eastern libya, and we acted in concert with both european partners and ish league partners to set up this no-fly zone, and to allow humanitarian assistance to tbloa, and now, as we said it from the very start, nato would assume command and control of the operation. they are doing so. we think they are doing a good job. >> so you're saying the initial resistance that the administration had toward getting involved was just a figment of our imaginations? >> i would say there was a realizization on the part of the united states and other members of the international community within the u.n., within the arab league -- that we needed to act. ..

some of our key to the european allies and partners we've now got what operations unified one protector were in play led by nato. we've said this all along who and i believe it is capable enough of the task of completing it. >> -- a stalemate in libya or to go control of the operation? which would be the least of -- >> that's a false choice. we believe that at nato has been successful in carrying out the

mission and that as we've said often u.s. security council resolution 1973 never went beyond what it's done which is set up a no-fly zone that protect civilians, allows humanitarian assistance to reach the people of eastern libya and then longer-term we still want to put pressure on what ghaffafi and his regime and the need to relinquish power so it can take place. so i just would call your question i don't believe it is a correct -- >> what a contradiction between what the united states is saying in your saying right now, and with the allies are saying. i mean allies now seem to be divided. they don't seem to think they can do it on their own, and you continued to say you think they can so where does that leave us? >> this is a broad coalition it's not just european allies. nato has a lead role on this and when france and the u.k. and

other key allies, but the arab participation as we've said the u.s. hasn't abandoned this operation by any means we are offering support where we can. so i don't think what it's correct to say that there is discord in the alliance. >> with your asking in brussels is the u.s. saying the americans want to address not just a unilateral operation support and i will clarify. we contributed an answer to the question. what did you ask about how the aid? >> you know, we are still providing support. we have pieces and assets and that mediterranean providing

support for the operation so to suggest otherwise is incorrect. why go ahead. >> why do you think this nato operation has been successful? swa >> well, i don't want to start quoting an and the targets hit. i would refer you to nato. they are providing daily updates. but wait a second let me finish i did say it is a difficult terrain and a difficult environment, and certainly we've all -- we are all aware that there have been targeting issues and other kinds of issues mostly the result of ghaffafi's forces infiltrating the sections to make it hard to correctly target on the ground of the forces we are trying to target but i think that nato has made corrections and is carrying out the mission adequately. >> would you be providing the effort right now?

why >> is a nato decision on this. they've got command and control of which we would obviously and have an opinion about what and we feel at this point would unified protector has has met the requirements of the resolution of 1973 >> why do you think britain are asking nato to be more of this? >> you have to ask them. again i'm not going to speak for the french were the british government or the secretaries of state or foreign affairs rather, but it's a challenging environment and i think everybody wants to see the tide turn definitively, but again, we -- even security council resolution 1973 is being carried out. it's been implemented and the no-fly zone protection of

civilians is in place, and that was what was set out to do. >> in response to the initial series of questions about whether the united states is willing to do more your answer was i think we've done a lot already. is it fair to say that you're really not looking to do much more than? >> and again, just would refer you to what others far smarter about this than i have set including secretary defense gates would that this isn't a complete withdrawal would, that we were fully engaged up front. we had certain capabilities brought to bear that help set out the no fly zone and took out assets of the libyan military. and then moving forward, we'd still play a supportive role. we are still there if asked or if needed, we can still provide assistance, and i think we did. we did provide additional in the beginning as a transition was taking place. that hasn't changed, but i feel we are also comfortable playing

the supportive role and letting tomato, other nato forces take the lead and let that happen. >> another subject? >> yes. >> can we stick with libya for one second? >> sure. >> there is a report on the news agency that will qatar has marketed 1 million barrels of libyan crude. one, d you know if that's correct? number two, did -- has the libya contact group, in effect, authorized such marketing of libyan crude oil, or is this something that qataris are essentials leaving on their own without any other kind of sanction? >> i am aware of the -- of those reports. i can speak for the contact group, but we do certainly support those efforts. obviously, it's important that these opposition does have the financial wherewithal that it needs to operate. and not much beyond that. we support those efforts. >> any update on stevens were?

>> roi i don't. he's been there since april 5th, all dislike. he's had productive meetings. he's met with high-level members of the transitional -- sorry, the tnc, the transitional national council. and he's also met with chairman abdul jalil, rather, and we're getting a better sense as a result of those meetings of both the tnc and its vision for libya going forward. and i have no sense of or no firm date for his departure. he remains on the ground. >> any decision regarding armed rebels? -- orman the rebels? >> no decision. it remains on the table, but no decision has been made. >> what's the expectation? >> sorry, can i -- >> go ahead. >> would you expect from the doe hall meeting, the contact group? >> will again, it's mostly -- it is obviously a follow on from

the meeting in london and it's an opportunity to build consensus to discuss with our international parties -- or partners, rather -- next steps regarding libya. and as i said, bill burns is going to lead the u.s. delegation there. >> change topic? >> yes, kirit? >> another subject. on north korea, but can you tell us about this american being held? >> not a lot. i can say that there is an individual who is in north korea. he is -- this individual has been detained. we live on through the swedish protecting powers and we've been able to -- they've been able to visit him or -- i can give you -- i can't even give the -- and this is all privacy act weaver. i know it's a little bit of a ridiculous since we do appear, because we don't have a privacy act weaver from him or her and the family, we've got to do this. it's for the protection of the

individual. >> when did they visit with him or her? [laughter] today? >> no, but it was recently. in the very recent future -- of pass rudder. sorry. >> and when was it detained? [laughter] >> this is going to challenge all of our -- ilves our sense of pronouns here. i don't have that detail for you. >> this unisex creature -- [laughter] >> "individual" probably works best. >> -- is an american citizen? >> that's correct. >> and was doing what? >> i don't have any details on what this individual was doing in north korea. but we would call on the government of north korea to release the citizen of

humanitarian grounds and we would ask that the respect and treat this citizen in a manner consistent with international human-rights law. >> do you believe the person's innocence then, of the -- whatever it is that they've been beating for? >> we don't have any information about allegations -- we don't even know what this individual is being held for. >> khanna mark, when you add that little bit about treating according to human-rights law, it sounds a little different to meet you really don't remember that formulation with previous people. did you mean to say something? is there any implication that this individual was not being held? >> did i mean to say something? sure. but i don't think this is vastly different than what we have always called for which is -- this is an individual who is being held in north korea. we would ask that this individual be released on humanitarian grounds alone, but bearing that, that they would be treated with -- in a manner consistent with human rights law. >> well, when you say that they should be -- this person should

be released on humanitarian grounds alone, adis and plight -- i mean, you warned u.s. citizens if they break the law and other countries, they're going to be subject to their laws. does this mean that -- number corrine amol? >> welcome again, we don't have any information that -- that this individual may have violated north corrine amol. >> and on the privacy act weaver, were the swedes told to give this opportunity to hob sign one? >> i will ask about that but i would assume so. >> and win -- in these types of instances, not only when it is protecting power, but when it is a consular affairs officer, are you actively advise in people who are detained and not to sign privacy act leaders? >> darbee at leah fisa -- >> are you telling them here is a piece of paper, you sign this and then we can meet to talk about your case but we think

it's not a good idea and you shouldn't sign the waiver? you're absolutely sure -- >> it is a neutral fashion otherwise -- the consular actions. >> a couple weeks ago there was the situation in syria where the student you said refused to sign privacy act leader and yet was quoted and we talked to this person and was more than happy to talks on a little suspicious about >> -- i will look into that particular case. it should be done so in an object of manner that says here is what this waiver provides and here's what it does not provide what we should in no way be counseling that individual. >> considering jimmy carter is doing at the end of the month you can ask to bring him back or her? >> i don't know of any information other -- >> are you going to talk about this? >> that's a fair question.

it's a fair point. it's a fair play and if your question. i will last. >> can i ask about japan real quickly? >> yeah. >> i guess the ranking for the nuclear problem, is there any new advice -- excuse me, advice for american citizens and -- >> thank you. appreciate it. new advice for american citizens and have to instruct your staff to take their iodine tablets or anything like that? >> actually, thanks for raising that because there is some confusion i can go for this new news report that today about raising the nuclear crisis from five to seven. there is no change to the u.s. recommendation that -- as a precaution. u.s. citizens within that 50 miles own that we talked about, 80 kilometers of the fukushima diichi nuclear powerplant should evacuate a regular take shelter in was a safe evacuation is not practical. but beyond that, there's been -- there is no change to the u.s. posture or u.s. recommendations.

>> do you have knowledge -- >> can i follow up? >> sure. >> is that people look and give you any concern about how the japanese government is handling its nuclear situation? >> on the contrary. leading the field but they are monitoring it closely, and as appropriate, they are changing their posture. >> you have any knowledge of american citizens still within that 50 miles on? >> it's a good question. i don't believe we do. sorry, i'm just seeing if i have >> i don't believe there are. >> another subject? >> there are allegations in the chicago by that he acted on behalf of pakistani government and isi during the mumbai attacks. if you have any comment on that

>> that the case in chicago? >> unlimited what i can say. i think some of the marks referring to our court documents related to the trials that's about to begin. i just want to refer you to the justice department and say that he's on trial for his alleged crimes. >> to follow-up on that -- >> sure, go ahead. >> justice department is about the justice. i'm talking about the relationship between the u.s.a. and pakistan. pakistan is also asking you to cut down on the cia activities and pakistan is -- this delegation is on the government of pakistan and the intelligence agency of pakistan. so how will you -- have you asked the government to give you a clarification, anything on the diplomatic level? >> well, again, i'm not going to talk about with this individual has said in pretrial documents

or in pretrial hearings because it is a legal process that's moving forward. but you asked about -- i.t. your broad question, i'm not quite sure what it is. it was about the pakistani government's asking us to -- >> no, u.s. asking for an explanation that what is going on tariffs and at the u.s. asking for an explanation of -- >> i'm just a little confused. i'm sorry. you raise about three different issues in your question, so one more time. >> this individual under oath is saying that the pakistan government asked him to -- purchase of in this mumbai massacre. so you are concerned about this? >> again, this individual is in a trial right now on the trial hasn't begun. it is a pretrial period so i'm not going to talk about his

comment. the would-be irresponsible and i'm not going to do it, but to doherty of broad counterterrorism cooperation with pakistan, certainly that is ongoing and we are candid in sharing our views and information with pakistan out to the to about terrorist threats and we believe the cooperation continues to -- >> i guess the conclusion that some in india reaching the picture of the pakistani government complacency, more involvement in the mumbai attacks, so i guess my question is do you take those allegations seriously, and do you hold a view on them? >> i think in the aftermath of these attacks in 2008 we've made it clear that there is an international responsibility to operate the perpetrators to justice and that pakistan has a special responsibility to do so

transparently and urgently and they pledged their cooperation and bring the perpetrators to justice and we believe they are carrying that pledge out. >> one more on pakistan. since leedy this came out of pakistan i don't remember, a couple weeks ago, has there been a change in u.s. diplomatic presence throughout the country as a member has gone down or are they all the different security level? is there any posture change you can point to? >> i think there was a heightened security posture after mr. davis left the country that people felt very passionate about and certainly we took that into consideration, that there has been no downsizing i believe of the u.s. diplomatic presence. >> can use a letter it's being

stopped and has continued since -- >> i know you've raised this with me a couple of times the issue of incidents where diplomats have been detained. certainly we view those with concern and we've asked the authorities to look into them. i'm not sure there's been any more incidents. i will check into that. >> i didn't say detainee. the dicey detained? i said we would be -- did i say detained? i apologize. i meant harassed. >> you said there hasn't been a down side. has there been a change in the posture and the country? are you moving them out of the areas? are you aligning anything? >> nothing that i am aware of.

>> i asked you fairly soon after mr. davis left with their head and in need ammunition in the pakistani issuance to the american diplomats or other personnel and at the time you told me know if there hadn't been any. has there been any since then? have you noticed any decrease? >> frankly whether there's been any instance in terms of diplomats been in any way kind harassed repeated and whether there's been any -- because i think we've said this before from the podium these issues in the past. >> thanks. >> on pakistan -- >> t.j. and then over here. >> has asked for access to rana?

