arkansas. and we have taken into account some of the standards they have developed over a period of time. and we're using their information along with, you know, more recent public information to finalize our rule. >> just one thing i'd like to have unanimous consent to add to the record a letter from the governor of wyoming mentioning about this, saying he feels like the rules are very duplicative to what they already do in wyoming and this is going to create two different sets and frustration with that. i would like to add to that the record, as well. let me ask a couple questions. we're limited on time. they have called the votes and i want to honor your time as well. how long will this process add, do you think, this new additional set of regulations, to the permitting process? so how many days do you think it will add? >> you know, i don't have exact days. but i think the requirements is somewhat -- i think they're very -- they're very basic. in terms of the constituents or chemicals used primarily in many cases a water, sand-based

solution. we're asking the companies after they complete the fracking information to compile that information to us within 30 days. >> this morning in testimony we heard there was an estimate given this would add up to 100 days in the process. and i didn't know if you all had had set an estimate on that, as well. >> i don't of it with me today. but we would be glad to provide that. >> let me ask a couple questions. ms. stoner, my concern is on the expanded definition of diesel. it's very clear that diesel fuels is included in the 2005. but if i drove a diesel truck, which i don't, if i drove a diesel truck, and then poured kerosene into it, i would not consider that a diesel fuel. if i drove a diesel truck and i pulled up and instead of filling it up with diesel i instead put crude oil in there or home heating oil in there, it would not run. because it's a december he vehicle on that. and the definition is fairly clear, it's diesel fuels. the new expanded definition of diesel fuels appears, and that's what i want to have a dialogue

about. many of the companies that are doing fracking saw the ruling in 2005, saw the statement from congress saying that diesel fuels will be regulated, and so they shifted away from diesel fuel. and this has the perception that because they no longer use diesel fuels, we have to redefine what is a diesel fuel to make sure what they are using is included. does that make sense? so crude oil, home heating oil, kerosene, however those now suddenly diesel fuels. >> so in the energy policy act of 2005, the term diesel fuels appears, but there is no definition. >> correct. >> so this is the first attempt the agency has made to provide such a definition. it did so by looking at six chemical abstract service or cas numbers. there are six of them. >> correct. >> specific things, all of which are diesel fuels. diesel fuel number one, diesel fuel number two, diesel --

>> but they're diesel fuel number one, two, three as designated by who? by epa or by some other group? for instance, petroleum distill ats, that could be just about anything that's a petroleum product. >> it's got a specific cas number that it doesn't come from the agency. it's called crude oil/diesel fuel. kerosene is marine diesel fuel. so all six of them are diesel fuel. and that's where we got the six cas numbers from, is from that. and so that's where our proposed definition, we are taking comment on that. we feel like it's a very clear definition, because it links specifically to those six cas numbers. >> i am second guessing whether congress in 2005 -- of course, i was not in congress in 2005. none of us were -- on this panel were. but i'm second guessing where congress in 2005 was considering crude oil a diesel fuel, or as broad as petroleum distillates,

a broad definition. and being able to snag everything in it. one other quick comment i want to get a chance to share, short on time here. why the redefining now? why blm, putting in the new regulatory environment now before epa has finished its study? we have a study due in just a few months to define whether there's even a problem. we just created a new series of regulations, just greatly expanded what diesel fuels pertains to the common sense view of what is a diesel fuel in the past before epa finalizes a study. >> the ord study will take a couple more years. we expect to have progress this year, but not a final report this year. the information we do have about what congress did in terms of diesel fuels was that congress was focused on benefit zin toluene and xylene or b-tex come

pounds, associated with all six of those cas numbers, so we're doing our best to interpret what congress was concerned about in sources of drinking water, potential risks there. and that's our proposed description of diesel fuels. and, again, it is out for public comment. >> will this be retroactive to permitting when the new definition is done? >> the permitting requirements of the statute and the regulations apply now, but the diesel fuel definitions and proposed interpretation of those would, of course, not be. >> so if a state doesn't abide by the guidelines, will they lose primacy in this? >> we don't intend to take away primacies from our state partners. we are working with them in a complimentary way and don't intend to do that. the draft guidance applies only to those states where epa is the permitting authority under the uic program.

