stepdad and stop assaults and the courage to act when others try to retaliate against those reporting, responding to or preventing an assault. ..

and to any suggestions version is appropriate. i need you to intervene when you think that an assault of mediocre and if you are concerned about taking action i need you to get help from a friend from law enforcement, a chaplain with the officer sadly it is made worse on how he or she is treated. when victims are most vulnerable, the leadership and fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and brains need to stand by them in solidarity and not turn their back or turn away. it may not be easy but i need you to be one of them in person

and also online. i know you live online in many ways snap chat, share your day's news on facebook and instead ran. that's why i need you to be leaners. most of you would intervene if you saw someone being bullied around the campus but too many people like that stuff slide along the line. we know that and sometimes off-line. we can't allow all those who do the right thing either in reporting an assault or standing up to stop it to be belittled on facebook ignored, passed over promotion tying or locked in the officer's club. that is counter to what you signed up for. it's just plain wrong.

the nation is looking to the defense department to lead boldly on sexual assault because they admire the institution and its values and its culture and every one of us has to know and do our part. stopping sexual assault will be a focus of our time and defense. but as leaders of the future force, i ask that you make these crimes one of your personal mission. foster the culture prevention response and accountability dignity, respect and integrity. communicate clearly not just by your words but also by your actions. aim to make a difference in the units throughout the force and around the country. none of this is easy but each of

you will be a leader in this effort in supporting each other in this fight and others. i want you to know i'm standing with you and expecting that of you. courage is infectious and the courage of those stepped in to protect fellow servicemembers there examples give us all the kurds to do our part. and when you do your courage will in turn inspire others. thank you and now let me take some questions. good morning. i am a sophomore here at georgetown. it's a huge honor and privilege to have you here.

my question is on a strategic level if that's okay. how can we get them more committed to their own defense given the low defense budgets on the debt crisis and the war in ukraine lacks. first question is european defense spending and how did we get them to do more clicks they are not doing enough. they are spending a smaller share of their gdp than they have in the past and like many are spending. it's too low. if europe wants to be a force in the world it needs to be more than a moral and political and economic force because it shares many of our values and demonstrates around the world

but it has to have the military power that goes through that as well and it's to be a capable ally of ours and we see that slipping and it's got to turn around. i realize they are still suffering from the economic crisis to a greater extent less than we have in the united states but they've got the money to do this. they figured security problems had ended and now they are beginning to wake up. it was a wake-up call. russian behavior in ukraine is a wake-up call and you see what's happening in north africa with refugees coming into southern europe. you have turkey into the nato ally. it's not like they don't have plenty to do and it's not like

we have to do everything ourselves but it's a very good question and it's something that might press on them and the president process on them to do and the predecessors did all the time. they made some pledges to get around and they have to carry through on that. thank you. >> i was wondering what skills do you think are important for the officers commissioning? >> that's a good question i will try to give you a good answer. one way to approach that and i think compared to the earlier periods of my career you will find the people that you are leaving our a generation younger than you and you have to

understand what's going on and how their lives are because things move so fast that every generation is different really fast so i can give you an answer from my point of view and you can see if it is useful to you but when i look out on all of you i know that you have grown up in an environment of drastically different from line in so many ways and so american values, military e. those meant to find as you serve in that as you serve in the generation that you have to kind of see where people's heads are and how they spend their time and how you can reach them and what kind of issues really matter to them. that's why i talked about us being a learning institution. you are going to command people that are not like you didn't grow up like you have a

completely different background from you because they are american members and you've got to try to understand them. so it is a stretch and i can tell you that when you are my age for you and of the course of your career and eventually you will get here you have to lead them properly. >> i heard you touch on some of the challenges. i'm concerned with how. >> really good question. it is a big challenge.

let me explain a little bit by sequestration is so bad. sequestration is a southern and arbitrary cuts in the budget we can't predict and this comes up year by year. as a manager if you have to suddenly cut your budget where do you get the money from because that's where you can get their hands on the money quickly and see the readiness go down because the training levels go down. you begin to curb the rate that drives up the unit price for them, you find yourself extending the period that makes them more expensive than doing all sorts of things. if we had some stability and

predictability at least we could do it in a predictable way. now, i believe that it is a southern level. but we need to spend an amount of money that is adequate for the nation's defense and the missions around the world and this idea that you can skip when it is tumultuous as it is and we have as much leadership responsibility as we do with false and the last thing that i will say, i'm always careful to say and i mentioned this in the remarks at the same time we have to show we are aware that this is the taxpayers dollars and we don't always. we make mistakes and there are cost overruns and so forth. so i always try to see what here is the deal.

you give us the defense budget and by the way the homeland security budget, the law enforcement budget is hard to secure the states. you give us the money and we will do a better job at spending it. and i'm committed to that for the reform side of things as i am to fighting sequester that i take every opportunity to condemn. it's no way to run the greatest country in the world. >> do you believe in january of 2016 comes around it will be open to women or still remained closed? >> the reason i don't know if the services that are working through the practicality of some of the most difficult from the

point of view of reconciling traditional at least gender roles combat effectiveness effectiveness, unit cohesion and those kind of things, those are the things people are grappling with. they are grappling in good faith and to do the maximum practical because i think that if we wait too long i think we underestimated how well we can do. and i talked about us being this being a learning organization we can learn this so i'm pretty optimistic. >> in iraq and afghanistan we are focused on training and building military capacity of our allies. how can we ensure the success of the missions are supposed to traditional notions of engaging into destroying the enemy?

>> is a great question. and it is kind of the secret sauce of the american military that is not only prevails when it has to engage itself, but we are the best trainers and mentors of others in the world. we've just gotten really good at it. iraq afghanistan it's important because we can't keep a lid on everywhere the lid on everywhere and we can't combat extremism and terrorism from everywhere around the world. the earlier question was raised for example but when it comes to other countries, we needed them to keep a lid on and keep order and keep peace in their own countries. we can't be everywhere so it has to be part of our defense

strategy and military strategy to help others help themselves because we can't do everything ourselves. and i am proud of how good we are at that and how rewarding people find it. i have been to pretty obscure places around the world in all the years i've been doing this and you'll see an american unit out there in the middle of nowhere training people and it's inspiring and they love it by the way because they can point to the unit. it's a very rewarding part of work and it's kind of a forceful supplier for the force. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> i'm from the american university and in the same vein the department of defense is leading the nation on sexual assault and they also seem to be leading on the issue of climate change with recent reports effectively naming climate change as a threat to the national security.

how does someone with a scientific background do you think the military properly is preparing itself and the nation for this stretch? >> to speak for us i can't speak for the nation as a whole but why is a challenge for us because it changes the topography of the world. their livelihood is threatened which leads to the possibility of violence and disturbance. in the arctic is it is a very significant issue because the shipping lanes will be opened up to the strategic business that we have long been a year into her of the freedom of the seas, freedom of commerce and now we

have basically a whole solution to guarantee that and the many ways in which drought water shortage is all the things pressure around the world that kind of pressure can lead to violence and we need to anticipate -- if we are going to do our part to make the world safer in ourselves secure so it is a big deal and we are trying to stay ahead of it. >> kinase activity study at georgetown and i was wondering if you could speak how opening combat for women affect the site to provide are there particular challenges or opportunities to work together? spigots a very insightful question because it actually cuts both ways. obviously as we get women into the unaccustomed positions.

