BREATHE Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2728.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration is once again attempting to block new energy production, keeping energy prices high and hurting middle class families. The Department of the Interior is proposing new regulations on the practice of hydraulic fracturing on Federal and tribal lands. These regulations, once implemented next year, will in all likelihood add new layers of red tape and lower energy production even further on Federal land.

For over 2 years, the Natural Resources Committee has conducted extensive oversight of the Obama administration's proposed regulations. We have held multiple hearings across the country and have heard from energy experts, tribal leaders, and State officials who have all had the same message: these are bad regulations that potentially destroy jobs and stifle American energy production.

According to one study, these new Federal regulations would cost nearly $350 million annually. As a consequence, the 1.7 million jobs that are currently supported by shale oil and natural gas production--a number, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that is expected to increase to 2.5 million by 2015--these jobs would be put in jeopardy. Even worse, these proposed regulations duplicate efforts already being carried out by States across the country.

Hydraulic fracturing has been safely and effectively regulated by States for decades. So the Obama administration's proposed regulations are unnecessary, they are redundant, and they simply waste precious time and money duplicating what is already being done successfully.

That is why two of our colleagues from Texas, Mr. Flores and Mr. Cuellar, introduced the bipartisan H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, before us today. This bill prohibits the Interior Department from enforcing duplicative hydraulic fracturing regulations in any State that already has regulations or will adopt regulations in the future and recognizes

States' authority to regulate this type of activity.

The bill acknowledges that States are doing a good job and an effective job regulating this activity. And ironically, Mr. Chairman, officials from the Obama administration, itself, have admitted that there has not been one known case of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The reason I mention this, Mr. Chairman, is because groundwater contamination is the argument most frequently used against this process.

The bill also recognizes that States are able to carefully craft regulations to meet the unique geological and hydrologic needs of their States. A one-size-fits-all regulatory structure, like this administration is trying to impose, will not work and is certainly not the answer.

I want to be very clear: this bill does not prevent the Federal Government from implementing baseline standards in States where none exist. This bill simply prevents the Federal Government from wasting time, money, and resources by imposing duplicative red tape on a process that is widely regarded as being properly regulated by the States.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the author of this legislation, who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee if he could tell me who did that study.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for him to tell me who did that study.

I thank the gentleman for responding.

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the sponsor of the legislation.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), another member of the Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a State that is booming because of this activity.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds as I see he is on a roll.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), another member from an energy-producing State.

Mr. Chairman, let me inquire of my friend from New Jersey if he is prepared to close. We had some further requests for time, but I don't see them, and sometimes they don't get their time when they don't come down here.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time the gentleman from New Jersey has left if he is going to yield back.

I would advise the gentleman to reserve his time because one of our speakers came, which we didn't think was going to happen. So I would advise the gentleman to reserve his time so that he has time to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader, who is from a State that would like to do more offshore even though we are talking about onshore.

This is Groundhog Day, Mr. Chairman. I would say to my friend, now I have no more speakers whom I can foresee at all, so I am prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't repeat his last statement.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

The underlying bill, as has been mentioned several times, is about American jobs and American energy security.

Just last week, the International Energy Agency released its World Energy Outlook. In that report, they predicted that the U.S. would surpass Saudi Arabia and become the top oil producer in the world in only 2 more years. Now, this is great news for our economy, it is great news for American workers, it is great news for potential energy prices, and, Mr. Chairman, it is great news for our national security.

This recent boom in energy production would not be possible without the new technological advances of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Let me give you an example. In

the year 2000, shale gas, which is the prime area that you go after with hydraulic fracturing, provided just 1 percent of our Nation's natural gas supplies. Today, it is 25 percent. That number will only continue to grow.

While the White House is quick to take credit for this uptick in energy production, the truth is this increase is happening in spite of this administration's policies and not because of them. Because what has been well documented, all of the increase in energy production is happening on State and private lands, not on Federal lands. Currently, 93 percent of shale oil wells are located on private and State lands and only 7 percent on Federal lands. That simply means that there is a great potential on Federal lands that are currently being ignored because of the regulatory hoops.

I suggest that if the Department of the Interior goes through with their regulations on fracking that would be duplicative of those States, it would only keep that 7 percent where it is rather than increasing. It seems to me, from a standpoint of policy for our country, it is best to be as energy secure as we can possibly be because that means that we are secure from a national security standpoint.