>> not that i'm aware of. i will refer you to the justice department. >> also on umar patek, has there been any approaches to pakistan on getting access to him? >> i'm not aware of any access and i will also look into it. >> and while on the question of the cooperation level, lots of reports coming out of the look we are still very rocky to agree with pakistan on the intelligence sharing, and therefore, on the broader relationship. can you answer that generally? >> well, certainly the u.s. and pakistan remain strategic partners. we've got a shared commitment to strengthening our bilateral relationship, and we've been through it difficult period. i think other people, individuals, u.s. officials have acknowledged that, in putting our ambassador there, cameron munter. and we are working to get the relationship back on track. we are looking to renew the relationship in a way and get past the difficulty of -- that raymond davis case caused.

but it's also very important to recognize apart from the counterterrorism cooperation this obviously the focus of so much interest, media interest and otherwise, that it's not one-dimensional relationship. and we've got assistance like the kerry-lugar-berman fact that providing 1.5 billion focusing on infrastructure building, institution building, the kinds of long-term actions are going to help build a stronger pakistan in the future. and that's ultimately a hour goal is to strengthen pakistan, make a stronger democracies of its more resistant to these internal threats. yes, in the back. >> on the budget. >> mark, can i say -- >> yes, sure, dave, and the budget stuff. >> there's some reporting that the pakistanis have asked the united states to actually ask for the departure of a large number of americans who are there, apparently, including

military special forces people. >> right, right. for talking about the u.s. military trainers? >> yes. >> well, obviously, that contingent -- and i believe it's only about 300 individuals -- they are there to help train pakistani military. they are there at the invitation that the government of pakistan to support securities of systems programs there. and it's a function -- our presence there, rather, is a function of the amount and type of training and equipping required to meet the pakistani government's requests and requirements. so we want to work closely, we want to keep that program alive, we think it's important. >> but have they asked for this large scale drawdown? >> welcome there have been conversations are ongoing between the u.s. and pakistan about these kind of requirement also the force levels the are associated with them, but no decisions have been made. >> i will just say it's a continuous -- it's an ongoing

process. we continue to talk to them. bate -- we continue to talk to them about these types of programs, and obviously, the trip levels that are appropriate for them. >> on the cr, in your view, is the state taking need is appropriate disproportionate hit compared to what other departments or? >> welcome a look, it's these laskier times and we recognize that right now just kind of a system with those kids are that there will be taken and i can certainly try to get more information for you on that. but i think there's a recognition, as tom said, while he was up there, that we had already prepared a lean budget for lean times. and so we recognize the times in which the operating, and we're going to do everything in our power to make sure that we maintain our core functions. >> got to have some idea of what

this will actually mean. like $377 million less for the united patients, where was that money supposed to go? what -- who would that have impacted? >> again, i -- there's a lot of figures being bandied about. we are, at this point, still sort of assessing where it's going to come from and what exactly programs that are going to be affected, and i will try to get more details for you on that. >> $194 million is going to go away. so, those are real people. what is the impact going to be for those people. >> i'm not denying those are going to have these kind of cuts are going to have an effect on our ability to carry out our

programs effectively but we are going to do our utmost to ensure that that is minimized. >> can you say that people are going -- >> yes, over here. >> it's been reported that african diplomats were trying to negotiate the departure of the leader who's been hanging out for too long. offering visiting professorship at the e.u. and can you set us straight on how much this was part of the discussion and have involved the u.s. diplomats were in the discussion? >> it's fair to say after the november 28 election the state department did reach out to the staff and context and to discuss the results of the reelection first and foremost and the need for him to step aside and allow for the transition to take

place. during these calls it was mentioned this on a possible options open to him by the international community including potential positions drawn in the previous background academia. and these attempts to persuade kim is the the side peacefully by the united states and others in the international community i think last until the end of 2010. you know, these kinds of visiting professor positions offered by universities to former leaders are contingent on the fact these leaders are departed individuals who allow a peaceful transition to democracy to take place and let's just say a the train left the station and we talked about that a while back. >> had you had any conversations with the folks at the e.u. or the ambassador before offering

that or was it kind of like here's the website of the e.u. presidency and maybe you could apply for that. >> yeah, i don't know if there was -- i don't know how specific the offer was to rely will look into it. >> can you let us know whether or not there has been any -- >> whether there has been any contact? i would assume so but -- >> right bobbit -- >> the question i think is relevant that we discussed it with boston university i think is when you're talking about. i don't know. >> de did you can let us go today? >> on iraq and the camp can you tell us is there any response to the position to run virtually close the camp and expel the dissidents by the end of the year and can you also concern the u.s. wounded people to the u.s. facilities in the most recent attack? >> well, i can say that the

government of iraq has provided himeno terrie and assurances on the camp which includes that no resident will be forcibly transferred to a country where there are grounds for believing they would be persecuted or tortured based on their political or religious beliefs. it also publicly committed to undertake investigations as to what exactly happened on april april 8th that led to a number of interviews and we welcome that announcement. and we are also urged the u.n. assistance mission for iraq be allowed to visit the camp also to assess the situation. we continue to urge restraint and non-violence as a means in facilitating inappropriate solution to the situation. we are prepared to consider any assistance that we can that is requested by the government of iraq to develop and execute a negotiated plan to address the

future of camp ashraf. >> on behalf of the camp ashraf's residents have said and the u.s. military i believe has confirmed that u.s. military personnel went to the camp afterwards and the pentagon, understand it, says they are not going to talk about other people's all, but the people who speak on behalf of the residents say that the u.s. military did indeed find 31 people dead there, most of them shot, some of them crushed by heavy vehicles. do you know or do you have a sense of -- and i believe there are other vv to another tree that are said to have died in hospitals -- does the u.s. state department have a view on how many people like julie blight? >> we don't. which is why i didn't just give you a number. i think we are still the investigating the number. less -- was one of those reasons why we are asking that unami be allowed to visit. but we are also asking that the

undertake this investigation to determine what transpired and how many people were indeed killed or injured in that. >> given the accusations that it was -- in fact been given your own statement that it was the actions of the iraqi military that caused the death -- i mean, you were very ambiguous about that -- what makes you think that the iraqi government is likely to conduct an independent and candid investigation of this? >> will again, we are -- we did express our concern about what took place there and we are asking that the allow visits of unami but also that the convicted transferred and investigation. i think we do need to be mindful that this is a sovereign matter for the government of iraq, but we are being very candid in our view is that the take a look into this and get answers. >> mark, did you do any irony in hands behind what happened in

ashraf? >> iranian hands? , again, we just want to see that there is a thorough investigation of what transpired there. i think we need to get answers, more answers as to what happened there. we stand behind what we said in our statement, as arshad said which is -- >> but do you expect any iraqi report says that iran was behind what happened in ashraf? >> again like we just want a clear picture of what transpired. >> when you see the iraqi government has provided assurances that they're committed to not expelling these people, so it's the u.s. government's position right now with the kent ashraf is not going to be closed and that the people are not going to be kicked off the planned at this point? >> welcome again, i think i said we are prepared to help the

government of iraq developed and executed negotiated plan -- and an emphasis on the negotiated -- that addresses the future of the camp ashraf. >> because if i'm not mistaken, didn't -- initially, the iraqis had committed to protecting the people, and that -- >> we now go back to the u.s. islamic world forum to hear from secretary of state hillary clinton. >> that introduction. it is such a pleasure for me to join you at this first u.s. islamic world forum held in america. his highness and the people have generously hosted the forum for years and has said, i was honored to be a guest last year and i'm delighted to welcome you to washington. i want to thank martin, ken pollock and the center at the

brookings institution for keeping this event going and growing, and i want to acknowledge all of my colleagues in the diplomatic corps who are here tonight including the minister of state for foreign affairs, the foreign minister of jordan and the secretary-general of the organization of the islamic conference. over the years, the u.s. islamic world for rahm has offered the chance to celebrate the diversity muslims around the world. pioneering innovative energy solutions and preparing to host the world cup, indonesia and malaysia each offering its own model for prosperity and progress. this forum also offers a chance to discuss the equally diverse

set of challenges we face together, the need to confront violent extremism, the urgency of achieving a tuesday solution between israel and the palestinians, the importance of increasing tolerance and universal human rights in all of our communities. and i'm especially proud that this year before run as recognizing the contributions of millions of american muslims who do so much to make our country strong. as president obama said in cairo, is mom has always been a part of american history, and everyday american muslims are helping to write our story. i do not need to tell this distinguished audience that we are meeting at a historic time for one region in particular, the middle east and north

africa. today, the long a red winter has begun to thaw. for the first time in decades, there is a real opportunity for lasting change, a real opportunity for people to have their voices heard and their priorities are addressed. now this raises significant questions for us all. will the people and the leaders of the middle east and north africa pursue them new and more inclusive approach to solving the region's persistent political economic and social challenges? will they consolidate the progress of recent weeks and address long aspirations for dignity and opportunity, or when we meet again at this forum in one year or five years or ten

when we would see the prospect for reform fade and remember this one is just a mirage in the desert? these questions can only be answered by the people and the leaders of the middle east and north africa themselves. the united states certainly does not have all the answers. in fact, here in washington we are struggling to thrash out answers to our own difficult, political and economic questions. but america is committed to working as a partner to help unlock the region's potential and to help realize its hope for change. much has been accomplished already. uprising across the region has exposed myths that for too long were used to justify its stagnant status quo, you know,

the myth that governments can hold on to power without responding to their people's aspirations or respecting their rights. the myth that the only way to produce change in the region to violence and conflict, and most pernicious of all, the myth that era of its do not share universal human aspirations for freedom, dignity and opportunity to the young people reject these false narrative's. and as we know and as we have seen, they will not accept the status quo. despite the best efforts of the sensors, they are connecting to the wider world in ways that their parents and grandparents could never imagine. the now see alternatives on the

satellite news, twitter and facebook and cairo. they know a better life can be within reach and they are now willing to reach for it. but these people have inherited a region that in many of these is not prepared to meet their growing expectations. it challenges have been documented in a series of landmark arab human development reports. independently offered and published by the united nations development program. they represent the cumulative knowledge of leading the arab scholars and intellectuals. answering these challenges will help determine if this historic moment lives up to its promise. that is why this january in doha, just weeks after a

desperate young tahitian street vendor set fire to himself and public protest i talked with the leaders of the region about the need to move faster to meet their people's needs and aspirations. in the 21st century, the material conditions of people's lives have a greater impact on national stability and security than ever before. it is not possible for people not to know what is happening beyond their own small village. and the balance of power is no longer measured by counting tanks or missiles alone. now strategists must factor in the growing influence of citizens themselves, connected, organized and often frustrated.

there was a time when the those of us who championed civil society were worked with marginalized minorities or on behalf of women were focused on young people and technology were told that our concerns with noble but not urgent. that is another false narrative that has been washed away because these issues among others are at the heart of smart power, and they have to be at the center of any discussion attempting to answer the region's most pressing question. first, can the leaders and citizens of the region reform economies that are not overly dependent on zero leal exports and stunted by corruption? overall, arab countries were less industrialized in 2007 than they were in 1970.

unemployment often runs more than double the world wide average and even worse for the women and young people. while a growing number of arabs live in poverty crowded into slums without sanitation, safe water or reliable electricity, a small elite has increasingly concentrated control of the region's land and wealth in their hands. the 2009 arab development report found that these trends, and i quote, result in the ominous dynamics of the marginalization. reversing this dynamic means grappling with a second question. how to match economic reform with political and social change. according to the 2009 global integrity report, there of the country's almost without

exception have some of the weakest anti-corruption systems in the world. citizens have spent decades under the martial law or emergency rule. political parties in civil society groups are subject to repression and restriction. judicial systems are far from either free or independent, and elections, when they are held, are often linked rigged. this leads to an overlooked question. will the door to the full citizenship and participation finally opened to women and minorities? the first air and human development report in 2002 found that there and when political and economic participation was the lowest in the world. successive reports have shown little progress.

