on may 11th, 2012, the blm published the proposed rule in the federal register beginning a 60 day public comment period. straight forward measures outlined in the proposed rule include, disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations with appropriate protections for trade secrets, assurance of well born activity to minimize the risk of fracturing fluids leaking into the near by aquifers, and water management requirements to apply to the fluids that flow back to the surface after hydraulic fracturing has taken place. it will strengthen the requirements for on indian and federal lands to protect the health of american communities while ensuring continued access to important resources. that make our energy economy. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. thank you not only for your written testimony, but your oral testimony for allowing to come

in on your prefirst day on it. we're verifying right now. i think they may be calling the votes. if they're calling the votes right now that's going to interrupt your schedule. i don't want us to jump into our questioning time if we call the votes on it. we'll just hesitate for a moment and see if they're about to do that. okay. we'll try this a couple different ways. looks like they are calling the vote on that. if they are, we can do a round of questions and come back and do a second round or try to stall and do both rounds. we can take this either way. we're going to pretend this is a democracy for a moment and talk about it. >> if we wanted to maybe not

take our full five minutes in order to get some questions in. >> come back around. >> mr. kelly? >> we'll try to do three minutes in this fist round and do a second round. we'll do three minutes in the first round and the second round we'll do 18 minutes each. we'll try to cover a few of those things to get going. we want to hop honor your time as well. yield to mr. kelly here this first moment with my round of questioning. >> i thank the chairman. miss stoner, i'm trying to understand the change in epa's interpretation of a regulation. why was the 2010 subject announcement not subject to the notice and comment procedure. i'm talking specifically about we do into the diesel element of it.

there was -- that was kind of fast based, was it not? it was placed on your website. was the rogue procedure taken? >> this is a guidance document. it is an interpretation of the statute and the regulations. it imposes no -- >> i'm talking before the guidance document? >> i'm sorry? >> the epa posted it on their website. on the permit for with the diesel using the diesel in the fracking. >> the epa has on its website information about what is in the engineering policy act including the fact that when hydraulic fracturing is done with diesel fuels a permit is required. that's in the statute. and so we did include that information on our website. as you may know we did have a lawsuit associated with that.

which has now been >> i understand. settled. but that's different than the document that exists before the 2010. is that not true? you -- it's changed. i am not sure i understand your question. >> well, there's a letter from acting assistant administrator ben grumble stating the use of hydraulic fracturing using diesel does not fall within the scope of the uic class 2 program. that's before 2010. >> was that before 2005, congressman? >> no. this was before 2010. so the epa then decides to change that. just going on their website. it didn't go through the normal processing, is what i'm saying. >> it's not my understanding the agency changed its position between 2001 and 2005. in 2001 there was a court decision that said that hydraulic fracturing was within the class 2 uic program. it was at that point the agency changed its position in response

to a federal court. >> i understand. without objection, mr. chairman, i'm going to ask this letter be put in to the testimony. >> without objection. >> the concern is things change rather quickly and the process all of a sudden not policy before becomes policy and does not go through the regular process. and the diesel -- the fracturing was not part of what was in the policy of using diesel fuel. all of a sudden it did become part of it. >> we are implementing the 2005 statute with the guidance that has gone through -- going through public notice and comment now after a series of public meetings and discussions with a variety of different groups. so we are undertaking that process. we agree with you that it is important to have the involvement and wide variety of partners and stakeholders in the process. >> i understand. that is the intent of the whole process. so i wonder why was it fast tracked. mr. chairman, my time is up.