Finally, and certainly not least, that means that American jobs, good-paying American jobs, are creating the energy for the American consumer. That is what this bill is all about.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before the House today is designed to eliminate duplicative regulations and allow for increased energy production. That is the intent of the legislation. Yet here we are with an amendment that creates a loophole in the bill to allow the government to impose back-door regulations to restrict and block American energy production, which, of course, we know would result in lost job opportunities.

H.R. 2728 aims to give the States primacy in regulating hydraulic fracturing operations within their borders. I want to mention that again. This bill aims to give the States primacy in regulating hydraulic fracturing within their borders. So if a State regulatory body wants to implement emissions regulations, which this amendment addresses, in conjunction with their other rules and regulations, they are free to implement their own regulations beyond what is already required. Nothing in this bill prevents any State from putting emissions at the end of the regulations in place.

Further, the Secretary has the authority to manage methane emissions for production on Federal lands and, working collaboratively, we have seen significant reductions in the last 2 years because of that effort. However, attempting to cloak these regulations as fracturing regulations through a loophole that will cost American jobs and inhibit energy production in my mind is simply not the way to go.

So this amendment aims to impose controversial and political regulations into a bill that is simply about American energy production, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Let me make just one other point. I will probably repeat this again. There is nothing in this bill that prevents a State from regulating emissions within their State, which, of course, would take effect and what the gentleman is trying to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My good friend, the author of this amendment, opened his second remarks by saying, This legislation makes it impossible to regulate-- fill in the blanks. No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case.

This bill says that primacy of regulation of hydraulic fracturing, which has been going on for some 60 years, if a State has it in place, that State's laws shall be the ones that we should follow. Those States that don't have it, then, of course, this legislation would allow the Department of the Interior's regulations to be there until they changed their regulations.

I want to make a point. This amendment is about the emissions from the process of hydraulic fracturing. Nothing in this bill, as I said before, prevents a State from doing what they can do. After all, keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, those States that have hydraulic fracturing rules maybe in all likelihood have some regulations dealing with the emissions that come from that. Nothing in this bill prevents that from happening.

What the amendment does do, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is a back-door way to regulate hydraulic fracturing when, as I said just a moment ago, it has been done successfully for over 60 years in the States.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment goes right to the heart of what those who are opposed to this process are concerned with by disclosing the chemicals which is embodied in this amendment. This amendment does exactly what seems to be the opposition on the other side. I think it is a good amendment, and we are prepared to accept it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think this amendment will probably no doubt prove what we have been saying, that producing American energy will produce American jobs.

I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and I am willing to accept that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, a similar amendment like this has been offered multiple times in our committee markups and they have always failed on a bipartisan vote, and similar amendments like this have also failed on the floor. This is nothing more than an effort to make production on Federal lands more challenging and less valuable.

The vast majority of the natural gas that is produced in the United States stays in North America, but that that is exported, 98 percent goes to Canada and Mexico. We ought to keep those customers.

Additionally, since 2009, the U.S. has been the largest producer of natural gas in the world, which, I guess, goes to my friend from Oregon's argument. But energy is going to be globally decided in the marketplace. Many companies operating in United States are international companies with businesses all over the world. Undercutting the basic premise of the free market and restricting the use of the resource always has real economic consequences in the future.

Now, there is one other point about this amendment, too. The amendment makes it unclear what is considered natural gas. The question arises, are products derived from natural gas also only to be sold in the United States because they are made from natural gas? It is unclear the way the amendment is drafted. But if that were to be the case, Mr. Chairman, there would be vast spin-off industries that would be affected, namely, the plastic industries.

So I tend to be one that believes that the American consumer, in fact, consumers everywhere, are benefited if we have free trade in the world. That should apply to everything, including a big resource that we are becoming a leader in, and this amendment, I think, is contrary to that approach.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I would just simply say and correct my good friend from Oregon, I did not say that because natural gas would enter the international market it would become less available. I simply said that it would become part of the global market.

I dare say that, when oil was discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania, nobody thought that that oil would become part of the world market, but it has. But unfortunately, because we in the United States have not utilized our resources like we should with crude oil and not competed as we should with past decisions, there was a cartel that was formed internationally called OPEC. They control the oil market.