the 2005 report called women's empowerment, and i quote again, a prerequisite for the arab renaissance inseparably and causally linked to the fate of the arab world. now this is not a matter of the role of religion in the women's lives. muslim women have long enjoyed greater rights and opportunities in places like bangladesh or indonesia or consider the family law in morocco for a personal status code into nisha. communities from egypt to jordan to senegal are beginning to take on entrenched practices like child marriage, crimes and female cutting. all over the world we see living proof that islam and women's rights are compatible, but unfortunately, there are some who are actually working to undermine the progress and

export a virulently antiwoman ideology to other muslim communities. now, all of these challenges from unemployment to widespread corruption to the lack of respect opportunities for women had fuelled frustration among the region's young people and changing leaders alone will not be enough to satisfy them. not if cronyism and closed economies continue to choke off our opportunities and participation. or if citizens can't rely on police and the courts to protect their rights the region's power brokers both inside and outside of the government needed to step up and work with the people to craft a positive vision for the future, generals and imams, business leaders and democrats, everyone who has benefited from

and reinforced the status quo has a role to play. they also have a lot to lose if the vision vacuum is filled by a extremists and rejectionists. so if one crucial question is how egypt and tunisia should consolidate the progress that has been achieved in recent months. former protesters are asking how can we stay organized and involved, which will take four main political parties and advocacy coalition it will take focusing on working together to solve the real big problem facing both countries. in cairo last month i met with young activists who were passionate about their principles but still sorting out how to be practical about the politics. one veteran egyptian journalist

and a dissident expressed concern this week that a reluctance to move from protest to politics what it in his words endanger the revolutions games. so he urged young people to translate their passion into a positive agenda and to use political participation to achieve it. as the people of egypt and tunisia embrace the full responsibilities of citizenship we look to transitional authority to guarantee fundamental rights such as free assembly and expression to provide basic security on the street to be transparent and inclusive. unfortunately this year we have seen too many violent attacks from egypt to iraq to pakistan that have killed dozens of religious and ethnic minorities.

part of a troubling worldwide trend, documented by the state department's annual human rights report released this past friday. communities around the world are struggling to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and tolerance of on the popular views. each of us has the responsibility to defend the universal human rights of people all faiths and creed. and i want to applaud the organization of the islamic conference for its leadership in securing the recent resolution by the united nations human rights council that takes a strong stand against discrimination and violence based upon religion or believe but doesn't limit freedom of expression. in both egypt and tunisia we've also seen troubling signs regarding the rights and opportunities of women.

so far women have been excluded from key transitional decision making process. when the women marched alongside of them through the square in the early days of the revolution , they were part of making the change that egypt was seeking. when they recently walked again from the square to some of reed international women's day in their new democracy, they were met by harassment and abuse. you cannot have a claim to a democracy if half the population is left out. and we know from long experience that building a successful democracy is a never-ending task. more than 200 years after our own revolution, we are still working on it because real change takes time, hard work and patience, but it's well worth the effort. as one egyptian women's rights

activist had recently said, we will have to fight for our rights. it will be tough and require lobbying, but that's what democracy is all about. in a democracy, and you have to persuade your fellow citizens, men and women alike, to go along the path you wish to take. and we know that democracy cannot be transplanted wholesale from one country to another. people have the right and responsibility to divide their own government, but there are universal rights that apply to everyone and universal values that undergird a vibrant democracy everywhere. one lesson learned by transition to democracy around the world is that it can be tempting to fight the old battles over and over again. rather than to focus on ensuring justice and accountability in

the future i will always remember watching nelson mandela at the luncheon he hosted after his inauguration as president welcomed three of his former jailers because to him they were as important as any keen or president or prime minister who was there. because when he was powerless, when he was imprisoned, they treated him with dignity. they looked upon him as a fellow human being. it helped him to move beyond what he had suffered. he never looked back in anger, but always forward with hope. the united states is committed to standing with the people of egypt, tunisia and the region to help build sustainable democracy is the will to deliver real

results for people who deserve them. we want to support the aspirations. on this our values and interests converge. history has shown democracies tend to be more stable, peaceful and ultimately more prosperous but the challenge is how we get from where we are to where we want to be. so the fifth question for ross as americans is how can america be an effective partner to the people of the region? how can we work together to build and not just short-term stability, but long-term sustainable the? with this goal in mind, the obama administration began to reorient u.s. foreign policy in the region and around the world from our first days in office. we put partnerships with people not just government at the center of our efforts. the administration moves quickly

to respond to the recent events and to affirm the principles that guide our approach. the president and i have spoken about this on a number of occasions most recently just late afternoon today in the coming weeks. and we start from the understanding that america's core interests and values have not changed including our commitment to promote human rights, resolve longstanding conflicts, counter iran's threats and defeated al qaeda and its extremist allies. this includes renewed pursuit of comprehensive arab-israeli peace. the status quo between the palestinians and israelis is no more sustainable than the political systems that have crumbled in recent months. neither israel's future as a jewish democratic state, nor the

legitimate aspirations of twist in the hands can be secured without a negotiated to state solution. and why would is a truism that only the parties themselves can make the hard choices necessary for peace, there is no substitute for continued active american leadership and the president and all i are committed to that. we believe our concerns are shared by the people of the region, and we will continue working closely with our trusted partners including many in this room tonight to advance those mutual interests. we understand that a one size fits all approach doesn't make sense in such a diverse region at such a fluid time. as i've said before, the united states has specific relationships with countries in the region. we have a decades-long friendship with all rain that we

expect to continue on into the future. but we have made it clear that security alone cannot resolve the challenges facing them. violence is not and cannot be the answer. a political process is one that advances the rights and aspirations of all the citizens of all -- bahrain and we have raised over concerns with the officials and will continue to do so. the united states also strongly supports the people loved him in in their quest for greater opportunity. the pursuit of political and economic reform that will meet their aspirations. the president salah needs to resolve the impasse with the opposition so that meaningful political change can take place in the near term in an orderly, peaceful manner. and as president obama has said, we strongly condemn the violence

committed against peaceful protesters by the syrian government over the past few weeks. the president asad and the government must respect the rights of the syrian people, who are demanding the freedom that they have long been denied. going forward, the united states will be guided by careful consideration of all of the circumstances on the ground and by our consistent values and interests. but also by something else. we believe in this region. we see no reason that it cannot be among the most progressive, prosperous, peaceful, successful regions in the world. when we look at other regions in the world that have undergone change, sometimes violent, sometimes difficult, we see no reason why this region cannot

succeed. and wherever we can, we will accelerate our work to develop stronger bonds with the people themselves with civil society, business leaders, religious communities, women and minorities, we are rethinking the way we do business on the ground with citizens, and we want the citizens themselves to help set the priorities. for example, as we invest in egypt, new democracy and promote sustainable development, we are soliciting the current proposals for my wide range of local organizations. we want partners to invest in new ideas. we are exploring new ways to use connection technology to expand dialogue and open lines of communication. as we map out a strategy for supporting the transition's already under way with the people of the region have not put their lives on the line just to vote once in an election they expect democracy to deliver

jobs, sweep up corruption, ext. and opportunities that will help them and their children take full advantage of the global economy. so the united states will be working with leaders to create open, dan and again diverse economies where there can be no inclusive press release. in the short run, the united states will provide immediate economic assistance to help transitional democracies overcome the early challenges including $150 million for egypt alone. in the medium term, as egypt and tunisia continue building the their doctor sees, we will work with our partners to support an ambitious blueprint for sustainable growth, job creation investment and trade. the u.s. overseas private investment corporation will provide up to $2 billion to encourage private-sector investment across the middle east and north africa, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises. and we look forward to working

with the congress to establish enterprise funds for each of the and to nisha that will support competitive markets to provide small and medium-sized businesses with access to critical, low-cost capital. our global on knorr should program is seeking out new partners and opportunities, and we want to improve and expand the qualified investment zone which allow egyptian companies to send exports to the united states duty-free. to spur the private sector investment, we are working with partners for a new beginning, an organization led by former secretary madeleine albright can't of coca-cola and walter isaacson of the aspen institute. it was formed after president obama's cairo speech and includes the ceo of companies like intel, cisco and morgan stanley. these leaders will convene a summit at the end of may to connect american investors with partners in the region's transition all democracies with an eye to creating more jobs and

boosting trade. under the auspices of the partners for a new beginning, the u.s. north africa partnership for economic opportunity is building a network of public and private partners and programs to deepen economic integration among the countries in north africa. the past december in algiers, the partnership convened more than 400 younger entrepreneurs, business leaders, venture capitalists and diaspora leaders from the united states and north africa. these people to people contexts' had already helped lead the groundwork for the cross border initiative to create jobs, train the youth and support the start-ups and there will be a follow-up meeting later this year in morocco. for the long term, we are discussing ways to encourage closer economic integration across the region as well as with the united states come in europe and the rest of the world. the middle east and north africa

are home to rich nations with excess capital as well as poor countries, hungary the country for investment, forging deeper trade and economic relationships between neighbors to create many, many new jobs. .. >> people of the middle east and north africa have the talent. they have the drive. to build vibrant economies and sustainable democracies. just as citizens have already done so in regions long held

back by closed political and economic systems. from southeast asia to eastern europe to latin america. now it won't be easy. there are many, many obstacles. and unfortunately, iran provides a powerful cautionary tale for the transitions. the democratic aspirations by 1979 were subverted by a new dictatorship. iran's leaders have persistently pursued policies of violent abroad and tyranny at home. in tehran, security forces have beaten, detailed, and in several recent cases, killed peaceful protesters. even as iran's president has made a show of denouncing the violence against civilians in libya and other places. and he is not alone in his

hypocrisy. al qaeda's propaganda has tried to yolk the region's peaceful popular movement to their murderous ideology. their claims to speak have never rung so hollow. their arguments that the only way is violent change have never been so fully discredited. last month we witnessed a development that stood out even in this extraordinary season. colonel gadhafi's trooped turned their guns on their own people. his military jets and helicopter gun ships unleased a reign of terror against people who had no means to defend themselves against the assault from the air. benghazi's hundreds of thousands of citizens were in the cross hairs. now in the past when confronted with such a crisis, all too often, the leaders of north africa and the middle east

averted their eyes or close ranks, but not this time. not in this new era. the oic, the gcc issued strong statements. the arab lead convened in cairo in the midst of all of the commotion of egypt's democratic transition to condemn the violence and suspend libya from the organization even though colonel gadhafi held the league's rotating presidency. the arab league went on to call for a no-fly zone. and i want to thank gutter, the uae, and jordan for contributing planes to help enforce it. but that's not all. the arab league affirmed and again i quote, the right of the libyan people to fulfill their demands and build their own future and institutions in a

democratic framework. that is a remarkable statement and that is a reason to hope. all the signs of progress that we've seen in recent months will only be meaningful if more leaders in more places move faster and further to embrace this spirit of reform. if they work with their people to answer the region's most pressing challenges. to diversity their economies, open their political systems, crack down on corruption, republic the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities. those are the questions that will determine whether the people of the region make the most of this historic moment, or fall back into stagnation. the united states will be there as a partner working for progress. we are committed to the future of this region and we bereave i-

believe in the potential of its people. we look forward to the day that people in the middle east, in fact, all around the world, have the freedom to pursue their own gold given potential. that is the future that all of us should be striving and working toward. thank you all very much. [applause] [applause] >> you want me to stay here? okay. [applause] [applause] >> madam secretary, i'm quite confident that i speak for everybody here when i say that as we listen carefully to what you had to say, and we listen

very carefully indeed, i think all of us appreciated that we were hearing for the first time a truly comprehensive, clear, and authoritative explanation for policy, purpose, and hope for the arab awakening. i'm equally confident that everybody here joins me in being thankful that you would use this occasion to make these statements and draw us into your thinking and give us sense what the president will have to say in due course. i'm sure that everybody here is helpful you will be with us here in doha. please join me in thanking the secretary again. >> thank you. thank you. right down this way? [applause] [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, dinner service and dessert will continue. thanks. >> on c-span2, a senate hearing looks into the environmental risked rosed by natural gas production. >> energy companies have increased u.s. natural gas production with a process called fracting. some studies said the process should damage the environment and underground aquafers. they looked into the risk and

heard witnesses from the environmental protection agency. this is two hours and 15 minutes. >> welcome to the joint hearing between the full environment public works committee and the subcommittee on water and wildlife. i want to thank senator boxer and senator inhofe. let my say that united states has much natural gas as saudi arabia has oil. the shale which runs from central new york state to west virginia maybe the second largest natural gas field in the world. we have enormous reserves that can help america meet it's energy needs or do so in a way that produces far less produce than coal, helps the united states when it's energy independence, and improves our national security. high volume, horizontal