maybe positions where they are fewer in relations to the number of men. it opens up opportunities for predators as i said earlier in that they don't have an ordinary life so they can lead in that direction. on the other and end it signifies everyone will get used to working men and women together to defend the country. they will learn how to conduct themselves and interact across gender lines to have head in this direction and not that

direction. people are the key and that is what makes the military. the pentagon had issues reacting to the threats in iraq and afghanistan. i was wondering what would the department of defense plan on doing for the emergency threats right perhaps on the proliferation around the world and especially in the recent budget issues. >> that's a great question. >> what i was pointing to as a challenge for us in the wartime as the question indicates also the challenge in peacetime where you're not in the war but you are trying to prevent or prepare for the war if one occurs for

those of you that didn't read the article what it was saying is that we had more difficulty than probably any of you would think in responding to the ever-changing needs in iraq and afghanistan. we were running into problems we have never run into before and i was extremely frustrated that our institutions inability to rapidly adapt and adjust. why is that? to two reasons. one is that we come from an institution that things change very slowly and if you had a problem you would have a ten year or 15 year program and make this fantastic doodad 15 years from now and that would be okay. the system couldn't move that fast and it was very frustrating

to me and my boss and the other thing is in washington people even in the pentagon get involved in washington, they get involved in budgets and squabbles and testifying on the hill "-end-quotes in the newspaper. you have to remember what's this all about beer over here risking their lives for us. they get up in the morning and make them job number one and when you said that somebody would say of course. that's why i love this institution. so what does this mean for going forward? me take examples of china or russia or iran. nobody wants to have a conflict with any of those because it is part of the deterrence. they are constantly changing

just like the taliban. they are modernizing, upgrading, changing the tools and techniques because it moves fast now so in order for us to have a deterrent that keeps up with the pace we need to be agile in the day-to-day basis and we can't go back to the old cold war model. that was okay and the technology era. it's not going to work in the advanced nationstates were terrorist groups so we have to be agile and we are still fighting that fight. we are getting better but still not good enough. >> good morning mr. secretary. i am from the george washington university. my question to you is what does the administration and vision

for the united states army and asia and what are your concerns in the findability with regards to the continued crisis in the middle east? >> with me take the second part of that first further rebalance to the pacific asia. it is as simple as this. half of humanity and half of the economic activity in the world upon which we depend is in the asia-pacific region. so much of the future lies there so it's security and our role in it are central to the american future and you have to keep that in mind even though it's on tv every night is the middle east and that's where there's a lot of violence and i'm not belittling the importance of that but when you think doing strategy have to remember what the fundamentals are and one of

them is that this is an important part of the world so the rebalance is a word used to signify awareness that has the war in iraq and afghanistan wound down and the fight begins and there is a turmoil, we have to pay attention as a country to the asia-pacific because that's the vision. they asked about the army. get out the globe and look at the asia-pacific. it's all water. what is the army going to do out there but they found plenty to do and one reason for that is almost all the military is in the asia-pacific region are dominated by their armies. one of the earlier questions was

asking about partnership and building partner capacity. if we want these countries to be our friend, to be strong and stable and stand up with us against the threats then we need to work with them and they have fantastic relationships. one last note we have to remember they have no nato. there is no structure for security. the wounds were healed over decades of with france and germany and the united kingdom. there is a structure for the reconciliation to be made and that never happened in the asia-pacific. and you still see them pointing fingers and there's a lot of residual hostility. why he hasn't been kept for

decades and decades that has led to all of the prosperity? us. the secret has been the pivotal role of american military power and that's what has kept the lid on. we are basically going to keep that good thing going. >> the foreign affairs and the crisis have been in asia to europe and middle east north africa. what about central america. they are the closest neighbors and there's a lot of turmoil down there. what is our attraction with them? >> that is a very good question and it's just a reminder talking about the asia-pacific you can take your eye off anywhere because all the world is

connected in a way that that didn't used to be and we have responsibilities. south america and central america was fueled by narcotics as a centrally important dynamic and it leads to terrorism and the founding of revolutionary groups to migrants and it will be unfortunate if we found the kind of thing that you see every day in the middle east so we are working with the military of the region to try to build the capacity to make sure that they behave with the same skill and the same values that we do which

are necessary to the order by force. we try to instill that and it's worked while. the best example is columbia. it wouldn't be that way without the partnership of us that there are still challenges and this is my you can take your eye off any part of the world. >> good morning mr. secretary. one of the obstacles that existed in the reported cases is the fact that the jury is often times the same person in the chain of command and i was wondering what you thought of the efforts to make the ant adjudication process outside of

the military. >> it's a good question and it's been a point of study and debate and contingency. let me give you the two. it goes on. let me give you the two sides of the claim. one side of the claim is the one you say that if there is a commander who isn't doing what i've asked you to do today, then since it is a chain of command because the military organization depends upon the chain of command we have a problem so we are attacking that in two different ways one is to make sure that those that don't know what their duties are or are not art where of what they should be and second is to give an alternative to the victims

and their helpers and that's what some of the counselors in the special into special victim councils are about is to give another avenue for reporting and redress punishment and above all care for the victim. the other side of the argument is it is essential to our egos and if you don't hold people responsible for everything about their command the welfare of their people including sexual assault and prevention, that isn't what we want from commanders. we want commanders who have all

of those responsible it is together. we consider it an important part of instilling a culture of proper command so we are trying to do that and provide alternative avenues. that's the path we are trying to do now but it's still debated in the military community that's the essence is to try to have it both ways can have the virtues of the chain of command without the possible abuses when you get a bad apple in the chain of command is kind of the essence of it. >> let >> what they think you overstate foremost for being a part of our wonderful institution and the leaders that he will be in the future. i hope you took on order this

topic. it's a really important one for you to be on top of and to reflect in your own conduct and command conduct. we have great expectations of you. you are what makes us great and i'm confident looking out on the faces here that you will make us proud in the future so thanks very much. [applause]

we were joined earlier today on the washington journal by the mother and she will discuss attending the dinner and why she was invited as a guest of c-span. here's more. >> you may remember if you watch the program regularly back in proam december we have two political consultants. one is a republican and one is a democrat and during this segment, they received a phone here i. call.] here is the phone call. >> you're right i'm from down south. i knew your mother and i disagree that most families are like ours. i don't know many families that

are fighting at thanksgiving. >> host: is this your mother? >> caller: i was very glad this thanksgiving was a year that you were supposed to go to your in-laws and i am hoping you will have some of this out of your system when you come here for christmas. >> i would really like a peaceful christmas and i love you both. >> host: since you called in what's it like to raise these boys? >> caller: it hasn't been easy. >> host: now she joins us on the phone from north carolina. the reason we are talking with her is because this weekend, the white house correspondents dinner is being held and she and her sons the republican and the democrat will be joining us on our c-span table as our guests.