The best way to beat cartels is to outsupply them. If we are going to be a leader in natural gas in the world, we ought to take advantage of that and lead when we can, but recognize that a free market gives the best services to people and recipients of that, not only in the United States, but in the world.

With that, I urge rejection of the DeFazio amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for her amendment and for yielding to me for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Texas, the text of the gentlelady's amendment requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an annual review of all State hydraulic fracturing activity. My concern is that this provision appears to be very broad.

I would be delighted to work with the gentlelady, as this bill works its way through the legislative process, to consider some additional conditions to ensure that the broad review is targeted at those areas subject to the jurisdiction of the committee and results in a report to Congress that is meaningful and productive.

To that end, would the gentlelady be willing to work with me to clarify that her amendment is intended to apply to State permitting of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands?

With the clarification that the gentlelady will work with me, that this is subject to Federal lands, with the clarification that the review and report required of the Secretary should be limited to State permitting of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, I am willing to accept the gentlelady's amendment. I thank her for her work on that.

I yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise in opposition to this bill. Apparently, Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority believes that the greatest threat that Americans face from hydraulic fracturing today is too many regulations. They don't seem to be concerned about the danger posed to our drinking water supplies or the impacts of industrialization on our rural landscapes or the increased risk of earthquakes from wastewater injection or the emissions of methane or other noxious chemicals into the air or the identity of the mystery chemicals being pumped underground nor the disposal of waste safely. Americans are concerned about these things, and so should we be.

The House Democrats are trying to do something about that. My colleagues and I have introduced an entire series of bills designed to address the very real impacts that fracking has on American communities: the BREATHE Act, by Mr. Polis; the SHARED Act, by Ms. Schakowsky; the CLEANER Act, by Mr. Cartwright; the FRESHER Act, also by Mr. Cartwright; and the FRAC Act, by Ms. DeGette. These are attempts to protect the air, the water, the land, and ensure that people know what is being injected into the ground under their homes. The Republicans will not bring any of these bills to the floor, and I doubt they will because, according to the Republicans, the real threat is too many regulations.

This is preposterous, Mr. Chairman. Tell the people who want to know what chemicals are being injected under their homes that the real danger is that the Federal Government wants them to know. Tell the people who are seeing elevated levels of methane in their drinking water that the real danger is that the Federal Government wants to ensure that the wells are built better so they will not leak methane. Mr. Chairman, tell the people living next to the huge open pits of wastewater that the real danger is the Federal Government wants to make sure that States have minimum standards.

Mr. Chairman, I am astonished that the sponsors of this bill and the leadership would even bring the bill to the floor. It will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to address any of the concerns that families have legitimately about the impacts of fracking in their communities. Worse than that, the bill will strip existing protections in place across the entire Nation.

It would eliminate the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service to regulate oil and gas operations on their own lands. It would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from enforcing wildlife protection regulations under the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act--oh, yes, I know my colleagues will say, That is not true; read the bill--and any number of other laws everywhere across the country.

Now I would like to think that these are unintended consequences of a poorly drafted bill, but given past attacks on the Endangered Species Act and such, I think there is reason to suspect that this is an intended consequence.

They will say, This is about states' rights, but Democrats are actually focused on the American people's rights: their rights to clean air; their rights to clean water; to be free of hazardous waste; to know what is happening under their very feet.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and to bring up legislation that will really deal with the health and safety of Americans across the country.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the senior ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and someone who is as expert as anyone in this Chamber on oil and gas industry and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

It is traditional and appropriate in this country that matters dealing with health and safety, clean water, and clean air are handled at the interstate level, at the Federal level. This legislation would remove all sorts of regulations. Best practices that are designed to minimize the environmental impact

of oil and gas legislation for Bureau of Land Management practices would be gone.

It gets rid of requirements to protect sacred sites and historic properties. It would throw out the regulation that prevents occupancy within a quarter of a mile of designated fisheries. It would remove the regulation that you can't do any of these activities in the floodplain of the Yellowstone River, and on and on.

My colleague a moment ago talked about the booming industry in chemicals because of fracking. Yes, that brings up an interesting point about the difference in State regulations. We would hope that anybody in the drilling area would have access to the chemicals that are being injected into these wells under their very feet, under their homes.

