payments later on.

The importance of annually providing information was dramatically reinforced in a recent year when Indiana University reported they were able to reduce undergraduate Stafford loan disbursements by 11 percent--11 percent--or $31 million, by telling students annually what their monthly payment would be after graduation before the students took out loans for the next school year. This was more than a fivefold decrease in outlays compared to public schools nationally.

In addition to making the counseling an annual event, this bill would require the counseling to include recommendations to students to pursue all available grant, work study, and scholarship assistance prior to taking out loans, as well as provide them with information about the differences between Federal and private loans in bankruptcy. Exit counseling would include information about the borrower's remaining loan balance as well as what to anticipate throughout repayment of the loan.

The legislation would also require borrowers to affirmatively provide consent each year before receiving additional Federal loans instead of automatically receiving the full offered amount every year.

The bill also equips low-income students with enhanced information about the terms and conditions of the Pell Grant Program by providing annual financial counseling to all grant recipients. The counseling will include information about the expenses the grant

covers, the level of assistance the students are able to receive, and ways to seek additional assistance in the case of changing financial circumstances. Under current law, Pell grant recipients are not required to receive any counseling.

This bipartisan legislation will help America's students and families borrow responsibly and understand their aid package better so that new graduates have the very best chance of success upon graduation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the chairwoman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my good friend from the eastern part of the great State of Tennessee and the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is important. It is a first step, but it is a big step and an important step as we look at what is going on in the cost of our higher education.

Mr. Chairman, I know that, in our beloved Commonwealth, our Governor and our legislators are trying to deal with the demands on the budget, and they are working hard on it. But in the meantime, the costs to go to school in our Commonwealth and across the country have increased. Students have to rely more on Federal subsidized loans and Pell grants.

We hear stories, like the one that Dr. Roe talked about, of people leaving professional school with a six-figure debt. But we hear about an awful lot of people who have $6,000, $7,000, and $10,000 worth of debt. They have to drop out, and they have no degree, and they have a hard time paying it back.

This bill lays out, through the course of their time in school, for each year, what their payments will be, and it walks them through what they really need. Do they need to take out the full loan?

Back when colleges weren't that expensive, I remember people saying: Take out the full loan; that is the cheapest money you will ever have. Well, it becomes the most expensive money you have ever had over time, as interest rates build up and other things move forward.

This bill is to make sure students are aware. It is something we agree on. We do it bipartisan. I expect a big bipartisan vote, and we do work together. There are issues that we have differences of opinion on, and there are issues that we have similar opinions on.

When I was home in my State in August, people would say: Can't you find things to work together on? And we do, as a matter of fact, on most of the things we do. It is just not what tends to get out into the news.

So I appreciate the hard work of my friend from Oregon, and I appreciate the hard work of our committee.

Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, but I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will provide borrowers with critical information on aggregate loan limits, which is particularly important for transfer students, as my friend just explained. This disclosure will encourage borrowers to thoughtfully plan their college expenses and will help students make informed decisions when transferring schools.

I thank my colleague for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help students see an estimated monthly student loan payment broken down by all income-driven repayment plans for which the student is eligible.

I support this amendment because students need to see the full range of possibilities available to them so they can make informed choices about what they borrow and how they will repay the funds.

I thank my colleague for offering the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.

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

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, but I do not intend to oppose it.

Madam Chair, this proposal will make sure students are warned about third-party debt relief companies that prey on borrowers.

They frequently provide inaccurate or misleading information and often charge excessive fees for services that can be received without cost through federally contracted student loan servicers. As my friend said, Federal student loan servicers employ dedicated professionals equipped to help borrowers navigate the loan repayment process and provide the assistance they need free of charge.

This amendment will ensure borrowers are armed with the information they need to better protect their finances and help make wise decisions as they begin to repay their Federal student loans.

I thank my friend from Washington for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. We all support veterans.

Under this bill, every veteran receives the same enhanced counseling provided to all borrowers. Looking at the study and before we determine the right elements of a new study to ensure we are providing the best service, we should pause and, I suggest, work with our Veterans' Affairs Committee to make sure we address the totality of the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the underlying bill's support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and support the final bill, and 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.