what do you think about coming to the dinner? >> guest: i think it is just fantastic. every year i watch this event on c-span because you come in early and i have always dreamed of going to the event. a couple of years ago my son brad and his wife jessica attended and i watched the entire event and i did see them although they did not sit at the same table. she's a republican and a someone had invited her and someone else invited brad us brad so brad us with a set at different, which was interesting. >> host: we are looking forward to having you appear. who are you hoping to see? >> caller: while, i'm looking

forward to meeting you people from c-span you have been so kind to me. but i am looking forward to hearing the president and the canadian and i would hate to be the comedian because i have watched this as i said for a number of years and the president is a great comedian himself, his time is very good and i would hate to follow in his footsteps but i am looking forward to meeting the president and mr. obama because i am going to get to go to the reception. so that's going to be great. >> host: congratulations. that's quite an honor.

are you going to be sitting at the table between your republican and democratic son to keep the peace? >> guest: probably come about if i think that they are going to act decent, i might sit beside somebody from c-span and have a nice conversation with them. >> host: what if they get out of hand? >> caller: i will try to reign them in. when i was on c-span i obviously hit a nerve. i had people call and set on facebook like i have two daughters that are always fighting at christmas and we have a horrible christmas and i didn't mean to give that impression. i have eight grandchildren and it gets loud indie than jessica even jessica gets into that and starts are giving and i would've

preferred that they didn't. but later they go out and hold things together and they don't hold a grudge, which is good. i mean, they talk back and forth some and hang up on each other but they still love each other and they are decent to each other when we see one another. >> host: looking forward to having you as a guest, safe travels on the way up and we will see you at the dinner area thanks for joining us. >> host: thank you again. i appreciate how nice you have been to me and my family. >> the house and senate are not

in session today that lawmakers will return for a busy week. senators plan to continue work on a measure that requires the obama administration to submit any agreement with iran to congress for the review. they will also attempt to override the veto on legislation disapproving the national labor relations board regulations that were issued last year. as one of the most prolific writers she provides a unique

window into colonial america and her personal life. abigail adams sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on the original series first lady's influence and image examining the public and private lives of the women that fill the position of first lady and their influence from martha washington to michelle obama at 8 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span three. as a complement the book is available. the history and some allies of the 45 iconic american women providing lively stories of these fascinating women creating and eliminating entertaining and inspiring read. it's available as a hardcover or e-book for your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. >> the house science committee holds a hearing on the benefit of and concerns about hydraulic fracturing. that is the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals deep

underground so that natural gas is released. this is two hours. >> [inaudible conversations] the committee on science, faith and technology will come to order. the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. welcome to today's hearings on the science kind of the hydraulic fracturing. i recognize myself for a statement and then the ranking

member. the combination of high drama to fracturing and the direction call tracking is obviously one of the most significant technological advancements in the history of the oil and gas industry. this technological breakthrough has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs has been the catalyst for the resurgent manufacturing sector and has enabled the nation to become more energy independent. but as with any type of technological progress from a whale and gas development in the risk is to be evaluated carefully by the use of the verifiable. unfortunately, opponents of the fracturing make the claims based on the possibility and not the probability of associated risks area environmental protection agencies have used this agenda driven approach to wrongly assert a connection between the hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. for example peta issued an unprecedented order that halted

natural gas development only to have a commission investigate and find that they were wrong. and they released a draft report that claimed it caused water contamination. however, it was later discovered that they had several weaknesses. among them the report failed to take into account the naturally occurring natural gas that wasn't peer-reviewed and it involved poor sampling and lacked the data transparency. the epa was forced to abandon its investigation. then under the groundwater contamination after it had first agree agreed that there was no contamination. several months later they indicated that oil and gas development was not the cause of the contamination. it appears that the decision to reinitiate the investigation was based on political pressure from activists who opposed the hydraulic fracturing. it is incredible given the track

record of the epa is now working on another large study to suggest a connection between a the drug fracturing and groundwater contamination. >> the refusal to accept good science knows no bounds which is why we should be suspect of other findings by the epa. the political agenda drives their science agenda. perhaps most troubling is that the epa study does not include a risk assessment in there and i was. this means the study will be focused on possible problems with hydraulic for to the fracturing rather than what is likely or probable. the mere possibility is something may occur will do little to help regulators evaluate the overall process. the science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing can be done in the environmentally safe manner.

they should strengthen the position of the top natural gas producer. it's made possible to the greater energy independence and we need to encourage that. in fact come even the current administration said there's nothing inherently dangerous and hydraulic fracturing that it cannot accomplish. then why does the epa repeatedly and publicly begin with the premise that hydraulic fracturing causes water contamination only to be forced to retract the premise after the claims are subjected to scientific scrutiny? and while the allegations make headlines. it is the opposite of the accepted scientific method. hydraulic fracturing is a proven and safe technology that has made america america an energy

leader leader can yet there are still those that believe that regardless of the science the process should be banned. activists have spread misinformation in the attempt to convince americans that there is no way that it can be done safely. the administration relies on questionable studies and reports that are paid for, p. or reviewed by and disseminated by the network of environmentalists with an ideological agenda. using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and gas across the community's jobs of the state revenue and will force us to increase the dependence. it's benefited to the environment, the economy coming into the hard-working families that now enjoy a reduced energy cost and that concludes my statement. and the gentleman from texas is recognized for her opening statement. >> thank you very much. let me thank the witnesses for

being present. i served with your father and in the texas house. he was there when i got there. i am pleased that they have done so well during the obama administration's tenure. however i'm also a nurse by training and insensitive to the need to protect public health and environment even as we develop in the resources. this hearing is advertised as being about the science but the majorities consist of the economic regulations and the development officials of the representatives that were set up to run the public relations for the industry and it has been paid by one of the largest in

the country. that doesn't sound like a promising panel to honestly examine the scientific questions. looking at the majority testimony, it is clear that this hearing is designed to give a platform for the industry to attack those who question the safety of the practices within the industry. in particular, there is a focus on undermining local communities. they are considering or perhaps they have adopted when it's. more than 500 local communities including some in my home state of texas have raised concerns about the practice and have considered the past ban in the activities. these are our constituents are dealing with these issues environmental and public-health applications. we shouldn't be little or diminish their concerns were

simply dismiss them as unsophisticated. instead, i'm going to suggest that the answer to the local community isn't to be found in attacking the motives were information but through the industry and the effective regulations in the federal government. people have concerns because they can see it as largely unchecked. for example, in the state of colorado, with over 52000, the state has 40 inspectors, west virginia has 56,000 active wells and as of 2011, just 20 inspectors. the pollution of drinking water authors of this waste from the site moving into the aquifers and has occurred in at least 248

times between 2008 and 2014 in pennsylvania. they didn't start collecting statistics on incidences until 2014. if we have more transparency, more accountability coming in more oversight, local communities would be able to make well-informed choices. however building an oversight hearing around public relations campaigns who dismiss those concerns of the local communities, not only does it do a disservice to members of this committee, it also does nothing to increase the trust of the industry into those communities. and in closing, i would argue that it is not some hypocritical smear campaign by the federal government but rather repeated attacks and the campaigns about

the waste in the industries that have a mistrust among the american people. this hearing is likely to have the unintended consequences of further mistrust among the american people. justice louis brandeis once said and i can't agree more it is time that our local communities are provided with industry to better understand the environmental and public health risk proposed with the activities. i think the problem hasn't been the local communities getting bad information from activists is that local communities cannot get accurate information about the environment and health impact for whale and natural gas development using the techniques

i want to attach to my statement to studies and the issue on the stove and i would ask unanimous consent to attach those. >> thank you. i would yield back. >> whitney introduced the witnesses today. the first witness is the chairman of the texas railroad cushion. since she began her role in the commission of 2012, she's pushed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of an energy industry but is hoping to drive the state's economic success. prior to the tenure of the texas railroad commission, she had a career as an attorney specializing in oil and gas water, tax issues, electric regulation and environmental policy. she earned her bachelor's degree and jurisprudence from the university of texas austin.