But if you look at what some States allow now, they allow chemicals that are confidential, proprietary, undisclosed to be used, and they number in the dozens. Let's see. We have got here oxyalkylated phenol resins; we have terpenes and terpenoids; we have quaternary amines. These are all items that are held confidentially, proprietarily; and under this legislation that we are considering, a State could make sure that they are not disclosed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues say that there have been no cases of contamination from the fracking, itself. What about leakage from poorly constructed wells? What about leakage from unlined pits? Are they prepared to claim that there has never been water contamination because of this? That is what the Bureau of Land Management regulations and rules get at--well construction, wastewater management, the threats to drinking water in neighboring communities. This legislation would gut-- it would remove--any possibility of such rules.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I say to the gentleman from Washington that we are in the same situation. I was expecting a few other speakers. In not seeing them, I am prepared to close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, here is a partial list of the Federal laws, rules, and regulations that could not be enforced were this bill to become law:

The Endangered Species Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the oil and gas operations in National Park Service units; the oil and gas operations in National Wildlife Refuges; the casing and cementing regulations, such as should have been applied in the Deepwater Horizon case; the wastewater management regulations; the plugging and abandonment regulations, in other words, when pits or wells are abandoned; the best management practices for oil and gas drilling on public lands; the timing limits of when operations could be conducted with the least disruption to wildlife; the protections for sacred sites, historic trails, fisheries, and wetlands; and much more.

It has been sold as a states' rights bill that would only block the Bureau of Land Management's fracking rules, but it would strip agencies on Federal lands of the authority to enforce almost every regulation on the books because any State that has any regulation that affects these activities means that none of these regulations could apply, that they would all be superseded by the State regulations. That is what the bill says.

As for whether there is any damage done, I would point my friends to this

picture. Maybe you have a little trouble seeing it, but, essentially, it shows burning tap water. No, this is not a staged picture. This happened in a residence. This is methane flaming because the water is full of methane.

Now, I know my colleagues will say, Oh, but that is not because of fracking. There must be some other reason. There must be.

They haven't found it. They have blamed it on all sorts of other things, but it happens where the fracking is occurring.

So this is a case in which the practice has gotten ahead of the science, in which the practice has gotten ahead of our regulations, in which it has gotten ahead of our understanding; and the idea to reduce regulations and understanding so that we could do it faster is preposterous. This is not the way you protect public health. This is not the way you protect public safety. It is not the way you stimulate the economy. It is false economy to proceed in disregard for the protection of the environment.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2728.

I yield to the gentleman for a question.

I appreciate the advice. It is possible that some of my speakers will arrive. I urge that we vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Then I will take just a moment.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, when I showed the picture of the burning tap water, I saw expressions of incredulity from the other side of the aisle. Surely that can't be true; or if it is true, surely it is not because of fracking.

A Duke University study found that methane contamination was in 115 of 141 shallow residential drinking wells that they studied, six times higher than wells greater than a mile from the fracking operations. Now, it is hard to tell when you are deep in the ground where that methane is leaking and what other chemicals, undisclosed chemicals, are leaking with that methane.

There is something here that should be regulated, and this legislation would prevent such regulations. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I rise in support of the amendment that I am introducing, along with Mr. Peters and Mr. Polis, to allow the Secretary of the Interior to regulate methane.

Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas emitted in the United States, and the oil and gas industry is responsible for about 30 percent of all methane emissions into the atmosphere.

Methane is a super pollutant more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere. Now we know that methane can and sometimes does leak from fracked wells. That is what we see here with the ignited tap water. This so-called fugitive methane also contributes to air pollution as tropospheric ozone, or smog, which threatens public health by triggering asthma attacks and aggravating the conditions of people with bronchitis and emphysema.

In fact, methane leaks have contributed to the Upper Green River basin in Wyoming having some of the worst air quality in the country, at times rivaling the worst air quality days in Los Angeles.

Although discussed as a cleaner burning and more climate friendly energy source, natural gas, which is mostly methane, leaks at every stage of production, not just into the groundwater, and hence into drinking water wells. It does leak, and it does affect the Earth's climate. It is true that burning methane releases less carbon dioxide greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than does burning an equivalent amount of coal, but the methane itself is a greenhouse gas. Fugitive methane emissions in excess of only a few percent remove the relative advantages of natural gas compared to other fossil energy sources.