hydraulic fracting is being used in thousands of new wells. in pennsylvania, more than 2700 wells were drilled from 2006 to march 10 of this year. a study estimated it had create or support 100,000 jobs, plus billions of dollars in economic value for the state. the natural gas industry is booming. but it maybe in jeep si. new york has imposed a moratorium on fracting operations, n is -- new jersey is considering a band, and pittsburg has considered a ban within city limits. making the drill illegal within the town limit. why is this happening? the answer is simple. the industry has failed to meet minimal acceptable preference levels for protecting human

health and the environment, that is both an industry failure and failure of the regulatory process. i'm a strong supporter of domestic natural gas production, but my support only comes from human health and the environment are protected. the record is replete with cases from con tom nation with improper cement, cracked casings, drilled spills, and disturbing releasing natural gas and high energy logical formations. in june, 2010, the pennsylvania land trust association identified a total of 16 -- 1614 violations occurred by 45 pennsylvania drillers dating to january 2008, including 91 violations of pennsylvania clean stream laws, 162 cases of improper construction of waste water. 50 cases of improper well casings, and four cases of

inadequate blowout prevention. last june a well blue out in clear field county, shot 45,000 gallons of gas and water in the air over a 16 hour period. the treatment plants are not equipped to handle the contaminants that come out. five million gallons of water combined with chemicals can be used in a single fracting operation. much of this is returned to the surface. then it's either injected into underground wells and used by waste water treatment facility plants and waste water treatment plants cannot handle that type of pollutants. the question is what is epa doing about this? we understand that fracting is exempt from certain parts of the clean water act, but it's certainly subject to the provisions as we deal with waste water. is epa acting on the areas. it's one the areas that i hope

they will deal with. the challenging that state regulators have not been able to handle the issue. we are exempt, however, it is subject to other provisions within the clean air and water act and protecting the public to get the natural gas that's critically important to our country. it's my hope this hearing will help answer the questions and i thank the witnesses that are here today, i thank our two colleagues that are participating in the hearing. we need to get this right. we need to figure out how to get the natural gas that is plentiful in the united states in an environmentally safe way. we have allowed for state regulation, but in some cases, state regulation has been inadequate. we do have federal laws, some apply, some are exempt. and the question is whether we are, in fact, adhering to the federal environmental rules that are currently in existence. what do we do with the waste water? how do we treat it? how do we deal to the danger?

i hope the hearing will help us in that pursuit. with that, let me turn to the ranking republican member the full committee member senator inhofe. >> thank you. i'm glad we are having the hearing. you hear the stuff what lousy job the states are doing. in march 17, 1949, more than 60 years ago, the first hydraulic fracting job was performed in a well in my home state of oklahoma. the practice has now been used on more than one million currently producing wells, 35,000 wells a year without one confirmed case of ground water contamination. don't take my word for it. let's hear what the experts, the state regulators have said. nick tou, said there will be no water contamination resulted

from fracting to stimulate oil and gas in the state of alabama. kathy forester, commissioner of the alaska oil and gas conservation. quote, there has been no verified cases of harm in the water in the state of alaska as a result of hydraulic fracting. mr. smith, quote, there's no indication that hydraulic fraction has ever caused damage to the ground water or other resources in michigan. in fact, the ogs has never received a complaint or allegation that hydraulic fractions has impacted ground water in any way. victor coreyo, that's the organization in texas that has the jurisdiction, i might add, though hydraulic fracturing has been used for 60 years, our railroad records that records do not reflect a single documented service or ground water contamination case. came thing true with fred, --

from the south dakota and all of these others. and so i have the other statements that i'll include in the record. now let me show you why this is the case. we've got a chart -- pull the chart up here. it's very important. everyone is spread out and hold it up high enough so that people can see it if you would. very good. now the chart illustrates a cross section of a typical well drilled in the grew drew. in between the ground water and shale are dozens of layers of solid rock. almost two miles of solid rock. let me repeat that, two miles of solid record between the aquafer. see this, that's a picture of the empire state. i'm trying to get this as a

perfective, -- perspective, the stuff they hear isn't true. it would have to migrate through 7,000 feet of solid rock, that's about the same distance from the west front of the capital, all the way to the washington monument. fluid migration can't and doesn't. it's simple, the obama administration wants to regulation fossil fuels out of existence. energy secretary stephen chu actually said somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe. for my colleagues that don't know, there is about $8 a gallon. or alan krueger in the treasury department who said, quote, the administration believes that it is no longer sufficient to address our nation's energy needs by finding more fossil fuels.

that's what this is all about. mr. krueger's belief is now a reality. gas at the pump is approaching $4 and we think it's going to be going on up. now if you think these data points are bad, they will grow far worse in the epa cap-and-trade agenda. as part of the agenda, the agency is maneuver to regulate, a practice that has always been regulated bay the state. the system today will confirm that the states don't need the epa. i want to welcome jeff cloud from my state of oklahoma, who's here to testify. it's a corporation commission i'd say to senator cornyn in oklahoma, not the commission that regulated it in oklahoma. these people have been doing a good job. but the mental they that we have here in washington, nothing done right unless it's done in washington. so the nation's shale deposit are predominantly located in states that effectively and efficiently regulate oil and gas

in states such as pennsylvania, arkansas, oklahoma, texas, louisiana, west virginia, ohio, and north dakota. a virtual boom is transforming america's energy security and due in no small measure to the absence of federal regulation. for this reason, i would only say that i agree with something that was said by the chairman this morning when he was talking about the tremendous reserves. our recoverable reserves in gas, we're talking about natural gas this morning are greater than any country in the world. we could run this country for 90 years on natural gas without importing any from the middle east. that's why it is important. for those people that say we want to cut down the dependence, kill natural gas, kill it? yeah, you start regulating -- you can't get natural gas from these deposits without hydraulic fracturing. it's worked. we got to keep that for america.

thank you. >> senator boxer. >> thank you, senator cornyn. thank you for chairing this hearing as chairman of the water and wildlife subcommittee. first i found another note. i want to express as chairman, i don't speak for all of the members. i do speak for all of the members on my side of the aisle. we are great that the new budget does not include epa riders. poll today showed 70% of people agree with that. today we are here to examine the environmental impact on drilling. drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led to expansion in the natural gas. we're glad to see we can in fact extract natural gas. because now it's actually economical. where a few years ago, it was not. the discovery of new resources created the opportunity for

cleaner, domestically produced fuel. one the key reasons is the discovery of the shale in the appalachian region of the united states which underlaying portions of virginia, west virginia, ohio, maryland, pennsylvania, and new york. with drilling in this part of the country likely to increase expotentially in coming years, it's critical that we ensure that efforts to extract natural gas do in the threaten the air we breathe and the water we drink. i want to thank senator casey for taking this issue on in a responsible way. again, i want to thank senator cardin. his state has a lot at stake here as well. i'm one that believes the committee's oversight efforts is important. because there are question that needs to be answered. if we follow the science, it'll lead us the right way. event series of investigative reports in the "new york times" highlights the potential -- i say potential risks -- of natural gas and inconsistent

efforts to regulate the booming industry. for example, the "times" reported that hydraulic fracturing process waste water is contaminated, including toxic metals, sames, carcinogens, and radioactive elements. these are facts. it's not a statement. a large amount of the waste water is disposed in municipal sewage treatment that may or may not be equipped to remove. they can discharge harmful levels into local water waste and solid waste produced may contain an array of toxins. without the oversight, it poses threats to aquatic life and human health, especially when public drinking water rely on water waste where water is being discharged. concerns have been raised for the chemicals used in the

fracture process can contaminate ground water. however, federal, state regulators and concerned citizens haven't had the information to determine if it's causing ground water contamination. some companies have limited access on the chemicals they use in their drilling fluids. the federal government does not require drilling operation tours to fully expose the chemicals. some state such as wyoming require exclosure, some states are taking responsible action here. the industry has also recently launched a voluntary disclosure effort. that's encouraging too. but we have a long way to go before full disclosure is consistent and industry-wide practice. i believe in disclosure. let the facts come out and we'll make a reasonable decision, i believe. so i've highlighted only a few of the health and environmental issues that have been associated with natural gas drilling.

additional issues include air pollution, impacts on water supply, due to the millions of gallons of water that are needed at each natural gas well. so given the array of potential impacts the need for more study, the state of new york is taking a time out of hydraulic fracturing. choosing to fully study the issues first before allowing widespread drilling. new york and other state is taking action here. the u.s. epa has also been directed by congress, directed by congress to study the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies. i expect the agency we use an independent, comprehensive, and scientific process to provide congress with unbiased information. there's much that we need to learn to move forward in a way that ensuring safe and responsible drilling that is protective of our air and water. i think those have to go together. this hearing is an important step in the epa committee -- in the epw committee's oversight on this issue.

i certainly look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the other members on the panel. thank you. >> thank you,. chairman? >> thank you. oil and natural gas are a critical part of the mix. we have oil, gas, coal, to wind. these resources provide an opportunity for our state and nation, it means jobs, economic security, as well as energy security. wyoming right now ranks second in the country in natural gas production. the oil and gas industry supports nearly 20,000 jobs in the state of wyoming. we're talking about a state with a population of only about a half a million people. the revenues generated from oil and gas exploration are invested right at home. it helps build schools, roads, water system, it helps sends kids to college in our state through the hathaway scholarship program. senator inhofe gave a compelling litany of success stories across the country. i want to share a left from the

"wyoming oil and gas conservation commission." the commission regulates oil and gas, including hydraulic fracturing in wyoming. here are a couple of quotes. wyoming has no documented cases of ground water contamination. from 1999 to 2010, over 46,000 stimulation treatments were performed in wyoming. almost 100% of oil and gas wells hire hydraulic fracture stimulation to be commercial. i request a copy of this letter be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it provides details about my home state's rules for hydraulic fracture being of. in wyoming, we have been producing oil and gas for a long time. the left mentions over 46,000 of these procedures from 1999 to

2010. we take this issue very seriously. i appreciate senator boxer's comment about wyoming doing it right. it is about both our environmental stewardship and about jobs. the state demonstrated this when it updated its rules just this last year. the changes include increased transparency requirements for hydraulic fracturing. industry is required to disclose all of the chemicals used before and after fracturing. most of america's gas is produced with fracturing, without it, the resources will be remained locked away and it's a threat to our energy security, financial security, and our national security. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we will now turn to our colleagues as our first panel will start with senator cornyn. >> thank you, chairman cardin. thanks to chairman boxer, the chairman of the full committee, and senator inhofe, the ranking

member and barrasso, it's good to be with you today. as senator inhofe noted, fracting has been around a long time. about 60 years. what's changed the state of play has been the advent of horizontal drilling. if you fly into dallas-fort worth airplane, you will be met with scenes of active drilling going on there thanks to the directional drilling that is capable from a single platform going out a mile or more into some of these shale formations. i'd glad to have the opportunity to share the perspective of my state on that practice, which i'd proud to say we help department and which is essential to the development of three shale plays in our state, the barnett around fort fort wo. i want to focus on three points, texas has app bountiful supply

of natural gas. it has implications for job creation, economy, and national security. it -- states are effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing already. federal regulation bit epa would inevitably lead to cumulative regulation, bureaucratic delays, and reduce the production of the resource. in texas, the oil and gas industry provides more than 1.7 million jobs and accounts for 25% of our state's economy. over 11,000 wells have been completed in the barnett shale which as i said is in the dallas-fort worth area. one the nation's largest active fields. the barnett shale contributes over 20% of the total texas natural gas production. and in south texas, a very exciting development there with the eagleford shale. according to a recent study by the university of texas at san

antonio, the long-term regional implications of the boom in south texas is staggering. according to the study, under modest assumptions, by 2020, the shale is expected to account for close to 11.6 billion in close state product, $21.6 billion in economic output impact, and support close to 67,000 roughly 68,000 full-time jobs. the haynesville shale in texas was not commercially viable until a few years ago, but it is now thanks to advancing technology. i recently went to a drilling rig outside of texas that represents the latest improvement on horizontal drilling using more energy efficient engines, leading to shorter drilling times and reducing the impact on surrounding areas. the proliferation of these domestic resources has contributed to texas' ability if not unique nearly unique in this