>> would this be in the blm area? >> it doesn't apply -- it doesn't differentiate between private lands and federal land, but it does apply only where epa is the issuing permitting authority for uic, states assume that authority. many states like oklahoma have assumed that authority, and it does not apply to those states, although they may find it useful. >> right. obviously that would be your decision to make in the coming days, whether blm supplies -- i need to give two minutes back to mr. kelly who only got three here. >> i thank the chairman. ms. stoner, two things, and i'm going to ask you one of them, and very quickly. the reason i ask is because pennsylvania -- i think you're familiar with the movie "gas land." yes? >> i'm sorry, familiar with what, sir? >> the movie "gas land?" >> "gas land." i am somewhat familiar. on may 11th, roy sennic,

spokesman for the regional epa office tested 59 wells in democratic and found the fracking had nothing to do with the contamination of the water. and he says this set of sampling did not show levels of contaminates that would give the epa reason to take further action. so the conclusion would be then that the epa doesn't need to be concerned anymore with the testing, the water is safe, not a result of fracturing, nothing contaminated. >> my understanding is there some limited additional sampling occurring to verify there is no public health concern, but we have not found a public health concern. >> so all of the testing has turned up nothing that would be determinant that the water was affected by fracking. that's -- to your spokesperson. >> my understanding is we believe nothing required further action, that's correct. >> okay. so that's a settled issue. now, mr. poole, the president talks an awful lot about the increase in oil and gas. where's the increase taking

place? has it taken place in the federal lands or where has it taken place? >> well, i think the blm and the public lands manager is a major contributor to the production of gas and oil. currently, we have about 85,000 producing wells in public lands. about 90% of which we do apply hydro logic fracturing to maximize the economic recovery of the resource. >> but when we talk about the injuries and there's been a huge increase -- but most of it has taken place in the private sector. it has not taken place -- 96% of it, by the way -- we have a slide that shows that. look at this. so if we're talking about the president saying, wow, look at what we have done. but 96% of it, the increase in u.s. oil production has occurred on nonfederal lands. this really has nothing to do with the administration. >> well, as i mentioned in my earlier comments, we have a variety of statutes that we have to address when we offer --

>> understandable. >> and in recent years, we've been much more measured. >> was this chart -- do you think this chart is correct? >> congressman, i can't confirm that. >> it's a crs chart, by the way. >> okay. >> and i know this is your first -- i'm trying to determine. i am hearing all of the time about this tremendousin increase and it's happened in the private sector. it hasn't happened on federal lands. so i think it just -- sometimes you have to clear those things up so people actually understand what's going -- we talked earlier. i just have a problem with people who take credit for things they didn't have anything to do with. and i think that the general public never sees these things. and when they hear these numbers, oh, my goodness, this is incredible what's happened. it's happened through the private sector. it has not happened on federal lands. and i think that when you look at 96% has happened in the private sector, it did not happen -- 4% in federal.

so there would have been some influence that absolutely had nothing to do with it. and i'm sorry, we're really running short on time. i appreciate the indulgence. thank you. and i thank you both for being here today. >> thank you. would either of you mind if we submitted some questions -- written statements to you later on and get a chance to do some follow-up? we do have some additional questions here, want to do some follow-up and we'll be over in the voting time for a while. either of you have a problem with that? i'm sure, mr. pool, you'll have nothing on your desk when you get to work tomorrow, eagerly awaiting questions. >> that would be fine. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> in that category, could i ask mr. pool if he'll give us more detail in writing? because i was intryinged by his answer, the testimony of mr. mckeon you went to county and how blm was an impediment of their being able to economically develop that land. i think the subcommittee would welcome more detailed explanation. >> be glad to give a complete profile. >> if i could piggyback --

>> that would be great for both the county and the committee as we do our research. we will follow up on additional questions to submit for the record and follow up on that. with that, we are adjourned.