Aside from issues of climate and health, leaked methane represents lost royalties for the Federal Government, lost revenue for oil and gas companies, and I know that supporting greater profits for Big Oil is something my colleagues should be eager to support.

Our amendment will help prevent the wasteful leakage of natural gas, will limit avoidable methane emissions, and will protect air quality and public health. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Holt-Peters-Polis amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the whole point of the underlying bill is to make it impossible for the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, the Secretary of the Interior to impose regulations. It says if the State has any regulations, then the Federal regulations don't count.

All this amendment would do is say on the important issue of what is called fugitive methane, leaked methane, methane that gets into the atmosphere by whatever means because of the drilling and fracking, should be limited. And it should be limited for several reasons. It is a potent greenhouse gas, and it is lost revenue. So I would think that everyone would be eager to make sure that none of this fugitive methane gets into the atmosphere or into the drinking water.

We know methane can and sometimes does leak from fracked wells. We should want the Secretary to be able to regulate that, because under the underlying bill, the Secretary could not.

This amendment is necessary, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose this amendment because by itself it does not change anything, but it does underscore the problems with the bill itself. So I would like to speak on that for a moment.

I don't think there is anything wrong with making Interior a one-stop shopping place for State drilling regulations, although I don't know if there are any States that want to keep their regulations secret. So I don't know if that provision actually has any real impact.

Let me read a provision of the bill that this amendment strikes so that everyone understands what the amendment is trying to do. Subsection (b) of the bill says Interior shall defer to all State regulations for all activities related to any component of the hydraulic fracturing process. It then goes on to say ``regardless of whether those rules are duplicative, more or less restrictive, shall have different requirements, or do not feet Federal guidances.''

Apparently the majority, as well as the author of this amendment, recognize that the last sentence was a little excessive and now this amendment proposes to strike that. But it doesn't make any difference because in subsection (a), the bill reads that Interior cannot enforce any of its regulations or guidance for any component of the hydraulic fracturing process.

Subsection (a) strips Interior of their authority to enforce. This certainly has the same effect as the language in subsection (b) directing them to defer with respect to any regulations or requirements.

Even after this amendment is adopted--and we are prepared to accept it--the language in the bill will still require that Interior defer to the States, regardless of whether State rules are less restrictive or adequate or are inadequate or if they don't meet Federal guidelines. That is the problem with the bill. The bill remains the same.

This amendment is really superfluous. I will not oppose the amendment, but it does underscore the fundamental problem with the legislation that we are considering here today. It strips Interior of any authority to protect public health, public safety from drilling and fracking operations on public lands.

Although I will also accept the amendment, I will continue to oppose the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, now here, a group has done an assessment of the various State regulatory regimes, and as you can see, they vary tremendously. They think that the best is Maryland. There are others gathered toward the top, the middle, and then way down here at the bottom, you have Virginia.

Some States require comprehensive pressure testing of the casing. That is essential, particularly if you are going through the water table to get to the gas. If you get the leaks, then you destroy the water table. Some States don't require that.

Some States require that you contain the fluids that come back up, the waste products laden with toxic materials not only from the fluids but from the ground itself. Other States allow it to be in open pits.

Some States require disclosure of the chemicals that are used. Now how can you say there has been no contamination when there are contaminated wells in many places across the U.S.? Some of it has to do with baseline contamination with arsenic or other things, but if you don't know what they are sticking into the ground near your well or water table, you can't track what it is that was a baseline before and/ or what is pollution that has resulted. We don't know that. So why not require disclosure of the chemicals?

We are having a gold rush right now for fracking. It is not exactly like this is going to have an impact if we put in place a reasonable floor of Federal regulations. One Macondo, just one Macondo in this industry, one well that blows out in a large aquifer or some other disaster, and this whole thing is going to come grinding to a halt, and then you are going to see a strong push-back for strong regulations.

Quite frankly, I don't think that the regulations being proposed by this administration are stringent enough for a floor. They are probably above maybe some of these people on the bottom, but they are way below some of the best-performing States here.