recession to actually add jobs to our economy. yet the job creators and workers on the particular rig were anxious about what they could expect from washington in terms of additional and dupe liukative regulation. it has been used in tens of thousands of wells already. it has been studied by the environmental protection agency, ground water protection council, interstate oil and gas impact commission, and in each case, hydraulic fracturing has been judged to be environmentally sound. at every step in the drilling process, energy produces are subject to state regulations already, as well as federal requirements under the occupational health and safety, the environmental response compensation, and liability, and the toxic substances control act. as you can see, the federal government is already actively involved. this week the ground water protection council and the interstate oil and gas unvailed

the landmark web base for the disclosure of chemical additives used in the fracting process as illuded to by chairman boxer, this is important information. energy companies now have a single source to pubicly disemployee. they are already aware of what check calls are being used and hydraulic fracturing hadn't been the culprit. however, i must say that i'm joined here at the table by my good friend senator casey who i know is proposing legislation that would go beyond public disclosure and give the epa authority over fracturing for the first time in the nation's history. there's no need to destroy the partnership between state and federal regulators and put the epa in the driver seat. we've seen them through aggressive regulatory efforts engage in a lot of activity,

which frankly is harmful to our economy. and we've seen what happened when over regulation and misinformation become the common narrative. additional players of red tape create a death by a thousand cuts that run people out of business, and take jobs as well as local, state, and federal tax revenue. without hydraulic fracturing, access to gas resources would be substantially restricted. i thank the committee for having the hearing and thank you for having me come testify on a very, very important topic. >> thank you, senator cornyn. senator casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for hearing, chairman boxer, thank you as well for your testimony and ranking member inhofe, and joined by latenberg and barrasso, i want to thank senator cornyn for his testimony. let me first ask if i can place

my whole statement in the record. thank you, i'll be belief. i'll start with history. in our state, we went through most of the 19th century and roughly about half of the 20th century not getting it right as it relates to the extraction of a natural resource, and in this case, coal and balancing that with environmental regulation to make sure we're protecting public health and the environment. after 1950, we began to get it right in our state. our state passed legislation by the clean streams law in the 1960s, and as time went on, we started to do a much better job of regulating and making sure we've getting the balance right. today we have to get it right. we have to be able to at the same time create jobs, and this will be a tremendous increase in jobs in pennsylvania as a result of natural gas extraction, we also have, of course, the availability of a

domestically-produced source of energy. that's good news. we need to pursue that. but we have to balance both of those with the kind of protection for public health and safety as well as making sure that ground water and drinking water is protected. i'll speak about my legislation in a moment. but it reached a point in our state where after all of the history and all of that learning and experience that our state constitution was amended in the early 1970s, it's a very simple statement. but it's an important statement for our commonwealth and our country. art 27 of the pennsylvania constitution says the people shall have a rate to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural scenic, historic, and aesthetic values of the environment. that obligation that we hold the environment as trustees for

future generations. and that's the directive from our state's constitution. it's not optional. it's not a maybe, it's not a i hope you can do it. it's a direct and constitutional directive. i live in a state where that directive is very important to the commonwealth and very important, i think, to people across the state. i think we can get this right. i don't think there's any question about it. but unfortunately now even though the process has been around a while, the hydraulic fracturing process, there's still a lot of questions about whether or not it will have some of the environmental impact that some are concerned about. i don't think it has to in any way slow things down. these questions are being raised in the state where over four or five year period of time we are averaging only 17 wells drilled a month. now we're well above 120 wells a month being drilled.

nothing is slowed down here. tremendous growth of the industry and tremendous opportunity with it. as we're doing that, we got to make sure we get it right. let me highlight, i have three bills. one that deals with emergency at well side and job training. i'll skip over those. they will be in the my testimony. just on the hydraulic fracturing. we are trying to amend the safe drinking water act and the definition of quote underground injection, unquote, to include underground injection of fluids or propping agents used for hydraulic fractureing related to oil and gas. we're trying to close the loophole in the law as it stands now. and secondly, it would require public disclosure of the chemical constituents, but not the proprietary information. of course, if you analogize that to the ingredients in something,

you'd be making or baking a cake or something like that. we don't have to -- we're not asking this legislation that the proprietary information is made a part of public disclosure. but just the chemicals. the good news here is we're getting a good bit of cooperation and help from the industry. companies are disclosing what we'll have some debates account level and nature of the duskily sure. i think the one that will cause the most conflict is regulation. i'm in favor of a national standard. why should we have a set of tough environmental rules that protect drinking water and ground water in one state, and have a state next door or across the country have a whole other set of rules. so i think we can get this right. i appreciate the opportunity to speak about this. and i'm grateful to be joined by senator cornyn at the table. i think we are both running out the door. >> right. senator casey, let me thank you

for contributions that you are taking to this debate. i think your legislation is one that we want to consider very closely. senator cornyn, we thank you very much. our objectives are the same. we know we have a large amount of natural gas. we want to make sure that we can get that safely and use it for our energy security here in america. with that, the two of you are excused, thank you very much. >> the first panel will consistent of robert perciasepe, administrator of the environmental protection agency. mr. perciasepe, nice to have you back. you may proceed as you wish, your entire statement will be made part of our record. >> i have to remember the push the button. madam chair, mr. chairman, and ranking member inhofe, thank you

for inviting me to testify today. i'm pleased to be here to discuss natural gas production and epa's role in ensuring that public health and the environment are protected. let me begin by remarks by saying that natural gas is a very important fuel for our country. it can enhance our domestic energy options, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies, and serve as a bridge fuel to the future and to renewable energy sources. if produced responsibly, natural gas has the potential to improve air quality, stabilize energy prices, and provide greater certainly about the future and energy preserves. as president obama said in a recent town hall meeting, recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves of natural gas, perhaps a serge re's worth in the shale under our feet. now we have to make sure we are doing it safely without polluting the water supplies. in addition, the president has ordered the epa, department of

intier your, and department of energy to work together with industry, environmental community, and states to come up with best practices for the safety. making sure our water supply is safe is what i'd like to talk about today. the clean water and safe water act are the primary that we use to ensure natural gas through a process called hydraulic fracturing or fracting does not impair water quality. we believe natural gas can be and must be instanted properly. if improperly managed, hydraulic fracturing would potentially result in public health and environmental practices. at any time of the well and associated operations, such impact to water would include stress on surface water and ground water supplies given the use of fresh water for these operations, potential contamination of drinking water aquifer, and compromise water

quality, and these con -- contaminates could include salt. we know epa will not hesitate to protect americans who's health is at risk. we remain committed to working with officials on the production activities. epa will not only use the authority that congress has given it, but we are also leading on understanding the science behind potential drinking water contamination from fracting. epa launched a study to understand the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. when completed, the peer review research study will help us better understand the conditions that maybe associated with the drinking water resources, as well as factors that lead to human health exposure and risk. while we await the results, we will also use our legal authorities where appropriate.

while congress exempted oil and gas from several environmental laws, a number of environmental protections continue to apply. for example, while the energy policy act of 2005 excluded hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas production from permitting under the safe drinking water underground ejection and control program, these activities are still regulated understood the safe drinking water act when diesel fuels are used as fracting fluids. also flow back and produced water through injection is still regulated under the safe drinking water act. in addition to our authorities under the safe drinking water act, epa regulates waste water from oil and gas under the clean water act. when they are discharged into publicly-owned treatment and surface water. under both of these laws, states play a leading role. for statements with fully delegated programs, states have the responsibility in making sure the laws are followed. epa provides guidelines to the

states on how to follow these rules and to make sure they are addressing all of the threats to public health. the issues surrounding natural gas extraction are lengthy and complicated. by helping manage environmental impact, natural gas production can and will proceed in a responsible manner that producting public health and enhances our options. i'll be happy to take any questions at this time, mr. chairman. >> mr. perciasepe, thank you for your testimony. i agree with the points that you make. there are significant environmental laws that give epa authority to act in this area. i want to just start by, i think there's general agreement in the committee and congress. we want to be able to tap into the natural gas reserves in this nation. we believe that is the energy source that we have. we want to be able to obtain that energy source, and we want

to do it in a safe and environmentally sound manner. but as you point out, you have certain responsibilities under environmental laws that you are responsible to enforce. i listen to senator inhofe talk about how the fracting practice works so far under ground. we all understand that. you inject fluids that contain certain chemicals. those fluids then are extracted, when they are extracted, they bring out not only the original fluids, but they bring out a whole host of potential pollutants that could be very damaging to public health. the question is what then happens to that fluid that is removed during the fracting procedures. as i understand it, best practices but many of the gas companies use is to recycle that. that's fine. they recycle it, take out the hard chemicals that they can, the pollutants, and dispose of

them properly and reuse the fluids in a way that is constructive to getting more natural gas. in some cases, they inject the fluids back into the earth and underground wells. that is also cases have been done at a very sound environmental way. but in some cases, they tick it to the waste water treatment facility plant that is close by. which to me presents significant problems. let me just -- i saw a letter that was sent by epa, the regional administrator, shawn garbin to the pennsylvania environmental agency where the epa said waste water resulting from gas drilling operations contained material that may present a threat to human health and aquatic environment. many of them are not removed and discharges may cause or contribute to impaired drinking water quality from downstream

users, or harm aquatic life. well, it seems to me that you have the responsibility to make sure that the waste water treatment facilities are, in fact, complying with the permit. if you believe there's a danger to the health -- public health because of the inability to remove certain pollutants, you need to take action. my question is has epa taken action, why not? >> thank you for that question. there are a number of factors that would be involved with how we take action when the fluids are used in a publicly owned treatment. that is a general statement. there needs to be care taking that pollutants won't go through the sewage treatment, or they don't disrupt the sewage treatment plants operation in the case that you sited in

pennsylvania, the regional administrator has been working with the state. we have been issued in the past information collection so that we can understand what was going on to the different sewage treatment plants and in many cases, the sewage treatment plants have stop taking some of the fracting fluids and produce water. we are not process of working with pennsylvania, pennsylvania has responded to that letter, that the regional administrator has sent and we feel like we're making good progress there. >> well, we appreciate that. some of us think this is a pretty clear issue. and that there needs to be pretty definitive action by epa so that we can avoid this public health risk. there are other areas that you could enforcing the environmental laws. oz you know, there's no exemption if diesel is used in the fracting process. yet i'm not aware of any enforcing action taken by epa.

am i wrong? have there been enforcement action taken against fracting privileges that endanger our environment? >> we have taken enforcement actions through issuing ordered whether we think there's an eminent or substantial endangerment. but in terms of enforcement where there maybe diesel fluids -- fuel being used for fracting, we're in the process of collecting information on that. we have information from congress, as well as their own information collection we've been doing. that's in the process of doing through enforcement procedures. let me yield, senator inhofe. i might have some questions here from the colleagues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in response to the senator casey, i do want to point out that there are other points of view within the pennsylvania regarding the need for federal intervention in the regulation of hydraulic fraction, first of

all to submit testimony from the record. the secretary of the pennsylvania's department of environmental protection, senator casey may not realize it, but according to secretary, pennsylvania already required the disclosure of fract fluids. as they pointed out, i'm quoting now, the state's new regulation require operators to disclose the chemical additives on a well by well basis.