the second witness is the professor in the departments share in the department of earth sciences at syracuse university. he's worked since 1982 and currently teaches elementary and graduate level courses and earth science, groundwater movement and contaminants in contaminants and in groundwater. prior to joining syracuse university worked at the geological survey in minnesota district. among many other publishers, he served as a member on numerous panels including the national academy of science cochair of the natural resource council water science and technology board. he received his bachelor's degree in the university of rhode island, masters degree in geology from pennsylvania state university and doctorate in hydrogeology from the university of minnesota. our third witness is the western director of energy and research education and public outreach

programs at the independent petroleum association of america. before working at the energy in depth, he spent 15 years working on journalism as the editorial director of the energy now tv show and energy and environmental reporter as bloomberg news and senior editor at artist media incorporated. media incorporated. he he will be bachelor's in journalism from the university of technology in brisbane australia. our final witness is a senior director for strategic fund and prior he was a senior advisor to the obama presidential campaign on the policy matters and the codirector of the department of energy presidential transition team. among many of the rolls, he's also held a position over the assistant secretary of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration and the chief of staff of the u.s. department of energy.

we appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to your testimony and we will begin. >> good morning. >> translator: on a rainy monday johnson and members of the committee. my name is christy and as the chair of the commission in texas i appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony and information on today's hearing. this is an important issue on the direct impact today as well as other states in the u.s. protecting thousands of jobs across the country and the nation's economy. since since hydraulic fracturing has become a widely used practice, it's been grounded by misinformation propagated by the groups that are interested in prohibiting the techniques than understanding the complex science of faith and responsible mineral extraction. setting up the hyperbole of the site reveals a simple truth. there are no confirmed instances of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing in texas. with proper oversight, hydraulic fracturing his fracturing his faith.

but rising energy sector in texas is due in large part to the diligence of the railroad commission which is responsible for ensuring the safety of oil and gas production statewide through a rigorous office of permitting, monitoring and inspecting operations. .. sensible, business minded regulation with a high standard for safety allows

oil and gas to flourish. every aspect is highly regulated. as industry adheres to regulation while it is in everyone's best interest the energy industry is successful, that is always the case of it operates responsibly and in full compliance with the law or the commission will not hesitate to revoke there ability to do business and taxes. included in the railroad commission regulatory responsibility is the well completion technique known as hydraulic fracturing. for more than 60 years it has been used this week -- safely and successfully in over 1 million wells retreating more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. this precise scientific products the product the

process of us for the protection of highly pressurized hydraulic fracturing. whenever evolving industry technology increases production comes a large regulatory workload to although taxes regulatory standards have been a place for almost 100 years, the current energy growth is presented an opportunity for states to benefit from the economic value of responsible regulation of energy development. in an effort to bolster regulations during this time of considerable growth the commission has worked with stakeholders to ensure. it's a key objective to the commission. major will also focused on this charge. the commissions regulatory success keystone is administrative code 3.13. weighs the groundwork for. evaluates well integrity

assesses casing cementing well control completion requirements codifying best industry practices. the most stringent casing rule went into effect on january 12014. addition to statewide rule 13 before the commission issues of drilling and drilling permit the agencies groundwater advisory unit we will send an applicant a letter indicating the base of usable quality water and the level at which is fema casing must be placed to protect water sources. wellbore construction and design is highly regulated and technically robust. as a result well failure is extremely rare in taxes. while economic gains are meaningless without the safety of our communities

and resources, hydraulic fracturing bands hurt taxes and the energy sector as a whole. outside interests are taking the legitimate concerns of -- citizens in influencing them in an attempt to end fossil fuel production. many concerns are many concerns are factually incorrect or unsubstantiated. without clearly defined regulatory roles for cities oil and gas development of its ability to anchor the texas economy is in jeopardy in taxes, pans in industry are present day concerns. a railroad commission is required by delegating authority to continue issuing oil and gas permits. permits. over the years oil and gas energy companies have obstructed oil and gas deposits and operations are often approached city boundaries. in those instances success in the industry, commission local authorities work together to implement simple guidelines. this guidelines.

this collaboration will disappear communities were hydraulic fracturing his band. without the certainty of there regulation businesses will be far less willing to risk capital and as a result the city's we will lose jobs tax revenue commend development. the industry is the greatest economic contributor in texas and the prime driver of the totality of the us economy. let's adopt reasonable approaches and share the prosperity that follows. thank you for having me, and i we will be glad to answer any questions. >> thank you chairman craddick and doctor siegel. >> chairman. >> thank you. mr. chairman, members of the community, thank you for -- thank you very much for inviting me. i present i present testimony on whether hydraulic fracturing of iraq's oil and gas production can other than

that in a very rare situation degrade the quality of groundwater found in shallow aquifers. office testimony entirely on my own behalf. now, the controversy over franking ranges from concerns over climate disruption to worries about potential lifestyle changes economic inequities but one issue commonly raised is whether natural gas escaping from gas wells can contaminate drinking water aquifers. the concern is highlighted by two scientific papers published by scientists from duke university in 2011 and 2012. these papers the researchers reported the results of their sampling. 141 domestic water wells in northeastern pennsylvania and adjacent new york for methane and other substances. they show a graph indicating that higher concentration of dissolved natural gas occurs in water

was close to the gospels. and they said their results suggest important environmental risks. when i. when i read these papers i felt that 141 samples were too few. they had failed in producing natural gas contamination if not anything else. common sense tells me that more natural gas occurs in drinking water near known failed wells as rare as they might be much as there has to be more smoke. in essence the sampling seems statistically bias. i did not think that they could say much about the entire population of water wells, let alone anything about shale gas exploration worldwide for such a small data set in that style sampling. after these papers were published chesapeake energy corporation asked me if i would be interested in assisting them to do a basic

science study in an enormous water quality data set they had collected in pennsylvania and adjacent states. the largest data cellar seen in my time you know, people in science talk about what is a representative sample when configuring out contamination. a number of samples remarkably captures the true population in parts of pennsylvania, so i agreed to help them. we published our 1st paper from this project on march 12 of this year in environmental health and technology, a peer-reviewed journal. i want to address some issues that the press is brought up. immediately after we published a paper certain media challenged whether we had properly the all-star

association and payment by chesapeake energy corporation. keep in mind during the process neither our papers reviewers, reviewers, the associate editor handling the paper, nor the chief editor and accepted a paper on march 12 of this year. i have edited many journals myself and i understand disclosure, but a response to media pressures, the journal prudently as i i would have done asked my colleagues and i to expand our disclosure. we did so probably on april 16. a revised manuscript was re-accepted as complete by the journal. case closed. the media challenged us on how chesapeake's consultant sampled the homeowners waters for natural gas. a widely recommended to follow widely recognized method that has been used for decades. there is really no issue on that. what about our results? we could not repeat duke's results.