this week at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we're bringing american history tv prime time. programs normally seen weekends here on c-span 3. tonight, one of america's earliest settlements, jamestown, virginia, had a tour of archeological sites, along with a visit to a lab where they're studying the more than 1 million artifacts found so far. spend the weekend in wichita, kansas with book tv and american history tv. saturday at noon eastern, literally life with book tv on

c-span 2, robert weems on american presidents and black entrepreneurs from business in black and white and the founding of beach craft and the barn stormer and the lady. also, browse the rare book collection at watermark west's rare books. and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, experience early plains life at the old cow town's museum, the aviation museum and two participants from the kansas civil rights movement in 1958 sat down for service at the dockemdrugstore. once a month, c-span explores the history and literary life of cities across america. this weekend from wichita, kansas on c-span 2 and 3. >> this is c-span 3, with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week, and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites.

and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. a brookings institution panel now on america's leadership role abroad during a presidential election year. panelists discuss a wide range of global issues challenging the u.s. this is about an hour and a half. i think we're going to get started. my name is benjamin wittis, fellow in government studies and director of the 2012 project. and it's a pleasure to welcome you to -- i've actually lost track. sixth or seventh or something like that of our series of events on the critical issues of the campaign, and the critical

issues more particularly of what the -- the president cy, the results of this campaign will have to manage. for those of you who haven't been to the prior event and for those of you who have, i apologize for this being repetitious. but for those of you who been to the previous events, i wanted to describe a little bit the way this project works. which is that we have sort of divided up the world of the campaign into 12 major issues, some of them foreign, some of them domestic, some of them hybrid. and for each of those issues, we have asked a brookings scholar or sometimes a pair of brooking scholars to write a paper sort of situating the discussion of the issue in the context of the campaign, talking about president obama's record on the subject, talking about the critique of that record by the republican opposition, and

trying to synthesize the merits of the record and the merits of the critique into something like a set of action items or advice for the incoming administration, whether it's a second term of the obama administration, or i think we're allowed to say it now. a mitt romney administration. we had to pretend that we didn't know for a long time. the subject for today, and for each of these subjects, we asked two or sometimes two groups of other brookings scholars to write a response paper. sometimes these were simply arguments, people who disagreed with the thesis of the main paper. sometimes more often they were efforts to sort of add texture and richness, look at the issue from a slightly different point of view. and then for each of these groups, there are 12 groups of

three papers. we are having an event like this at which the authors of the main paper and the author of the response paper get together with a moderator from politico, and discuss the three. so our subject today is me america's role in the world, which has been a particularly, over the course of the republican prime areas, has been sort of a recur rent, thematic matter of criticism of the obama administratio administration, one subject the obama administration has talked a lot about. it's also a subject that has been criticized a lot about. and it's actually played -- i think -- at least surprising to me, surprisingly large role of visions of american power. surprisingly large role in the campaign. before i turn it over, introduce our panel and turn it over to them, i would like to announce

that the compilation of all of these sets of 12 papers and responses is now available, and as of this week, has actually shown up. it's a volume called campaign 2012. some of these papers we've already had the events for. some of them we have not already had the events for, but we will be doing so over the next few remaining months of the campaign. the books are available at a table outside this hall, when you guys leave. and i hope you enjoy it. so to discuss today's subject, the main paper was written by bruce jones. who is a senior fellow in governance studies here, and at nyu, as well. and our response papers were written by homi karas also a fellow in global economy and development. and by brookings' president

strobe talbot. and here to moderate is edward devar from politico. and i turn it over to him. >> thank you, ben. i'm the deputy white house editor for politico, which means i've been paying a lot of attention to what the administration has been doing over the last couple of months, and years, and as well as how it's playing out on the campaign trail so far. i think as has been mentioned, there's been a lot of talk about it in the primary campaign, and a lot of talk about it in sort of ways that aren't exactly the traditional ways for democrats and republicans to be talking about foreign policy when it comes to the general election. i think there's a lot to discuss here. but i think to start, if we could just -- bruce, if you could sort of set the table for us, and at the us where you see the main issues, the main situations, on the global stage

that are of concern and relevance to the united states, and how those -- the different approaches that mitt romney and barack obama have been taking to discussing them might play out come 2013. >> great, thanks. let me start a little further back than that, and let me address that question. it seems to me that we are in a moment of some uncertainty, and doubt in the american public mind-set about our role in the world, about the nature of the world that we're confronting. and there's an awful lot that's changing. the u.s. economy is exposed to and integrated with the global economy now at a scale that's substantially different than was true 20 years ago, let's say. there are rising powers who have greater influence in world politics and greater influence in international security than was true even ten years ago. the middle east is in turmoil, and our allies and our stakes in that region are substantial. so there are a number of things that are -- i think creating