in the first eight hours at 24 companies signed on to use it and naim already uploading fracturing date of 309 wells people. the real largest companies really the largest companies are clamoring for this opportunity and participating. clearly the states are running

successful or give the three programs. we are going to hear from some of them today and i would hope he would be able to stick around and listen to some of their testimony. on the federal level of course the epa is doing a study on the impact of the hydraulic fracturing and i also understand president obama asked the department of energy advisory board to look into and on top of that the white house council of environmental quality has been petitioned to study any cumulative impact and to help me understand these various studies in particular how they all fit together it would be helpful if you could commit to brief my staff on the efforts and on a regular basis maybe a quarterly basis and you always been willing to do that in the past and i'm sure you would do that that way we can probably see what this oversight is doing. now just one thing i was going to hold this up by the way and i'm sorry i didn't, this is marcella shale. this is what we are talking about, how they have to get the

gas out of this kind of formation and the only way they can do it, so i would say that the states are different. this did oklahoma shale, we are talking about 30,000 northen kansas, their shale was between 3,000 to 4,000 apiece. louisiana is like 3 miles deep. pennsylvania, 2 miles deep, so it's different and that's why though one size fits all just doesn't really work in this case, so the question i would ask you is are they not doing a good job in the state's? >> [inaudible] >> the states that -- there are many states taking issue on this and as i mentioned in my oral testimony or on the front lines of the safe drinking water act where they have authority but let me just go back to the pennsylvania example for just a minute that you started with, senator. when the fluids were and

produced water were being brought to the publicly owned treatment works, the responsibility for the discharge permit of that plant is the state's and the state's discharge permit from those did not contain limits on so that backend for the oversight between the state that i think is important to make sure that we have a level playing field but you are correct, there is no one-size-fits-all here. the geology and all these different and formations around the country are different, at different depths and there's different players in the supplementary rock levels so we have to be little get things in that way. our primary role is the oversight of the programs where they are running the programs providing guidance where we can and we see amend indeed determined we may take our own

actions. >> my time is expired but i would say that once you start move in from the federal level and i say to my friend senator bozeman, he was in here during my statement i enlisted the state of arkansas that has a lot of these reserves and i just really am concerned over the regulation of we will hear that from some of the people on the next panel. thank you very much. >> senator boxer? >> i hear what my colleague saying about his preference for state regulation. i did cite an example though of new york just shutting down for the moment. because they are concerned, and i think senator d.c.'s name was mentioned by my colleague which he wasn't here to explain what he meant, but what i heard him say is his state constitution calls for defending the quality and make a right the clean water

and clean air so if the state next door doesn't have the same type of law, but happens is it could be impacted i don't have a particular position on where we are going except we need to have the facts. i think that's the point and i want to ask about this. will the epa study look at all potential impact to the drinking water in putting in cut from waste water that is produced during the hydraulic fracturing process in your studies? >> senator, we are characterizing the fluids. we've gotten information from the companies and are going to be characterizing the produced water because the fluids don't for instance contain video nuclei. these are naturally occurring in the rock formation but they come out with some of the produced water. >> so the answer is yes? >> yes. >> can you assure they will do an independent scientific

process to provide an accurate and unbiased assessment which will help us make sure drilling is done safely and responsibly and protect the public health? >> yes. not only will the study plan b peer reviewed before we even start to study the the actual results will be here reviewed as well. >> i want to ask a question about diesel fuel here. on january 31st member of representatives in the house and the cousin administrator jackson a letter providing the results of an investigation that found diesel fuel continues to be used in hydraulic fracturing. first of all, to your knowledge, is that true? and as you know the safe water drinking act exemption for the hydraulic fractions specifically doesn't include the use of diesel fuel so you still have the ability to regulate. that's my understanding. in 03 the epa signed a major drilling service company to eliminate the use of diesel and hydraulic fracturing of the patients. would you provide us an update on what efforts the epa is taking to protect public health

from diesel fuel in the use of hydraulic fracturing. >> excuse me. the mou or moa i think it was in the methane production, not in a shale production. and so, that is where there was a concern because many of those four nations are at the more shallow depth. we are in the process of confirming and reviewing the information and we have received from congress. we have grown information requests to the companies and we're looking at that as well. >> as loveless mentioned the gallons of water produced in the process can contain radioactive elements, the growth and carcinogens. these reports indicate waste water is being sent to a municipal waste water treatment plants that may not be equipped to treat this waste which could

result in a discharge of harmful toxins to the local water waste. what authority does the epa have to address the treatment of waste water from the natural gas drilling operations? >> there's several steps that have to be taken in terms of the use of a publicly owned treatment worked for the disposal of the fluids. first the limits have to be placed on the permit for the treatment plant. whether if the state is -- the agency that is running the npds delusion program in that state they need to put a limit on those plants. if the status of reading the pretreatment program which would be how he would treat the fluids before they go into the sewage treatment plant there would be required to do that. the epa is looking into guidance on what treatment might be hidden useful for those waste the first step would be obviously making sure we have the right limits on every plan that is going to be receiving the waste and that is part of our oversight for air vehicle.

>> are you working with plans to accept the hydraulic to ensure adequate treatment is occurring? are you working with the plant themselves at this time? >> we have a state permitting the authority working with the states like we are doing in pennsylvania. >> okay. i will submit the rest of my question for the record. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and again thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing. it's very important. it's important to my state and really, juneau, just in the nation in general in the sense that we certainly need the resources that it engenders. now, currently, as it stands again the gas and the leal industry is regulated by the states as far as this type of thing? >> the states of the delegated

the authority under the clean water act or safe drinking water act they are the ones that have been delegated authority. epa provides oversight of those states and i just went through an example of what that oversight might look like in a particular place. so that is in my written testimony also, senator, the detail of those interactions but it's like almost all of the other pollution laws that we have, in interaction and between the states and the federal government with the federal government oversight and delegation of authority. >> i think it's important as we have new technology, and certainly this is a new technology that hadn't been around very long. and it's a very effective technology that we understand the potential risk and do it in a sound way. i guess my feeling is that the agency is the responsibility of providing good science to help

the state's in making their decisions. but i feel very strongly that it does need to turn in at the state level, and in the past the oil industry has worked fairly well in doing that and there's a good record there. so again, i would be inclined to continue as we are now with the epa providing sound science. and how do you make it such that there is a part? will you be the ones selecting the people that do the study? >> in the peer review board? i guess what separation there is in that regard. >> we have a science advisory board the epa uses for its peer review, not all that many of its peer review -- >> and the science advisory

board is appointed by the epa? >> yes, and it's an independent fact the oral advisory committee and it provides advice to the administrator on fallujah science matters and the senate panels of the need the expertise to look at a particular subject, and we use them -- the offering in many ways similar to the way the national academy of science and set up a panel to look at a particular matter of scientists in that field. >> thank you very much for your testimony. >> senator lautenberg? >> thank you mr. chairman. two things in life are more essentials and the water we drink and the government has few responsibilities that is critical to protecting the country's water supply. in going to use these couple of minutes for my statement. communities are reporting

serious contamination of the water supplies from the drilling process that we are now looking at cracking and the environmental protection agency as we discussed here is widely known as powerless to protect these communities because and soon the republican congress advised president cheney's the test period but the epa from setting standards. this so-called halliburton local elaine is the chemicals in the ground in order to reach to get to the heart to reach natural gas. some states as we've heard have adopted strong laws to reduce the risk to their residents but let's face it, water doesn't recognize the state boundaries and you may live in a state that has strong lobbies but if the next door doesn't come in your water and your families could

still be at risk. the risks to humans isn't limited to those who live near the drilling sites and during assume the process could be highly contaminated. then a recent "new york times" investigation revealed the waste water cannon and rivers and streams and even if it's taken to the waste water treatment plant the water often contains radioactive toxic materials that the treatment facilities cannot remove. we don't want to make any mistakes in our representation here. natural gas has its advantages. and it's critical for the energy needs. natural gas, cheaper and cleaner than coal and important to invest in the energy source for the country but nothing, nothing is more important than the

health of our children and risking their health is in on acceptable price under any condition. we simply can't allow their drinking water or our rivers and streams to be contaminated by natural gas drilling. mini cleaner fuels to replace the oil but we can't allow the cure to be worse than the disease. that's why i joined senator casey and others to introduce the bill to close the halliburton loophole and restore the epa ability to regulate cracking it. -- fracking to read the bill also require the chemical kaput companies to disclose the chemicals they use on the process. 25 years ago, i offered that the right to move law on the toxic chemical releases in the air to make sure people know about potential substances and their communities. parents have a right to know what is in the fracking that could contaminate the water

their children drink. and more information on the contaminants which were happy to see epa undertaking would empower the citizens and help the government to make better decisions on the pollutants in the water supply we need the natural gas but also clean water, look for to hearing from the witnesses about how we can work together to ensure natural gas is done as safely as possible. now i want to ask you and mr. perciasepe a question about the air in new jersey is already by coal-fired power plants to the west of us and now unprecedented numbers of hydraulic fracturing wells in pennsylvania and other nearby states. what can we expect with air pollution coming to new jersey for these activities?

>> the air emissions from the gas activities would be regulated under the clean air act and on the size and type of commission that it is. there have been problems with some areas of the country where the emissions from all of the activity going on related to natural gas extraction that it is created an increase in the emissions of those compounds or nitrogen oxide so it is certainly something that would have to be carefully looked at as there is authority under the act. >> that's the conclusion you have come to when will we be able to find out what is happening hair and what we can do to prevent it from coming

folder new jersey? >> well, the clean air act requires technology to be used and this is a process the epa is looking at as it goes about working with the state's and the industry directly on those standards would be used. of the things i mentioned is the president has asked the department of energy and interior who has responsibilities on public land epa who has all the regulatory oversight responsibilities to find the best practices and one of the things we want to make sure we are looking at is what are the best practices to be used to minimize the impact of the actual practice of gas

extraction. the other side of the coin is the bigot and urged the pollution using natural gas so that being in the coming shortly balance that out in the long term merkley plants >> senator udall? >> thank you mr. chairman and for holding this hearing. i would ask unanimous consent to put my opening statement in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> the energy policy act concluded an exemption for hydraulic fracturing from underground injections. control permits, however there was also an exemption from the exemption as you are well aware for the hydraulic fracturing with diesel fuel. meaning if you in a install the exemption did not apply recently

found millions of diesel fuel had been injected into thousand five including hundreds of dolphins of the ones in mexico. what is the epa position on this? do you need a federal permit to inject diesel fuel underground in a hydraulic fracturing operation, and if not, please explain the court rulings that came out in 1997 and the 2005 exemption for an exemption for diesel. >> hydraulic fracking is subject to the safe drinking water act requirements in -- >> that's under the court ruling, correct? >> what's under almost of the plane reading of blah, blah the 2005 law that you referred to.

we have the information we received from the congress and we also are in the process of gathering our own information as we are going through our analysis and so we are looking into this issue of the diesel use and what we call upon soon. >> but my very specific question here in the sense is the legal question do you need a permit to inject diesel fuel? what is the epa position on that specific question? >> or the state has privacy and i have the state of texas railroad commission the ranking member senator inhofe mentioned earlier has actually issued a letter inside the state of texas saying they can't use diesel fuel without getting a permit so that is -- >> that's the texas situation. some of it is the same law before the whole country. >> what they object to the requirement state in doing what

texas is doing then are you requiring a permit? >> that's what we are trying to find out and work with to try to gather the information where the fuel depot fluids may be used. we have the information i was given to us and we are also getting information from the companies now. >> so, the answer to that question do you need a permit to inject diesel fuel you're not getting an answer to that. >> yes. the subject to the safe drinking water act. >> but are you requiring if the state isn't requiring a permit or you require a permit cracks >> we have to find out where that is our investigation that's going on now, where are these fluids been used? we have to know where it's being used to require the permit. >> let me go on and be clear. it is using diesel fluids for hydraulic fracturing and shale

is subject to the safe drinking water act, would be required to get a permit? >> with the gentleman yield for one moment seconded the facts straight on this issue? >> you're taking the chairman's time. >> i will give you an extra minute. [laughter] according to our information at around 19 states that are using eisel as a part of their injection process and that between 2005 and 2009 there were 32 million gallons of injection fluids used that contained the sole. i would appreciate if you could verify that for us and i think senator udall's plant that it appears permits are needed and which obscene any enforcement of this by the epa. i think the gentleman for yielding and i want to make sure we get the right numbers. you mention hundreds of thousands. we've dirty $2 million that were used that it would be peaceful. >> they may be asking it another way if they didn't get a permit

the were in violation of the law. >> yes. >> okay, good. >> now moving on here, in the far sell bushfield much of the produced water is not disposed of bye injection wells as you are aware but rather is transported the waste water treatment plants many of them municipal and them treated and discharged into waterways. and here i am trying to get at the best practices. is this better or worse than disposing the preus water and underground injection? >> underground injection for the disposal was going to be permitted to deal with those issues. the problem we have in many places if all the want to say this is everywhere that the discharge limits on the actual sewage treatment plant the limits it has to discharge into the water that its permit to

discharge may not have the limits on at for the chemicals and constituents that might be in the fluids going into the plant to be treated so that there would be no way to know if it is meeting those limits before its discharge to the water. i'm not saying that is the case everywhere but many publicly owned sewage treatment plants haven't put limits on their discharge to deal with the constituents of the fracking fluid or the produced water and that is the issue we are working on in pennsylvania for instance. >> and so you are seeing that as a problem it sounds like. if they don't adjust their wheat waste water treatment to deal with it is coming in, which isn't like municipal sewage is much different in terms of the constituents, that could be a problem and you are trying to get on top of that. >> either putting a limit on the planned figuring out how the

plant handles it or treating the fluids before it is brought to the plant so that it can be compatible with the plant those are the two approaches you can take to the sewage treatment plant whereas a permit class ii, i think that's true, -- underground injection would be permitted to deal with those issues. >> but today we have been just alluding to produce water into trucks and driving it over to the waste water treatment plant and then dumping it into the waste water treatment plant. are you aware that they are preaching it? >> and number of those instances where we have learned about those are ones we are working directly with the states or gathering information to the enforcement authority under the clean water act. >> thank you very much for your service. >> senator merkley?