we could not repeat duke's results. instead duke's results. instead of using 141 samples we as 11309 samples the area within the hour 661 there were 661 gas wells. we found high and low concentrations of natural gas close and far from oil and gas wells with no discernible pattern. dissolved methane does not inherently increase. we could easily see this in a graph. we used for robust statistical methods just confirming. now, why can we not reproduce the results? i think duke researchers had an insufficient number of samples to adequately reflect the actual situation reported in the paper. as we understand, i no that gas wells can still fail but the pennsylvania experience shows these situations happened rarely much less than 1 percent of the time.

our data supports these low rates. most of all i argue our study points to the list -- to the necessity about not jumping to conclusions about the contamination of water by anything without having a samples or having a sampling program designed to characterize the problem. thank you very much. >> chairman, ranking member johnson, distinguished as of the community, good morning. my name is simon lomax, here today representing an education and outreach program of the independent petroleum association of america. vi paa represent thousands of oil and natural gas producers and service companies who develop 95 percent of the nation's oil and gas wells. today we are releasing a white paper called a look inside new york's anti-cracking echo chamber. anti- cracking echo chamber. it deals with the unprecedented decision of new york governor andrew cuomo to effectively been high volume hydraulic fracturing or franking.

i say unprecedented because according to the "wall street journal" new york is the 1st date with significant show gas resources to been tracking. governor cuomo's decision was completely at odds with earlier findings from state and federal environmental regulators that hydraulic fracturing has been used safely in the united states for decades. in fact governor cuomo's decision overturned to earlier findings from state environmental regulators in new york itself. in 2,009 and 2,011. hydraulic fracturing could move forward safely under stringent regulations. the reaction to the new york penn has been telling. while some french environmental groups are celebrating, others in the environmental movement say this simply goes too far. for example, former new york city mayor michael bloomberg , a major outline called governor cuomo's decision a misguided policy

that does not make any sense at all. president obama's interior secretary who served on the board of the national environmental group before joining the president's cabinet reacted by saying, franking bands are the wrong way to go. she added that support -- supporters of such bands do understand the science. similarly, california governor jerry brown, a celebrated environmentalist flatly refused to been hydraulic fracturing when the subject -- when the subject came up recently on meet the press. in colorado a special task force convened by democratic governor john hagel motor recently rejected the new york style franking man. against that backdrop the question our white paper seeks to answer is how to governor governor cuomo justify a decision that fall so far outside the mainstream?

to support the band the administration produced 184 page literature review of recently published research papers. but but as detailed in our white paper, we discovered significant in undisclosed ties between some of the research used to been tracking in new york and the political campaign to been fretting in new york. for example, one paper was written by opponents who actually used buckets while the plastic bags to take air samples new oil and gas wells. you might think this would get shut down in a peer a peer review process, but the peer reviewers were also franking opponents one of them was sandra steinbrenner, the cofounder of new yorkers against tracking. when asked by a reporter about this she insisted her peer review was absolutely objective. a few days after that interview she gave a speech with anti- cracking

activists in albany where she said, it is so sweet now to come together in one room to tell the story of a victory, but there is more. we found a network of environmentally active foundations funding the group that produced this research paper some of the media outlets i cover the paper in the campaign organization that pressured the administration into banning tracking. these financial ties total $3.7 million in $3.7 million in research 2.2 in media, and more than 16 million of campaign finance. this was not an isolated case. we found at least five more research papers cited by the call of ministration were anti- cracking foundations providing funding to researchers, media outlets that promoted the research, and funding to the campaigns that seized upon the research develop political opposition to shale development in new york.

the anti-franking work of these foundations was led by the park foundation based in ithaca, new york, whose president has openly admitted to funding anti- cracking research, media and political campaigns in an effort to oppose franking from every angle. in effect, these foundations built an echo chamber to join the -- to drown out the facts in the debate over hydraulic fracking and shale development in new york. thank you for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ms. miss johnson, members of the community, for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the issues associated with unconventional oil and gas production unconventional

oil and gas development is a heavy industrial activity so it is understandable that states and municipalities are seeking to exercise their traditional role in protecting our communities and i think that response is entirely consistent with state and community application of things like zoning for right to know laws industrial safety standards, etc. achieving a chipped tooth on achieving a true balance of interest is critical. gases developed responsibly.

striking the right balance also means continuing to invest in the deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy even as our nation moves to dramatically expand our domestic oil and gas resources. i like to touch on the key issues presented by hydraulic fracturing. one is well integrity. it is true that there is yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself is contracting water contamination. it is widely understood that poor well construction and maintenance can create pathways for contamination of groundwater resources by introduce a naturally occurring chemicals. typically used in the hydraulic hydraulic fracturing operation. around 800 billion gallons of wastewater generated annually by onshore oil and gas operations in the united states. where that water comes from

and how it is managed during storage, transportation treatment, and disposal are issues of legitimate state and local concern. polluted air is a growing concern across the country. in addition methane emissions are potent source of greenhouse gas pollution. earthquakes,. earthquakes, reports of earthquakes occurring as a consequence of hydraulic fracturing are now widespread including in oklahoma, arkansas, texas, ohio and taxes. and taxes. whether they are the result of high-pressure fractures were much more commonly high-volume wastewater disposal wells earthquake activity in shale regions

can be deeply alarming to members of the public. in fact, just this week the oklahoma geological survey released a statement concluding that it is very likely most of the recent earthquakes and essential part of the state were triggered by the injection of produced water and to disposal wells. infrastructure. the impact a leading concern of the many communities that find themselves for the 1st time in the center of new energy development. in states like texas and oklahoma hundreds of cities have adopted local rules that have enabled the orderly development of oil and gas. unfortunately, such measures are under attack in many jurisdictions including most recently in taxes were the legislature is considering a bill that would sweet boy nearly all local authority we think that would be an unfortunate overreaction dismantling local regulatory

authority increased risk by creating regulatory gaps. it also stops communities from imposing even the most reasonable rule governing issues such as well setbacks from homes, schools churches, and parks. the result can be more determined citizen opposition to oil and gas operations. in many states knew regulatory measures have not kept pace with the intense rate of new oil and gas development which, of course, is made possible by hydraulic fracturing and other knew technologies. local communities have become an increasingly restive about shale and oil and gas development within their borders. of course, as i note in my written testimony, many communities and states have little and in some cases no experience with oil and gas operations. while bands may not be the solution long-term they surely do reflect a need for

government at the federal, state, and local level to take more aggressive action to protect the environment and economy. thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts about the basis for these public concerns. >> thank you. i we will recognize myself for questions. chairman craddick, you mentioned in your statement that much of the criticism directed toward cracking is unfounded -- toward fracking is unfounded and inaccurate. what is the harm caused by this kind of misinformation and what can we do about it? >> first and foremost -- and i appreciate the question -- there is a lot of harm caused by misinformation. part of the job as a regulator is to make sure

