Fracturing Regulations are Effective in State Hands Act

Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2248, a bill that would clarify the States' sole authority to regulate the process of hydraulic fracturing at the State level as opposed to the Federal level.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Vitter, Sessions, Cornyn, Risch, Hoeven, and Lee as cosponsors.

The reason for this bill is the State jurisdiction of a process called hydraulic fracturing, which has taken place since 1949. In 1949, the first hydraulic fracturing well took place in Duncan, OK. It is interesting that there has not been one documented case, in over a million wells using this process--in 60 years--of groundwater contamination.

As a matter of fact, numerous studies, including reports by the Groundwater Protection Council, the EPA, and recently the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, have found no evidence of hydraulic fracturing posing a risk to water wells or groundwater. A lot of people believe--and I am among them--that the reason to take it over at the Federal level is to do away with hydraulic fracturing. It is interesting that, recently, with some of the shale deposits and discoveries that have been made in the United States, we have been able to get in there, using this process, and come up with huge reserves and start producing these reserves.

In every case, without exception--in fact, I will go so far as to say you cannot get one cubic foot of natural gas out of a type formation without using hydraulic fracturing. The process is and will continue to be a safe process. Despite the evidence, in President Obama's recent campaign rhetoric, this administration continues to wage an all-out war on domestic oil and gas development. During the State of the Union Message--it was interesting because, apparently, now because of the high price of gas at the pump, the President is feeling political pressure, so he is coming out and saying: No, I am not against all fossil fuels, even though he has been for 4 years. And he started talking about clean, plentiful, cheap natural gas. I agreed with that; that is what it is. However, at the same time, if he could have that rhetoric and be able to make the case that the Federal Government needs to take over the process of hydraulic fracturing to be under his control and he can stop that process, he can cut off almost all production altogether.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service--and this is one that came out this month--since 2007, ``about 96 percent of the [oil production] increase took place on nonfederal lands.''

A recent study also found that 93 percent of shale oil and gas wells are on private and State lands. The Department of Interior is in the process of issuing rules which will further discourage production on Federal lands and federally regulate disclosure of fracking fluids, well integrity, and waste water. According to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, these are rules which they hope will serve as a model for future regulation of State lands.

The Obama EPA alone is looking to regulate hydraulic fracturing through its offices of Water, Air, and Toxics.

What does this legislation do? It is simple. It makes clear that the States have the sole authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on any land within their borders. This would include Federal lands within the borders of a State.

It also requires hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands to comply with the State laws of which the Federal lands are located.

Activities related to hydraulic fracturing are already regulated at the Federal level under a variety of environmental statutes, including portions of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.

States better understand their unique geologies and interests. I happen to be from Oklahoma, which is an oil State, and it varies from State to State. Louisiana deposits are found at a different level than ours in Oklahoma. Recently, people think of all these deposits being located in the West. However, the Marcellus discoveries that have been made are actually in New York State and Pennsylvania, so their local regulations are much more applicable than it would be if you did it at the Federal level.

I invite cosponsors. Here we are in the United States with more recoverable reserves in oil, gas, and coal than any other country in the world. We can be completely self-sufficient from the Mid Eastern oil if we get politics out of the way and use our own resources. We are the only country in the world that doesn't develop its own resources. This is the answer to the problem--the answer to the price of gas at the pump. It is one more option. We need to get out of the way of this process called hydraulic fracturing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 2248, a bill that would clarify the States' sole authority to regulate the process of hydraulic fracturing at the State level as opposed to the Federal level.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Murkowski, Vitter, Sessions, Cornyn, Risch, Hoeven, and Lee as cosponsors.

The reason for this bill is the State jurisdiction of a process called hydraulic fracturing, which has taken place since 1949. In 1949, the first hydraulic fracturing well took place in Duncan, OK. It is interesting that there has not been one documented case, in over a million wells using this process--in 60 years--of groundwater contamination.

As a matter of fact, numerous studies, including reports by the Groundwater Protection Council, the EPA, and recently the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, have found no evidence of hydraulic fracturing posing a risk to water wells or groundwater. A lot of people believe--and I am among them--that the reason to take it over at the Federal level is to do away with hydraulic fracturing. It is interesting that, recently, with some of the shale deposits and discoveries that have been made in the United States, we have been able to get in there, using this process, and come up with huge reserves and start producing these reserves.