>> thank you, mr. chair, and i want to ask you about the article the cornell university researchers cannot with recently that try to taha will get the impact of the trucking and the fugitive methane and carbon dioxide and other initial finding was that natural-gas is worse than cold in terms of its greenhouse gas footprint over a 20 year period roughly equal to call over 100 footprints which is a real surprise to many of us and is this an issue that epa are analyzing and looking at? >> we've had a voluntary program working with companies to tighten up their system to reduce fugitive emissions of methane which is the natural gas. however this study which i don't

think has actually been published yet although it's been discussed in the newspapers and the basic outlines of it are available is an important piece of information we need to bring into the discussion. if it indeed is some leakage out of the system these are generally problems that can be addressed through proper controls or through collection controls at the wellhead so i think it needs to be taken into account. the other issue i mentioned earlier on the clean air, the same kind of techniques to reduce the emissions for the regular criteria are also reduced the emissions of methane, and this is something that is going to have to be looked at over the long haul we are going to have to fugitive

emissions can be reduced. >> my understanding is that a lot of these emissions are the result of actually the fracking fluid carrying the net into the service and it goes into a pond or anywhere else that methane then gases into the atmosphere, so if it is contained in the fluid, what strategies are there that could address this? >> there are technologies that can be used when the fluids come to the surface -- >> that's why masking. i'm asking what technologies? >> i'm not familiar with the details. there are both tightening of the system but also collected and strict. i'm not 100% certain. we've been working with companies in a voluntary program to do some of these and i think i can follow-up with you if it is okay with giving you more specifics on what technologies

have been tried and used we would be interested in sharing that with the committee and obviously it's something that if this study after we review it ads to this discussion we are going to definitely want to be looking as a country at reducing the emissions from these facilities, but in addition we want to be looking at reducing emissions of the criteria pollutants causing the ozone and other problems as well. so all of that can be done together in a common sense kind of way. >> are you familiar with the documentary quote coke gas land to"? >> generally familiar, yes. >> it is a dramatic demonstration that notes -- i just read the description of it, and so the film maker once the kitchen faucet and then holds a cigarette lighter up next to it and a ball of fire erupts from so much gas that has entered into the water supply from

fracking in in the area. so, this is obviously pretty dramatic demonstration of the concern people have about the water supply. >> we definitely have examples and we've seen some where the drinking water supplies have been contaminated with methylene itself, and in those cases we learn of this the epa is taking enforcement action to correct those problems or deal with those problems. as senator inhofe showed earlier in his charge, which shows the early years being very deep, the actual well has to go through the drinking water so if it's not properly constructed it's conceivable and possible, and we have examples where it looks to

see where we've seen methane contamination how that happened is with the subject of some of our analysis. spearman despite the halliburton lippold you feel like to have enforcement powers? >> when there is in dillinger and we have enforcement powers under the safe water drinking act. >> thank you. >> again, think you for your testimony. let me point out that the epa has authority to act in certain areas. and obviously, if we think it's not adequate then we will look at taking action and senator kec is introduce legislation. but it seems to me that it's pretty clear is a relates to the waste water treatment facility issues on the fluid's returned to the surface it's my understanding there is still seven waste-water treatment facility plants taking today the fluids coming out of fracking, and what you're own agency already acknowledging that it

presents a threat to human help i would hope would be the highest priority as you will get the appropriate role for the epa. i think senator udall's pond concerning the eisel issue is one also requires the epa to take a more definitive action and senator merkley has raised important issue also so i hope that you will good on tv to respond to the urgency of some of these issues. as you will be pointed out you have the authority and it's now your responsibility to take action. is there any member seeking a second round? senator inhofe? senator merkley? if not, then -- yes, sir? >> i just want to confirm what you just said, senator, that the epa is acting on all these fronts. we are take action where there is imminent danger as we just discussed and i think if you can step back for a minute the dynamic between the states and

federal government and how we are working on -- how we have shared our authority for many years there is certainly something the epa's responsibility and oversight is one that we are in -- we are very much pushing forward on in a very strong and strenuous way. if i step back to my opening comments and simply say providing a framework that provides public confidence in what we are doing here because of the great need the country has to develop these resources for our energy needs what we also need to do at the same time is get together and make sure we try to provide the confidence the public needs to allow this to happen. we will see in the long haul the situations where there is an unknown or uncertainty or that the states of new york for instance have to stop all activity because they are trying to figure of what's going on, so we need to be looking at it from that perspective on a national level how do we create that

public confidence to move forward in the way we need to move forward, so i appreciate the chance to share some of these faults. >> we agree and want to work with you closely. the foundation and a host of other groups that petitioned the obama administration to the problematic environmental impact statement help understand the impact of all of the wells being currently operated. without objection, i will include in the record a copy of their petition. thank you had very much for your testimony. >> thank you. >> i will now turn to the second panel which consists of dr. bald summers, the acting secretary of the maryland department of the environment, dr. dan walz, the director of the center for health the environment and communities. mr. jack uppinger, jeff cloud, the vice chairman oklahoma conservation commission and david, the director of the

colorado oil and gas conservation commission. we will start with dr. summers. welcome. >> you need to put your microphone on. >> okay. >> now you're on. >> chairman, ranking member on inhofe, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share maryland's experience and concerns with hydraulic fracturing in the marcello shettle, i'm bob summers, acting secretary of the maryland department of the environment. the marcella shale formation underlines the county and part of allegheny county in maryland in the far western part of the state, and in movies to counties gas companies have released the gas rates are more than 100,000 acres. we're just beginning to enter into this.

we currently have applications from two companies for a total of five wells. we are very mindful of the tremendous benefits that could accrue to the abandoned and the economy by exporting and exploiting these gas reserves but we are equally alert to the risks of adverse public health and environmental effects. our paramount concern is protecting public health, the environment and the ground and surface water quality. we are proceeding cautiously and deliberately and do not intend to allow drilling and fracking and marcel shalem maryland until these issues aren't resolved to our satisfaction. there's numerous issues we've heard a lot about those already. some of the things we are particularly concerned about the act of sustainability of the surface water and ground water and the regions the supply fracking, the minimum requirements for constructing casing and cementing wells,

minimum requirements for the integrity testing of the wells, requirements for installing and testing a blowout prevention equipment, the potential for mass migration from the well including migration that can be induced from some of the leaders of the weld goes through versus the failure of the well itself, toxicity and transport of fracking fluids, proper handling and disposing of the naturally occuring radioactive materials and many other aspects of this complex operation that need to be controlled. in maryland we are moving forward and anticipate to take two stages in doing this. first, over the next year we are surveying existing practices and selecting best practices for drilling and fracking of the wells, these will cover all aspects of the preparation and design delivery and management

material, drilling casing, cementing, fracking and waste disposal. after we develop this interim we will call to the gold standard and consider issuing permits for a small number of exploratory wells to be drilled in maryland and we will carefully monitor these to provide more detailed information that we can use in order to take the second step in our process using the data from the exploratory wells along with the result of other research gathering from the surrounding states and other areas. if we determine the gas production can be accomplished without unreasonable risk to the human health and in the environment but the department would then make the decisions on the applications for production wells. the commission will reflect all of these best practices and avoid public health and environmental harm. risk to public health and environmental harm.

we need the federal government to take a more active role in studying and regulating the activities such as the deep naturally, horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracking and waste disposal, and why we believe the states should retain the responsibility and should be able to enact more stringent requirements if they desire the federal regulatory floor will ensure at least basic protection of public health. we believe the federal technical support and oversight such as it occurs now between the water act and safe drinking water act are particularly important to protect our interstate water such as the subsequent river, the potomac river chesapeake bay, though critical resources and in fact today we have right here and probably the potomac river water which also needs to be protected for the citizens in this area. we commend the congress for directing the u.s. cpa to

conduct their research the state's need the federal government to lead and land resources to help us in this effort coming and we support the legislation that we've just heard discussed today to allow regulation under the federal law and safe drinking water act and to of require disclosure. so thank you for taking the initiative to inquire into this important issue and for providing this opportunity. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, dr. summers and now dr. volz. >> thank you. thank you all for the opportunity at this joint hearing at this hearing an environmental impact. i believe the on conventional gas extraction in deep shale deposits presents considerable risks to public health and

safety as well as to environmental resources particularly water quality and organisms. my testimony is going to cover three critical public health and environmental policy areas related to the unconventional natural gas production. number one, it's largely unregulated sightings of the wells, patterns of violation from the marcella shale that show impact on water resources and finally, i think a very important issue that has been brought up a couple of times, the toxic substances entering the surface water sources from disposal of the flow backwaters through the treatment and sewage treatment plants. for someone to talk about the unregulated side of the gas wells in areas of the population density which also occurred near

schools, critical infrastructure , this is shown a slight three of my presentation that i gave to the committees today. on conventional gas extraction wells or highly industrialized operations that very little resemblance to what we know in northeastern united states conventional oil and gas exploration. these are as i said, highly industrialized, and there can be risks of catastrophic blow outs, explosion, and or five-year and can create an immediate interest situation. the unregulated side of the unconventional natural gas wells and production facilities in residential neighborhoods and critical infrastructure is very unwise, public health preparedness policy especially in light of tens of billions of dollars that we are spending in

the federal state level to reduce the risk from terrorist attacks on usa citizens and damage to critical infrastructure. second, the higher rates and a differential patterns of oil and gas act violations, and they are listed on a slight four of my presentation are different as compared to conventional oil and gas wells and suggest a much greater impact to drinking water and aquatic resources. we have done a study at my out said that shows that marcello shale has about a 1.5 to four times depending on the denominator you use more violations than conventional oil and gas wells per offending well and that the violations are more serious and that the violations have a more direct impact on water quality.

things like failure to minimize the accelerated erosion, employment erosion and sedimentation plans, discharge pollution to the water commonwealth of pennsylvania, many general violations of the clean stream law, failure to properly store, transport, process or disposal of residual waste and failure to adequately construct or maintain these impoundments that hold actually toxic flowback water. the third problem and the problem of my group has been looking at both sewage treatment plants and -- we have been looking a disposal flowback fluids through the plants. we sampled a treatment facility in indiana county pennsylvania called pennsylvania treatment,

josephine facility, and we found that coming out of the types of the plant was discharged of nine pollutants essentially all in excess of the naturally recognized human and or aquatic health standards into the nearby creek. these contaminants included barry m. and what was coming out in the was at times the minimum risk level in the drinking water for children and 27 times the epa consumption concentration for fish and fish plus water. brougham models coming out in the water and it was its level was almost 10,000 times level of the water treatment facilities like to see in the background

water of 100 parts per billion. benzene was found coming out at two times the drinking water standard and six times epa consumption criteria and 1.5 times the drinking water minimum risk level for children and last, we want to ethanol coming out of the pipes. this is an ether that is used in marcello shell gas extraction and we found coming out between 24 to 55 times the drinking water minimum risk level for the intermediate exposure for men, women and children thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your testimony. mr. ubinger? >> thank you, chairman boxer,

jarman carvin, ranking member in half and ranking member sessions for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the pennsylvania environmental panel concerning work related to the shale gas development in pennsylvania. it goes without saying a number of the members have already spoken to this that there are enormous economic and strategic energy implications to the development of the gas resource but as you have all been quick to add it must be done right. pennsylvania participation in the nation's gas is relatively recent and has occurred over the past five years the development of the marcella formation and the development of the marcella gas pennsylvania has increased at an ever quickening pace and is expected to continue to do so we appreciate positive attributes of the shale gas development we are also cognizant that throughout its history it has paid an enormous price for the exploitation of its bountiful natural resources.