people understand their after inspecting and doing our jobs and have vibrant rules in place. when you look at if you have a band like we had proposed in texas and always want to make sure that we are respectful of the voters but misinformation voters but misinformation in the city is part of what has caused the ban. it is a taking of private property rights 1st and foremost. a challenge that i think all this respect to be able to develop their own mineral interest. but it is also an economic problem. to give you perspective on where taxes is last year and these were numbers at the end of last year the oil and gas industry put into the texas economy $15.7 billion. that that is both property tax, all kinds of taxes, but also payments to royalty and

mineral interest owners. the industry created direct and indirect 2.2 million jobs in the state of taxes, and if we decide to been cracking and/or limit what we are going to do, that i do then i think that you we will find those jobs galway and not come back. >> thank you for that response. he mentioned the two studies cited by new york. your own study refuted their findings. you mentioned several times the bias involved in those studies and the coverage of the studies. what accounts for the bias? what drives the bias? vice? what is the motive? what can be done about that. -- about that? would you turn on your my care? >> that is an excellent question, mr. chairman. i cannot read into the minds of the researchers at duke of why they designed the study the way that they did. but, as i said in my testimony, it struck me when

i 1st saw the paper the 1st one 2011, sampling appear to be done in a way to highlight places where a few fugitives fugitive gas will problems that occurred. some have occurred, a handful. dimmick being one. and one. and so it struck me if the goal was to come up with an assessment of in general systematically or systemically is there a problem a problem with gas wells and gas and domestic water, they should have sampled differently. that's why in new york it got such impact i think it had to do with the media coverage and rob jackson's promotion of his paper. and so people picked up on that. how to prevent that, i really don't know. is a big issue of how science is perceived in the

public and how to present the best science there is no way of the public stand. >> mr. lomax. discovered. no surprise, this network of foundations and activists seem to engage in what we might call and what you called advocacy science which i don't think a science of all. you might take a swing at how we counter this bias you have discovered, why it is not scientific, and what we can do about it. >> i mentioned in my testimony that i live in colorado, denver, which is a major, you know -- i have a

great privilege of interacting with other daily basis the men and women of the oil and gas industry in colorado to make the oil and gas industry run. geologists, engineers other technical experts. without the science and geology you don't know where to get the oil and gas. you don't know how to bring that to the service surface so we can turn into the energy and consumer goods the support our way of life. if there is one thing that i can convey from my discussions with them they just want to debate based on facts. facts. they will debate based on facts because as practitioners of science themselves they know that the facts conclude that the oil and gas industry, while being perfect is most certainly safe. think that in terms of the undisclosed conflicts and bias that you see in

research and that should be more clearly disclosed. i am here at the community today very clearly an advocate of the oil and gas industry, not something i shy away from but i'm proud of and chose to go to work in the oil and gas after a long and happy career as a reporter, as a journalist. people know where i am coming from, can judge for themselves if i'm somebody worth listening to another. and one of the things that i think you may have noticed testimony is that i was pointing people to things -- pointing people to authoritative sources from outside the industry particularly environmental regulators so that you'll have to take my word for it. >> the ranking member is

recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me thank all of the witnesses for being here. and simply say that i am really seeking information and am reading an article here now that was published in the "wall street journal" this week as a matter of fact yesterday. and it talked about the oklahoma geological survey released a a statement on tuesday saying it was now considered very likely that most of the hundreds of earthquakes in the state center in recent years were triggered by the injection of produced water and disposal wells. southern methodist university scientists being a small university in

dallas, texas indicated that 2013 northwest of fort worth was all of -- also likely caused by wastewater injection. now, i don't see anything wrong with the findings. what concerns me is the denial of the findings. it would seem to me that if these findings continue, even with the university of texas research we are addressing the findings. that is my major concern. just last weekend there was a major incident just north west i think of fort worth the arlington were a family's house collapsed in the water -- everyone was told not to drink the water.

i have never found anything wrong with research. my feeling is that once we find findings rather than denying it is happening, can we start to address the issue? and what do we get from denying citizens from being so fearful that they don't want to see a new their home. i would like to see mr. lomax and mr. siegel, would you address that for me? what is the -- i am trying to get to why we are trying to deny that this is going on. i just want the information so that we cannot just focus on it is not happening but what we can do about it. >> well, i mean, i am not denying it. i never would deny that the

high injection of water in injection wells at extremely high rates for now potentially cause earthquakes. i have earthquakes. i have seen the studies that the usgs has done, and there are a number not many but if you high capacity injection wells in which produced water being injected. ohio is another place and so forth. the remedy to that is to inject that much smaller weights, more wells injecting lower volumes. i would not deny those results. they come from credible sources. in terms of allaying public fear, i am not sure how to do that. but in the context of what you just said, i mean, i think that it is fairly

well-known now that if you inject too much food at a given location in certain geologic settings you could induce some earthquakes. having said that, from my reading of the journals and literature being produced on the earthquakes in oklahoma and elsewhere most of them are the kind you cannot feel, but there are some the camp. >> i have felt them. i felt that we way before last in dallas. >> right. so i can't deny that would never deny that. the that. the solution to that although this is not my area of expertise but my understanding is that you have more injection wells spread out over a larger area and then you would not have that kind of problem. >> do you have a comment? >> thank you for your question. my issue is almost never with the actual research but the way that those findings get politicized misrepresented and used by groups to say that hydraulic

fracturing, particularly even though we we're talking about a completely separate process, wastewater injection, when they use that somehow to build the case for banning fracking on the issue of induced seismicity i always go back to some testimony presented to the united states and the couple years ago but one of the nation's leading geophysicists. closely with the obama administration on this issue, and did not say it was a nonissue but a nonissue but wanted to put it in perspective. so, for instance, he said there are more than 140,000 of these wastewater disposal wells used by the oil and gas industry but also others and that the vast, vast

majority have been operating safely for decades. it is the context and lack of a factual discussion of the research that i take issue with and that i here about all the time from geologists and engineers inside the oil and gas industry for just want the debate focused on facts rather than it being rather than it being politicized and sensationalized in an effort to run a media campaign to ban fracking. >> thank you. now, ms. craddick -- >> you went over more than i did. [laughter] >> one more question. >> the ranking member without objection will be recognized for another minute. >> thank you.