Why should it be different State to State to State? What is it? Do we want to protect the above ground resources and not have open pits? Well, under this bill, if you have an open pit, it is on a flyway, migratory birds land there and die quickly, the Federal Government can't do anything about it. If that State allows open pits, we can't do anything about that. That is up to that State, and that is a fact. A number of States allow open pits.

We should have a regulatory regime where the Federal Government, on its lands, which belong to all the people of the United States, sets a reasonable floor for regulations. If a State like Maryland wants to go above good, solid regulations, well, then, good. But if someone else is a bad actor, and they want to drag it down, and they want to have open pits, they don't want to test the casing, they don't want to do other things that are absolutely essential to protect resources, then they can do that on Federal lands?

It is bad enough that they are allowing people to do it on private lands and do it on their State lands. But these are Federal lands. We are going to require and should require a higher bar to protect the public, to protect the environment, to protect these precious resources and do this responsibly.

I thank the gentleman for the question.

It was done by an advocacy group called Resources for the Future. It is kind of like your study that says it will cost $350 million, which was done by industry. It is an advocacy group. You have an industry advocacy group. We have an environmental advocacy group.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I think will help deliver on some of the promises being made here today. This would say that natural gas produced on Federal lands, on Federal lands only, would not be allowed to be exported from the United States.

Now, the principal argument we are hearing on the Republican side is that, by adopting their standard, which they say is the states' rights standards--I have already raised concerns about that on fracking--that it will encourage yet more development on Federal lands, increase our domestic energy supply, and free us from the OPEC cartel. Okay. But that won't work if we produce energy on Federal lands and then we export it to other countries like China or Japan or elsewhere.

The Energy Information Administration has done a study. They say there will be a tipping point in the export of liquefied natural gas where we will create a world market; we will be subject to the world price. That means that there would be a dramatic increase in gas prices here in the United States both for residential, factory use, and as an input for manufacturing fertilizer or other sorts of manufacturing.

So, suddenly, we would see an advantage which we have only very, very recently developed. We have manufacturing companies bringing production back to the U.S. because of our plentiful natural gas and saying it is to our advantage, our energy is cheaper here, our feed stocks are cheaper here. This is a tremendous advantage for us, and they are producing here and exporting finished goods.

If we begin to export in great volume the raw material, the feed stock, the natural gas through a liquefied process, then suddenly it will be we are in the international market. It means a dramatic run-up in natural gas prices. We lose our competitive advantage for domestic manufacturing, and we are back where we are with oil, despite the idea that if we produce more oil we will somehow become free of OPEC or other countries around the world.

The fact is that oil is traded as an international commodity, and no matter how much we produce here, it is going to be priced internationally at the highest price being paid in the international market. That is not so today for natural gas. But if we export enough of it and create enough capacity to export it, that will become the case.

So this would have no impact on gas produced on State lands, Indian lands, private lands. It just simply says that that approximately 15 percent of the natural gas being produced on Federal lands could not be exported, must be used domestically to keep prices down here at home to advantage manufacturers here at home.

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

To the gentleman's point, it is absolutely clear. It says ``gas.'' It does not say products derived from gas, fertilizer, or manufactured plastic or anything else. It just says the gas must be sold here in the United States.

He admits and says that it will make it less valuable. That means he is looking at increasing the price of natural gas here to accommodate exports overseas to put us in a world market. Then we are, yet again, screwed, just like we

have been with oil for years. We are back to the point where we are competing in an international market. We lose international competitiveness. We lose more manufacturing.

This is pretty transparent here. I mean, the industry is pressuring, I am sure, on their side of the aisle, saying, Oh, my God, don't do that. Don't say that that 15 percent of the gas produced on Federal lands, belonging to the taxpayers of United States, has to be used here to help keep down our prices for our homes, for our manufacturing, to give us a competitive world advantage. Let's do it like all our other free trade, which is bankrupting the country and exported millions of manufacturing jobs over the last few years.

He talked about it again. Globally decided free market. He used those words. If we go to a globally decided free market in the export of natural gas, we lose the advantage, and their basic premise that this will lower prices for Americans is stood on its head.

If you don't adopt this amendment, if you vote against it, you are voting to increase the price of natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration, for all consumers and manufacturers and the downstream products from those in the United States of America. So, if you really want to lower the price to consumers, vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will put the House on record in support of the shale energy boom, more American jobs, and lower energy prices, all of which are a direct result of hydraulic fracturing technology.