uncertainty and doubt in the american public mind-set. this gets injected then, and i think a very simplistic and frankly mischaracterized debate about american decline. and we've had a lot of discussion and debate and books about american decline or not in decline, et cetera. i think it's the wrong way of understanding the problem. i think the rhetoric of decline runs far ahead of the reality of decline. the simple fact is, there are new factors in the world, there are new actors, there are new economic relations and we have to adjust our policy to deal with those. second point i would make is that we have lived for now 65 years in an international system characterized by two fundamental realities. the international system was built by, protected by, promoted by, american power. and the second reality is that our power by our own choice was embedded in a series of institutions, alliances and arrangements for partnership, for cooperation, for

multilaterali multilateralism. i don't see anything in either campaign, anything in the policy of the president, anything romney said that is going to change either of those two fundamental realities. i think they're kind of core tenets of the power are very likely to remain true over a period of time. but the reality is, we confront new challenges, china's flexing its naval muscle in the south china seas, india is asserting itself in the international stage, south korea, turkey, mexico, brazil, seeking new voice in international institutions. we're economically dependent in ways we weren't before. and those are realities that will confront either candidate no matter what their policy orientation is, those are realities. and either president will have to adapt to them. the final point i would make to set the stage, we'll hear a lot of rhetoric about this. romney will accuse obama of apologizing for america, and not believing in american

exceptionalism. obama will say that he is now tested as national security commander, et cetera. i think each side will try to frame the other as not having a good grasp or not having the tools to manage america's role in the world. we don't know what romney actually thinks about foreign policy, he hasn't written much about it, he's got advisers from every part of the spectrum. but when i read his -- the couple of speeches he has actually given on foreign policy and you strip away the rhetoric and look at what he says he would do, i find it indistinguishable from the essential policy lines of the obama administration. >> mr. strobe, i want to ask you to pick up what's in your paper, which is the discussion of how -- excuse me. the discussion of these issues on the campaign trail actually affects a lot of the deeper things that are going on, the negotiations, the conversations with foreign nations, and how it affect those relationships.

>> sure. thank you, isaac i'll pick up from what bruce has said -- in the category of respondents. which is we couldn't find much to dispute. focus on a couple of issues, notably including the one that bruce just mentioned. and i think what bruce has just said is essentially good news. if you extrapolate forward from the substantive between what is emerging as a romney platform on foreign policy and the actual foreign policy of the administration, there's not a great deal of difference and that's a good thing. first of all, i think there have been a lot of positive features

to president obama's foreign policy, which, by the way, demonstrates some degree of continuity with the second term of the george w. bush administration. for example, reliance on the g-20. the g-20 was an invention or at least a convening of george w. bush. so i don't think that either we the american people nor our friends abroad need to worry over much that there will be a r radical breach. but to go to the not such good news, john michael and i focus in on what we regard as a perverse and even tragic irony about american democracy. i think it's fair to say that that function of american democracy that is most important and consequential is a presidential election. which, of course, coincides with an election of a third of the senate, and all members of the

house. that is a very big day every four years in our lives. and it's consequential for us and it's consequential for the world. and very often, the outcome -- say much more often than not, the outcome is sensible and one that we can be proud of on a all-community and nonpartisan basis. but the process by which we get to that day, the nature of the national discourse or conversation is pretty dreadful. and it has been about as bad this time around as we have seen it in a long time. it tends to not -- i wouldn't say degenerate, but start as much more of a shouting match, blame-storming, you know, we were already getting a sense of the -- the charges that are

going to be made in each direction, you know. that guy is a fat cat who straps his labrador retriever on his station wagon when he goes on vacation, and is insensitive to the needs of the american people. that guy's middle name is hussein. i mean, that is not the kind of conversation that we need. and that, i think, is an extension of the extraordinary polarization that afflicts our domestic politics and policy-making, particularly at the federal level. and it has at least two very deleterious effects on our standing in the eyes of the world, and that's basically the topic we've been asked to address, which is american leadership. one is that it's -- unseemly. and that takes me back to the irony that i'm talking about. that the most consequential function of american democracy, which