we are aware that some of these incidents happen. my concern is, when people get concerned it is real to them. is the answer to keep them from expressing it by keeping them from having local ordinances, or do we make some kind of recommendation to move out of these urban areas where is happening to, perhaps, some other area? no matter what we sit here and say this frightens people. i was standing in my office almost downtown dallas, and the building shook a week ago. i was on the 6th floor. i said, that could not be a car. in the news came on and said it was an earthquake. we are not accustomed to earthquakes in that area but now we are. they are happening frequently. urban denton fort worth,

and all the mid- cities area is it stupid to say people don't want that to happen near their homes? because to me you are not going to pass an audience in the state to step two. this. do two. this. do we have a fun to pay these people in their homes get torn up and their health is affected? >> thank you for the question. i think we obviously take seismicity very, very seriously. last year in april we hired a seismologist the 1st time ever in the history that we have done that because we are like everyone else, looking for answers. i'm not sure it is always oil and gas related when you look at irving them however we have been out inspecting on a regular basis. we have

rules to be followed, and based on recommendations from our seismologist last august be adjusted rules for saltwater disposal wells and are following those rules because we think that we are trying to be respectful and responsive. however, we are still looking at science and data, like everyone else has think that our rules and information must be based on good science and information. and so we also at the same time as a commission have been up and down town hall meetings, been responsive. we want to to be involved with the communities so that they understand what we do in that we have stringent rules when you mentioned arlington last week with the potential well and have problems. we were on scene was we got the call within an hour and were on scene

for 24 hours straight as an agency and are continuing to follow up to make sure rules are being followed. we take being a regulator and inspector -- end of the rule is not followed, we have a stringent enforcement process as well. well. i think that part of our challenge is to communicate those, that information to local communities and local residences, and we are as we speak, trying to up our communication effort. we do work with cities and want to continue to do that as well. >> one more question. when people's homes collapse and when they have these kind of incidents, what responsibility do the companies doing the drilling have? >> obviously if it is proven that they have the right to file a lawsuit. we also obviously if a well has a problem in the rule has been broken we also do enforcement penalties in our agency as well. they have the ability to file a

lawsuit if that is the appropriate remedy. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. miss johnson, the german from california's recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me just state very emphatically that i do not know anyone on our side of the aisle that does not think the states and local communities have a right to make determinations as to what will be permitted to operate within their own borders. in fact, we pride ourselves and believing local controls , etc. let me -- however with that said i would like to ask mr. alstyne you mentioned hundreds of earthquakes. people talk about earthquakes those of us in california no what earthquakes are commend it is a frightening thing to here about hundreds of earthquakes. what was the dollar damage done by all of these earthquakes in oklahoma?

>> i do not know, sir. >> you don't no? >> okay. you mentioned hundreds of earthquakes. that is frightening. i think that that -- my guess is -- does anyone else on the panel have any idea what the dollar damage was done, or is this just that is not quick? i mean, there is some movement there. do we know what the dollar damages? i would ask the panel to get back to me with that information. because my guess is is that it is not very much. my guess is that it is like a big truck driving by and that shake is called an earthquake. do you consider -- does your organization consider any seismic activity as an earthquake? >> congressman, let me emphasize that as chairman craddick noted many of the states that have in place experienced regulators are

scurrying to answer some of the questions you're raising, but the 1st order of business as regulators of the industry is to discover just scientifically what is the connection between the earthquakes and -- >> well, how about answering, does your does your organization consider any seismic activity as an earthquake? >> no. >> okay. they don't. so what is your definition of an earthquake that gives us hundreds of earthquakes in oklahoma? >> congressman, in my testimony, the references i made to the earthquake came from the report that the oklahoma geological survey issued in the last few days. let me just say, say, we did not do any independent investigation. secondly, i want to endorse a suggestion that we gather information about the cost

of whatever earthquakes may happen. >> certainly. >> i think the insurance industry is probably a good source for that. >> let me know that i am a former journalist as well. her story i covered years ago when there was -- we had an awful oilwell disaster. it does not exist anymore. the water is back to its normal state in california. i think it was 1969. and anyway, the oil companies have decided that they would pay for major research into the danger of offshore oil wells. and i was called in as a reporter to cover one of these hearings that they were having command you have these guys with phd's. phd's.

they really -- they talk about professionals that were hired on to try to give the public some answers about the actual dangers of offshore oil drilling. well, what i got to this hearing there was a young lady outside with a rubber duck covered with foil screaming murderers murderers as they went by. that young lady with the rubber duck that all the press covers that day. she was actually put on par. i asked her as we left, well are you a student? you a student? she said no, i'm just to take into town. i said, how did you get over here? well, this guy told me he would put me up if i would hold up this rubber duck and scream murder of these people command i don't like oil companies anyway. we have got to get serious about these environment issues. there are a lot of people. will we end up with is less

safe energy. but we but we end up with an will be ended up in california with was -- and other places where they banned offshore oil drilling for so long we ended up with oil being delivered by tanker which is probably ten times more dangerous than anything coming from an offshore oil well. we have people who have opposed the pipeline the keystone pipeline for environmental reasons, and then we end up with even more danger transporting the same oil and gas by trains. so. so i think -- and no one in their right mind is going to want there to be more danger environmentally.

we all have children. we want our children to inherit a planet that is cleaner. what we have is people acting irrationally and i believe it is based on some may see on it. every that to eliminate oil and gas because we're changing the climate of the planet this anything that we do is justified. we need to be careful with our fax/facts and thank you for this hearing. >> recognized. >> thank you. and thank you to our witnesses for being here today for this important discussion. i want to take a minute to recognize camille here with girls incorporated daughter for the day, from oregon in the 4th grade and has a a class and science and the class and technology a school. when we talk about science literacy i want to tell you there is hope for the next generation. back back home in oregon, my constituents reside along or near an active fault the cascadia subduction zone. so for this reason

oregonians are very concerned about seismic issues, as issues, as they should be. currently the oregon legislature is studying hydraulic fracturing. we have not in our state as present. as mr. holstein has said in his oral and written testimony, he was talking about the oklahoma geological survey. i would like to because it has already been entered, i would like to ask that this be made a part of the record today. >> without objection, so ordered. >> the statement dated april 21, 2016 where they were talking about the seismicity rate increasing and that it is -- and i we will read this -- very likely the majority of reason earthquakes, particularly those in central and north

central oklahoma are true by an injection the produced water and a disposal a disposal well. so i no that the water being injected in oklahoma deep wells comes from two main sources, wastewater that originated from the water used to frak the wells and produce water that comes up along with the oil and gas. gas. we have that in the record command i hope everyone will take a look at it. you talked about hydraulic fracturing and mischief heavy industrial activity. my colleagues are talking about the right of states to properly regulate that type of activity. i no that we have a colleague here from new york. a lot of conversation about what they have done in new york. york. i know vermont has also imposed a ban on hydraulic fracturing.