For the average American family last year, the shale energy boom meant $1,200 per family in lower energy bills. During our slow economic recovery, it has been the lone bright spot responsible for creating the most new jobs, both in energy and in manufacturing.

States have been effectively regulating fracturing on Federal, State, and private lands for over 50 years, and the States oppose the Federal Government trying to overrule their expertise. There is no demonstrated need for the Federal Government to waste taxpayer money by duplicating and complicating State efforts. The only reason for the Federal Government to get involved is to placate those who oppose the shale energy revolution and the jobs boom that has come from it. I hear the arguments:

First, they will say that States might have insufficient regulations. The facts are that all States that produce oil and gas have comprehensive rules and regulations to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is done safely. Moreover, there are many Federal laws that will continue to apply to energy development, and this bill will not change those.

Second, they argue that the Federal Government should be able to apply any rules and regulations it wants on Federal land. Well, for instance, States already effectively manage the wildlife and the water on Federal lands. Yet the environmental concern surrounding fracturing is water protection, and water protection authorities have always been the purview of the States.

Third, the proponents of Federal regulation argue that the administration will not expand the Department of the Interior rule to State and to private lands. Instead of embracing the booming shale energy production, this administration has directed over 10 Federal agencies to look for ways to override State rules in this regard.

Energy is a key economic input to a more prosperous future for all Americans. H.R. 2728 stops the Federal Government from more Federal regulation encroachment on State water authorities and potential infringement on State and private lands.

I thank Chairman Hastings for his assistance in moving this legislation through his committee and the bill's co-lead, Mr. Cuellar.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2728 and support the American manufacturing renaissance, lower energy costs, and American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in my good friend from Texas' comments, especially in light of the fact that there are a significant number of jobs in his district and in

Texas that are powered by natural gas that comes from the shale energy revolution.

My friend from Texas undoubtedly knows that the Federal Government takes 10 times as long to issue a permit as does the State of Texas for energy activities, and I wouldn't want to have the Federal Government add another layer of complexity to that.

We are not plowing new ground with my bill. The Federal Government already defers to the States on the management of wildlife and water on Federal lands.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple amendment today that makes technical and clarifying corrections to H.R. 2728. My amendment also calls on State regulators to provide their hydraulic fracturing and chemical disclosure requirement regulations to BLM for public disclosure.

States have the expertise in carefully crafting hydraulic fracturing regulations that meet the unique geologic and hydrologic needs of their States. This bottom-up regulatory relationship between the States and the Federal Government is one of the reasons that we are able to enjoy the vast economic benefits of the shale energy boom.

These changes will ensure that the cooperative and transparent State- driven regulatory approach to energy activity will continue. The energy shale boom is driving our economic recovery, and we need to keep the Federal Government from slowing down energy production on taxpayer owned Federal lands with duplicative regulations and unnecessary red tape.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

I thank Mr. Renacci for his comments.

Again, this is a simple amendment in response to feedback I received during the past few weeks.

Again, the American energy shale revolution is completely dependent on hydraulic fracturing. Without this evolving technology, job creation, growth in manufacturing, lower energy prices, and lower greenhouse gas emissions would all stop. All the benefits our Nation is experiencing today would stop.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this should be pretty easy.

In my earlier amendment that was approved by voice vote today, we addressed the concerns raised by the gentleman from California, so let's move on down the road and vote for American jobs and American energy.

A vote today for H.R. 2728 is a vote to regain our Nation's position as the world's leading energy producer, a product of the shale energy boom.

Thanks to shale energy, middle class manufacturing jobs are returning to the U.S. after generations of decline. Thanks to shale energy, our Nation's production is a huge blow to unstable and unfriendly areas like Russia and the Middle East, who previously dictated the world supply of energy.

Just last year, shale energy supported 2.1 million jobs. Turning our backs on the shale energy boom now would cause the Federal Government to lose up to $1.6 trillion in revenues over the next decade and a half.

I would repeat: the issue that was raised in the motion to recommit was already in my amendment that was passed by voice vote earlier today.