In every case, without exception--in fact, I will go so far as to say you cannot get one cubic foot of natural gas out of a type formation without using hydraulic fracturing. The process is and will continue to be a safe process. Despite the evidence, in President Obama's recent campaign rhetoric, this administration continues to wage an all-out war on domestic oil and gas development. During the State of the Union Message--it was interesting because, apparently, now because of the high price of gas at the pump, the President is feeling political pressure, so he is coming out and saying: No, I am not against all fossil fuels, even though he has been for 4 years. And he started talking about clean, plentiful, cheap natural gas. I agreed with that; that is what it is. However, at the same time, if he could have that rhetoric and be able to make the case that the Federal Government needs to take over the process of hydraulic fracturing to be under his control and he can stop that process, he can cut off almost all production altogether.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service--and this is one that came out this month--since 2007, ``about 96 percent of the [oil production] increase took place on nonfederal lands.''

A recent study also found that 93 percent of shale oil and gas wells are on private and State lands. The Department of Interior is in the process of issuing rules which will further discourage production on Federal lands and federally regulate disclosure of fracking fluids, well integrity, and waste water. According to Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, these are rules which they hope will serve as a model for future regulation of State lands.

The Obama EPA alone is looking to regulate hydraulic fracturing through its offices of Water, Air, and Toxics.

What does this legislation do? It is simple. It makes clear that the States have the sole authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing on any land within their borders. This would include Federal lands within the borders of a State.

It also requires hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands to comply with the State laws of which the Federal lands are located.

Activities related to hydraulic fracturing are already regulated at the Federal level under a variety of environmental statutes, including portions of the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.

States better understand their unique geologies and interests. I happen to be from Oklahoma, which is an oil State, and it varies from State to State. Louisiana deposits are found at a different level than ours in Oklahoma. Recently, people think of all these deposits being located in the West. However, the Marcellus discoveries that have been made are actually in New York State and Pennsylvania, so their local regulations are much more applicable than it would be if you did it at the Federal level.

I invite cosponsors. Here we are in the United States with more recoverable reserves in oil, gas, and coal than any other country in the world. We can be completely self-sufficient from the Mid Eastern oil if we get politics out of the way and use our own resources. We are the only country in the world that doesn't develop its own resources. This is the answer to the problem--the answer to the price of gas at the pump. It is one more option. We need to get out of the way of this process called hydraulic fracturing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Senior Executive Service Reform Act of 2012, a bill to strengthen the Federal Government's senior leadership corps.

In this time of fiscal constraint, agencies and Federal employees are being asked to do more with less, and they are rising to meet this challenge. Leading the way in efforts to cut costs without compromising agency missions are members of the Senior Executive Service, SES, who are responsible for driving management priorities and promoting efficiency within agencies and across the Government.

Each year, Presidential Rank Awards are given to outstanding Senior Executives in recognition of their innovation and management expertise that save taxpayers billions of dollars. This is no small feat in an era of shrinking budgets and limited resources. I am proud that such talented people have chosen to join the Federal Government, and believe that America has benefitted as a result of their commitment to public service.

Last year, I chaired a hearing entitled, ``Strengthening the Senior Executive Service: A Review of Challenges Facing the Government's Leadership Corps.'' Witnesses testified about shortcomings in Senior Executive Service candidate development, diversity, and training. Testimony also focused on disincentives for applying to the SES, including increased workload and responsibilities compared to General Schedule, GS, positions with little additional compensation and fewer workers' rights. This bill addresses many of the challenges my hearing brought to light.

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office concluded that Federal employees with professional degrees are paid 23 percent less than their counterparts in the private sector. The Senior Executive Service is made up of these highly-educated professionals who often find themselves not only making less than those in the private sector, but also other Federal workers. In 2004, Congress enacted reforms linking SES pay to Congressional pay, which has not kept pace with the GS. As a result, the GS pay scale overlaps substantially with the lower end of the SES. This means that a Senior Executive may be paid less than employees he or she supervises. This bill would mitigate the overlap--often referred to as pay compression--by having Senior Executive pay more closely pace the pay of those they supervise.

Performance-based pay is an integral part of the Senior Executive Service. The legislation would strengthen SES performance management and further address disincentives for joining the SES by including performance awards as base pay for the purpose of retirement calculations. Additionally, it would increase transparency in SES performance ratings by requiring an explanation for why a rating is lowered from an initial recommendation. Quotas in performance pay adjustments also would be prohibited.

Restoration of career leadership and career development are important components of this legislation. A Senior Executive Service Resource Office would be established to collect data on the SES and oversee candidate development, management, and training.

Finally, the bill would encourage diversity in the SES by requiring agencies to include ethnic minorities, women, and those with disabilities as part of the SES hiring process whenever practicable. This language closely mirrors the Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance Act, which I introduced with Congressman Danny Davis of Illinois in the 110 and 111 Congresses.

The time has come to reframe the discussion surrounding our Nation's civil servants. We must invest in our Government's senior leaders and recognize the critical role they play in making our agencies and the Federal Government more efficient and effective.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.