i want to ask you in addition to the seismic issue, which was raised with regard to oklahoma, what other environmental concerns are associated with the disposal of fracturing -- excuse me, fracking wastewater and produced water? and know what you to address a little more the use of water. you mentioned in your testimony. taxes alone has used more than 44,000,000,000 gallons of water in a frightening activities. i don't have a timeframe on that, frame on that but could you talk about the amount of water? i know in parts of oregon we are concerned about drought california. we look across a lot of the country facing drought. drought. can we have a sense of the volume of water used? >> certainly, congresswoman. and you're right to put your finger on the issue that so many communities are worried about an states, particularly those that suffer through terrible droughts right now. these unconventional oil and gas drilling operations

frequently require very large amounts of water one to 5 million gallons per well. that's dozens if not sometimes hundreds of trucks rumbling up and down local roads. that is one of the reasons why we argue that this is a heavy industrial activity. but the broader context in which your putting the water issue is exactly right the availability of water the challenge of treating water the challenge of injecting water and the issues which you have just discussed with respect to earthquakes and, of course, protection of water supplies and all of these issues kind of revolve around the fact that there are enormous quantities of water. how water. how much? in my testimony i indicate they're are approximately 800 billion gallons of water that must be managed or exposed of in the course of

the years worth of unconventional oil and gas. >> i don't want to interrupt you, but i would like you to address in the remaining time the studies looking at the release of methane during hydraulic fracking. >> yes. we have done a lot of work in that area jointly with industry as well as academic partners and others in peer-reviewed studies that are taking a a look at the methane issue across the entire natural gas supply -- excuse me. me. as you know natural gas is 97 percent or so methane. so emissions from anywhere in the supply chain are harmful to the climate and bring teefive, along with volatile organic compounds that are a hazard. to answer your question directly, the release of methane from unconventional oil and gas

wells is a problem, but it is a solvable problem provided that operators use techniques that are available to them and equipment available to them because if you look at the whole supply chain of were natural gas or methane leaks from what you find is that as much as 40% of those methane emissions will come from the production segment. we are working with partners to get a better handle on exactly that figure but i think that the important.that is, through the scientifically peer-reviewed studies is that the design of the well and the techniques used by the operators can make a huge difference in the amount of methane that escapes. so this is a concern for local communities, as i said because of local air pollution and for the nation as a whole because its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. i would

finally say that methane is a nasty climate actor. eighty-four times as powerful as carbon dioxide in the 1st 20 years or so after its release. the significance of that. and i believe attests to my testimony in the record you we will find a scientific article about this problem but the significance is that it creates a near-term problem with respect to greenhouse gas emissions in other words damage to the climate. climate. and that together with co2 is a one-two punch to the climate. >> thank you. i see that my time is expired. >> the dillman from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i have a lot of concern about tracking and seismic testing. we get so much diverse information disseminated. today we today we have three people saying positive things in one person say

negative things. it is hard to tell who was telling the truth and to my not the telling me the whole truth and nothing but the truth. in your testimony made things a little different than your oral testimony. i think i heard you say in your oral -- oral testimony true there is no evidence that fracking -- would you repeat that for me please. >> yes, sir. hopefully i said the same thing in my oral is written, but if i didn't i welcome didn't i welcome the opportunity to repeated here. there is yet to be conclusive evidence that hydraulic fracking itself

has caused ranking water contamination. however, it is widely understood poor well construction and maintenance can create pathways -- >> okay. that is what i wanted to hear. thank you. you know, i heard people say the same thing about the alamo. the alamo does not cause pollution, but those people who visited and travel by car because pollution. someone said the same thing about the super bowl. the super the super bowl itself does not turn on pollution, but those who travel to the super bowl or watch the super bowl. the same thing about the statue of liberty. the energy for the boat must be produced. the same thing about the white house. the white house itself does not cause any environmental damage most people go to see the white house after travel there, and we know that

virtually every product that we enjoy consumes some type of energy in the making of it. how do those examples differ from the.that you are making? [inaudible conversations] >> congressman, i think it is important to.out that environmental defense fund has not been reflexively opposed to unconventional oil and gas development or the widespread development of these new resources that previously were economically unavailable to america. so i begin with that and simply summarize the thrust of my testimony by saying that it is too narrow a focus simply to look at one dimension of hydraulic fracturing. that that is why my testimony addresses the many issues that come along with

unconventional drilling but at the same time it points out in considerable detail the actions that have been taken in states like texas in states like colorado, in states like pennsylvania and wyoming to try to address these concerns. concerns. and one of the things that i believe chairman craddick said we so strongly support. in fact, i was thinking about it as congressman or record was speaking with respect offshore drilling. and that is, one of the central challenges for regulators is to simply keep with the enormous amount of innovation going on in the oil and gas industry. i make no complaint about that. i simply no that it is a highly complex and heavy industrial activity command regulators need to be on their toes. let me conclude my response

to you by saying that if you can imagine the many communities and states where suddenly oil and gas development is occurring, no one alive has ever seen it before ever experienced it before, ever worked in the industry for you can imagine the challenges to elected officials at the state and local level in trying to devise if -- devise appropriate regulatory programs and oversight. that is why we have such differences from state to state with states like texas having a hundred years or more aggressive and increasingly complex regulation of the industry and other states that are just starting out. similarly, we have a tremendous difference in the reactions that you see between -- the reactions you see politically to some of

the local fights over banning. >> my time is going to be up. i want to thank you and all the witnesses for appearing today. my particular interest is in offshore drilling. it is through hearings like this that the chairman was kind enough to have that we share those ideas and learn from different states and different techniques and do more fact-finding on the issues. mr. chairman, thank you for the time and yield back. >> thank you. you. the only member of the science committee from colorado is recognized for his questions. >> i i want to thank my friend from florida because what he has brought up he has given examples of the white house and the super bowl and whatever. he and he and i both serve on the ranking committee, a financial services committee

one of the places we may see an intersection at some time is with insurance property and casualty insurance if there are dangers that some people have suggested. so so we will see this come up in the community. now, colorado obviously, we have had a lot of discussion about tracking and about its place in the politics, the body politic and legal community and the regulatory area. and so i have been dealing with this subject for ten years now i say as a policy maker. and for me the fact that we have moved ourselves toward energy independence as a policy and as a successful goal from the innovation of horizontal drilling and hydraulic tracking -- hydraulic fracking is good. i think ms. craddick, you said it well.

we have to take reasonable precautions with something that has helped us achieve another goal and we have to, as to, as policymakers balance the dangers the potentially come from an industrial operation. and the fact that some things are going on the ground. we may or may not be up to see. some things are happening at the surface were there is a collision of an industrial operation and the school next-door and worthy you whether you need a curb cut for the trucks and what is going on in the year. is there is there an escape of methane or some other emission into the air? and mr. lomax mr. lomax knows that we have been having a discussion in colorado on a pretty heated basis whether it should be local government state government, or federal government.

colorado, similar to taxes it, it is the state government basically that has the final say. our colorado oil and gas commission that is generally where i have been we cannot ignore the potential for dangers. we as policymakers have to recognize dangers. i am looking at oklahoma. there is an article yesterday were the oklahoma geological survey said, we are worried about seismic problems. they attribute it to the deep wastewater injection wells. and in colorado we have had you know, some seismic activity that ordinarily is not something we haven't colorado. we want that to be only in oregon. people come to colorado because there worried about oregon. [laughter] so i would say -- would like to ask a question.

so take a look into what you do at edf what you did formerly within the administration. and my interaction trying to divided up into three sections, underground, the surface, and hear? >> fair enough. >> so what i have come to the conclusion is the surface part of really is a local matter. it is owning a curb cuts and truck traffic. does that make sense to you? >> my testimony strongly suggests a similar line of thinking. i had not divided up the same way but it makes sense >> mr. siegel, how do you look at how we divide the regulatory components of all of this? >> well, it is hard to me to reply to that because i am a regulator.

i am pretty much restricted in my views to what i know and feel comfortable with for which is one of. >> you are a scientist dealing with water it was going on the ground. >> that's correct. and on the surface of times. >> and on the surface. so from your experience and your study the pollution or the contamination you have seen it really has been with some for practices with respect to the well. ..