in today's political discourse in many contexts, much is said about the burden that the current actions will impose of the future generations to come. when it comes to the legacy of natural resource exploitation we are the future generation and the cost of without restoration from prior resource exploitation is substantial if the lessons of the past have taught us anything is this while we are in the form reveals of the shield as industry, an industry we have a prominent part of the landscape for generations to come we must identify and quantify the impact to the land, water, air and communities and is published a regulatory framework that mitigates the impact to the greatest extent applicable for the avoidable environmental degradation is not part of our legacy in the future generations the written testimony we submitted to the committee staff last week describes our work

over the past two and a half years and it defies the number of enhancements pennsylvania preexisting regulatory structure which we believe doherty essential to the prudent management of the gas development. i would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions the committee may have with respect the written testimony however but i would like to focus on the moment is the issue of of the cumulative impact and the question is how we efficiently acquire relevant information to objectively assess and mitigate a team of the impact of the variety of activities which are required to extract, process and move the gas from the wheel hit the market we believe they are assessing and then getting a can of the impacts are found in a program established in the river basin commission to regulate the water with drought for hydraulic factors. we applaud a robust of collection programs which predates the marcello jeal development in pennsylvania, however the data base to expand more information from the water

areas of the marcello shettle regions used to make informed decisions for the authorization of the water with a drawl and informed decisions as to when the withdrawal must be suspended to avoid adverse impact. the key we think is the routine collection of data. similar data bases and programs are not currently feasible for assessing the cumulative impact of other attributes of the gas development such as discharge from the service management of waste water or air emissions from the development activities because the capacity to collect the data is not available. the pennsylvania environmental council firmly believes shale gas development cannot be properly managed without an investment in the capacity to routinely measure a can of the impact on the ongoing basis. we further believe the federal government as well as the state has a vital role of establishing and funding a continuing research agenda that will enable the collection evaluation of the data required to access and mitigate the cumulative impact.

we also believe it is important that the shale gas industry and the government of that the federal and the state level to collaborate on projects to develop and demonstrate through data best management practices to mitigate impacts and require the implementation of the management practices throughout appropriate regulations. in closing, let me reiterate the successful development of the gas resources is economically important for the state's interest and strategically important to the country as a whole but it's critical we do it right. the the inslee in their middle council focused its efforts on the development of the regulatory program in pennsylvania which is based on projected information driven processes designed to identify and quantify impact including cumulative impacts and to mitigate the impact to the greatest extent possible through the best management practices appropriately codified in the regulatory framework. we believe our recommendations for the pennsylvania conserve is a model for others in the regulation of on conventional natural gas development. once again let me think the committee for the opportunity to

present our testimony. >> thank you very much. mr. klaus? >> [inaudible] >> the opportunity to visit with you today about the regulation of hydraulic fracturing as the decades of experience in this regard and mike richter of testimony be submitted in the record. first given responsibility for the regulation in oklahoma at 1914 currently the commission has exclusive state jurisdiction over all oil and gas industry at tolino, including oversight and was that of rules aimed at pollution prevention and protecting the state's precious water supplies. presently there are over 185,000 wells in oklahoma and thousands of miles of gathering transmission pipelines. the recent years, the shale in oklahoma has become an important source of natural gas for the nation. the development of oklahoma

shale like others in the united states has been made possible by a horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies. hydraulic fracturing as the senator inhofe said has been used in oklahoma for over 60 years and more than 100,000 wells have been hydraulically track dirt over the period. over the more than half century of the hydraulic experience there hasn't been one single documented instance of contamination to the ground water for drinking water as a result of the process. to say that we take protection of the water quality seriously would be an understatement. the rules are constantly reviewed and updated with that in mind. and with a general prohibition against pollution of any service of the subsurface press water and completion activities. oklahoma corporation commission rules address procedures in the event of unanticipated operational or mechanical changes. standard commission rules also require an operator to submit a completion report within 30 days after the completion activities,

the volumes and of the fluids used in this process require it on the form. last fall, the oklahoma corporation commission and volunteered to have its hydraulic fracturing program reviewed by 12-year-old multi stakeholder organization known as stronger or by its full name state review of oil and natural gas environmental regulations. from october 2010 through january 2011 again the multi stakeholder by the stronger conducted an in-depth examination of the oklahoma natural look regulatory program the review team included was lee savage, the texas railroad commission, wilma of louisiana, and a critic of the domestic oil and gas industry and jim collins of the independent petroleum association of america. official observers included the oklahoma sierra club and the united states environmental protection agency region six. the review team concluded that

the oklahoma program is overall well-managed professional and meets its program objectives. incidentally, the u.s. epa and department of energy have provided a grant funding to stronger to support its activities. i would also note that in oklahoma the collaboration involving the regulator of the oil and gas industry other stakeholders in my state agency staff have repeatedly led to the successful if a woman of rules and policies to address environmental protection issues particularly the protection of water. an example there are two particular that are exceptionally clean in southeastern oklahoma in the reservoir that provide a high-quality water to the city of oklahoma city about 100 miles away. they're also on top of the deep rock deposits that hold huge amounts of natural gas which in the best interest of oklahoma and the nation we want to allow the petroleum industry to find and produce. without the need of any federal intervention the city of oklahoma city the regulated oil and gas industry and the state work together to come up with

protections because we all realize that it's in our mutual best interest to ensure proper practical water and environmental protections with out cutting off access to the resources. major life itself didn't force oklahoma with any large natural bodies of water so fresh water is especially precious in my state. oklahoma has more than 50 man-made lakes and it's worth noting that texas is currently suing oklahoma in federal court to get the state's water. we must be doing something right. all of us can agree their knees to the rules of the road and the need to be followed and enforced. we are making sure that the rules are followed and that oklahoma's water and our environment or protect it and our record is clear the state regulations are the best way to meet the goals. the fellow commissioners both hold elected statewide positions. we are directly accountable to the fellow oklahomans and we have the vested personal interest in ensuring the water is protected. thank you mr. chairman.

mr. neslin? >> thank you. thank you for our opportunity to perspective on the public health and the environment while we develop our oil and gas resources. my name is david siegel, director of the colorado oil and gas commission. we have a rich natural heritage and thriving outdoor economy. i want to focus my comments today on the subject of hydraulic fracturing. most colorado is 44,000 wheel and gas wells as well as the thousands of new wells would be drilled in the coming years rely on the hydraulic fracturing. this technology is vital to unlocking the oil and gas reserves which are critical source of the domestic energy and provide a good paying jobs and the needed tax revenue to the communities. but it's also essential this development occurs with an environmentally responsible

manner. it's the regulatory mission and everyone at or agency takes it very seriously. to this and the environmental professionals have investigated hundreds of ground water complaints over the years we found no verified instance of the hydraulic fracturing are in ground water. these investigations are all publicly available. we've also required operators to test water quality repeatedly and over time in more than 1900 water wells and one of our most product of natural gas fields. thousands of nearby oil and gas wells have been hydraulically fractured and structuring fluids were reaching those water wells than you would expect the waters chemical composition to change. but independent analysis has found no statistically significant changes to those waters. this analysis is likewise publicly available. in addition, we have comprehensively updated our regulations to address a broad range of environmental issues. the current rules rex the

responsible balance between energy development and environmental protection and they reflect substantial input from the local governments, oil and gas companies, environmental groups and thousands of individuals from across the state. other states have taken or are taking similar action in putting wyoming, oklahoma, ohio, pennsylvania and arkansas. the recent state rulemakings exemplify the benefits associated with state oversight and cite specific regulations and they specifically address hydraulic fracturing. in colorado for example, wells miss b ks and cemented to protect dhaka for furs and they must be monitored during hydraulic fracturing. if chemicals including hydraulic fracturing fluids and provide this opportunity to make the state and certain health care professionals their managers index and environmental protections for oil and gas to grumet in public drinking water sources. additionally the pressure testing, water wells and one is required for the shallow or cold

bed methane wells and enhance requirement apply to the permitting, lining, monitoring to ensure waste including any flowback of hydraulic fracturing fluids is properly contained. these regulations were important and substantially improved the ground water protection but we haven't stopped there. we are continuing to take pro-active cost-effective steps to ensure hydraulic fracturing protect the environment. first, we and other states have worked closely with the ground water protection council on the launch of the new website, frackfocus.org. it encourages gas operators to voluntarily provide information on the chemicals they use to hydraulically factor the well and can't let their own regulatory framework. second, we have arranged to have other hydraulic fracturing regulations professionally audited the summer by stronger and a national organization consisting of the state regulators and industry and environmental representatives. a stronger recently committed oklahoma as you heard of

pennsylvania, ohio and louisiana and we are having them reviewed colorado's program to determine whether further improvements can be made on our end. further, we are actively investigating the alleged use of diesel fuel or fluid containing diesel fuel for hydraulic fracturing in colorado. while we believe our regulations would have prevented contamination drinking water supplies we are collecting information to independently assess that issue. fourth, we continue to address public concerns on this issue in an open and transparent manner. just last february the commission convened a full public hearing to examine allegations of the water will contamination. in that case to commend the commissioners diverse representing and vital, industry, local government and other sectors unanimously determined that hydraulic fracturing had not impacted the well in question. in summary, i want to stress how seriously we take the subject and that many other states are taking similar action. our experience and that of other

states demonstrates how the hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas activities are effectively regulated at the state level. we are highly diverse regional and local conditions are more fully understood and where the rules can be tailored to fit the needs of local reasons, local landscape of local communities. thank you. >> thank you all for your testimony. i'm going to urge the committee members to limit themselves to a four minute round, if you can get the panel completed with a vote on the floor. let me think all of you for your testimony. mr. cloud i want to compliment the actions taken in the state of oklahoma i think it provided a good model that should be used in other states. i'm very impressed that the back weld light speed action can either be recycled or must be put into has understand it one of the containment wells which operates under the clean water act, it seems to me that you've been able to do exactly what was

indicated that the federal government working with the state to develop the right framework dealing with natural gas extraction. why is it that you prohibit the back flow from entering into the waste water treatment facility plants? why have you taken that action? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe that the state has for many years making hydraulic fracturing for 60 years we've kept a close eye on it and we just make sure that the fluids be kept out of the water supplies and they are never set to water treatment facilities as you outlined. only to be recycled and it to be injected into the abandoned wells. >> i'm curious as to why pennsylvania and other states are still allowing the backflow to enter treatment facility plants. either one of my friends from príncipe and have an explanation as to why the state is still

permitting that? >> i think i do, senator. it essentially boiled down to the very pressing need to dispose of a lot of material. there are wells drilled quickly and i believe it was an oversight by our pennsylvania department of environmental protection that a lot of this material was going to these treatment facilities that are very inefficient as well as the savitt treatment plants and no one had a handle on it. >> there are wells that could have been injected to require transportation but there are wells that would have accepted it. >> in ohio, sir but it's a cost issue i assume so it is a pragmatic decision made which is we never want to see public health put at risk due to a pragmatic judgment. dr. summers commanders and the maryland legislature didn't act

on moratorium, but as i understand, what you were saying at the present time maryland is uncomfortable moving forward until you understand the practices that will be used and safe for public health. >> that's correct. we have just started to receive permits. we've been watching very closely with pennsylvania reviewing the work out of new york looking at what's going on in other states very interested to look more closely at how wyoming is handling this, our plans are to proceed very cautiously and make sure we do have the best practices in place we are able to get advantage that these other states have more experience than we do and also trying to work with the environmental protection agency because as i said, we believe that their role is very critical