Mr. Speaker, lower energy costs for American families, a cleaner environment, an increase in American manufacturing jobs, and domestic energy security would all be lost without the underlying bill.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and to support abundant, safe, and clean energy through the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. Vote ``yes'' for American jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act.

Title II of this act is a bill passed by the Science Committee, the EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act. This is a piece of legislation that should not have been passed out of the committee.

First, title II contains provisions that designate the fracking study is a highly influential scientific assessment and requires EPA to follow its standard peer review protocols for such assessments. This language is unnecessary because EPA already considers the fracking study to be a highly influential scientific assessment.

Second, and importantly, unfortunately, this bill will obstruct EPA's ability to carry out its important work. The requirements of this bill may force the EPA to delay production of their final report on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on water quality. This bill could delay an important report that is based on a study that the EPA initiated more than 3 years ago. The study was reviewed and approved by the EPA's independent Science Advisory Board. The Science Advisory Board found the study to be both appropriate and comprehensive. The American public should not have to wait any longer before they receive a scientific analysis of whether their water has been affected by hydraulic fracturing.

What I found troubling is that the Science Committee never got information from the Science Advisory Board, which validated the study, regarding its opinion about the bill, nor did we get comments from the EPA or any other experts. In fact, the bill never had a hearing. This bill effectively attempts to micromanage the EPA without a factual basis for doing so.

The bill requires the EPA to do an ad hoc risk analysis by requiring them to quantitatively estimate the probabilities, uncertainties, and consequences of impacts to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing; however, this was never a study that was set up to determine the risk effects of hydraulic fracturing. The study was meant to examine the science to determine if hydraulic fracturing operations have any effect on groundwater. By requiring an ad hoc risk analysis on a study that was not designed to acquire the data necessary to do a risk analysis, the EPA would be forced to try to fit a round peg in a square hole.

What remains truly unclear is why this language is included when it is so unnecessary. If the current study were to find a link between fracking and groundwater contamination, then a full risk assessment will be required before the Agency can establish any regulations to address the issue.

What this bill is doing here is requiring a risk analysis simultaneously, and as part of, the very study that is meant to determine if there is a need for a risk analysis. These efforts to become involved in directing the specific details of scientific process are very troubling.

It appears that this bill is setting up the EPA to fail. If the EPA doesn't complete the study by the deadline, they have failed; and if the EPA completes the study but the ad hoc risk analysis is not as detailed as the bill's proponents expect, then they would have also failed. More importantly, their ad hoc risk analysis may taint the very accurate scientific data behind that analysis.

It is not in the public interest to have this study delayed any longer. Let the EPA complete their study. If the science shows the effects connecting hydraulic fracturing with contaminated groundwater, then we will let the EPA's long-established process of doing a risk assessment after such a study to be followed completely with all the I's dotted and T's crossed.

It is also difficult to understand how the proponents of the bill reconcile title II with title I. Title I clearly attempts to prevent the Federal Government from having oversight inspection or enforcement responsibility for hydraulic fracturing regulations. However, if the States are supposed to regulate, don't they need the science to support those regulations?

This study is designed to be the science that provides the Federal Government and the States with the information they will need to make policy choices about the effects of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater. By possibly delaying this study, we delay the ability of the States or the Federal Government to make prudent choices to protect the American public.

If you support hydraulic fracturing, delaying the study will not speed up the process of opening new areas of the country to hydraulic fracturing. Title II of H.R. 2728 will only delay an important scientific study and, ironically, may delay the development of new shale fields throughout the United States.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

To clarify, there was opposition to the legislation in the Science Committee; however, there is no recorded vote.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in 2010, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act required the EPA to perform a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. The final report is currently expected to be released in 2016.

EPA's proposed study plan was reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory Board. The Science Advisory Board determined that EPA's approach was generally appropriate and comprehensive. Further, the Science Advisory Board recommended that some analysis of risks be considered in the study, but a full risk assessment could add another 5 to 7 years to the expected release date.

The proponents of this legislation mischaracterize the EPA's study plan as flawed for failing to include a comprehensive risk assessment. That position is not consistent with the conclusions of the highly qualified scientists, researchers, and industry representatives who are members of the EPA's independent Science Advisory Board, and importantly, title II could delay the release of this very important study. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, Mr. Smith from Texas, for his offer to reclaim. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time.

May I inquire whether there are other speakers?