>> i recognize mr. connolly. [ no audio ] >> i've lost nine seconds. sorry. welcome to both of our panelists. thank you, mr. chairman. just to clarify, i'm confused. epa is not proposing a general broad regulation of fracturing. it's only proposing fracturing within the statutory framework provided in the 2005 legislation and a subsequent court ruling. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. we're interpreting the statute and the regulations. >> but if, for example, it does not involve diesel, you're not regulating the process. >> that's correct. diesel fuels is in the statute. that's what we're implementing. congress imposed the obligation on hydraulic fracturing

operations using diesel fuels to obtain a permit and the guidance explains how to do that. >> and this assertion of regulatory responsibility in this particular lane involving diesel was actually insisted upon, is that correct, or ruled upon by a court? >> the court determined that hydraulic fracturing was covered under the uic class 2 program that was in 2001. congress took action in 2005 that limited that permitting requirement only to hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel. and so what the guidance -- proposed guidance does is indicate how that should be implemented. >> why did it take seven years from that legislation to today to get around to proposed regulations? >> the -- what we did initially at the epa was a memorandum of agreement with companies involved in coal bed methane

hydraulic fracturing indicating they would not use diesel fuels. and what's happened is a shift in the industry so that there is now more hydraulic fracturing that's outside that realm of the coal bed methane. and that's why the initial steps we took we no longer view as sufficient to comply with what congress asked us to do. >> hmmm. are you aware of any cases where fracturing has come to a halt because of your pending regulatory rules? >> no, i am not aware of any. >> you're also proposing as an emission to regulate carcinogens, but not methane, is that correct? >> that would are an air rule that you're asking me about. i don't know the answer to that question. >> but so you don't know the answer as to whether or not -- my understanding is you're not proposing anything with respect to methane. >> i'm sorry, i don't know the answer. we could submit that information.

>> well, you will recall earlier the professor's testimony that methane actually is a very serious concern of his, and other academics looking -- scientists looking at fracturing, and the reason is because it's part of a family of organic compounds. methane in and of itself may not be dangerous, but it's a precursor to benzine and other carcinogens. all right. mr. pool, did you hear mr. mckee's testimony from utah? >> yes, i did. >> he testified that essentially blm being 59% of the land mass in this county is really putting a crimp on their style in terms of their ability to exploit natural resources because it is federally owned land and

federally controlled land. would you comment and i know your first day on this particular set -- >> no, that's a very prolific region in terms of natural gas potential and development. and we've issued quite a few leases up there and quite a few apds. i think when it comes to leasing federal land, we have other important responsibilities that we have to address in terms of biological, cultural considerations. so we go through a leasing process where we go into a full development process. we need to work with the operators and these jurisdictions will vary, depending on the sensitivity of these resources. i know between i think wyoming and utah, well, we have about 6,800 apds that -- what we call front-logged that we have issued apds but the companies have not taken the action to activate those. i think there's a percentage of those. i don't have the exact number. >> the testimony essentially, the thrust of the testimony from at least two of the state

regulators or officials was we don't need no stinkin' federal government why not just let in this case utah regulate what happens with blm land. what's wrong with that? >> well, as it relates to hydro logic fracturing or fracking, what we discovered in review of our own regulations, they were very outdated. many of the states including colorado, wyoming, texas, arkansas, were starting to develop regulatory procedures to address various requirements associated with fracking. and so we looked at our regulations, the secretary of interior has done an incredible job with public outreach in d.c. back in the fall of 2011. subsequently we held regional meetings, got recommendations from the secretary of energy's natural gas subcommittee, all of which was helping the blm kind of formulate what improved standard should we develop? and we really looked closely at what the state regulators had been doing.

many cases, they've been out in front of the blm. the issue there is the state fracking regulations don't pertain to federal lands. and in many provinces of the west, we'll have fee land, state land and we've got public land. and so we would like to think with the development of our proposed rule a high degree of outreach and public input and that's still ongoing during the comment period that our regulations will be very much complimentary to and very much in line with what the states are doing. it's very important they be in line. >> thank you. >> let me ask about that. the public lands -- you're saying the state rules would not apply. so you're saying state regulations in utah would not apply to fracking. >> that is correct. >> was there a consideration to say that they would, or is there a need for blm to create a whole new group of regulators and now

go in and evaluate this? >> yes, mr. chairman. our authority has come under two principle statutes. the leasing act and the federal land policy management act. and so our regulations have to be basically developed under those two statutes for us to enforce whatever requirements we want to impose on the operators. >> so you mentioned before your regulations were very out-of-date on this. obviously, states keep theirs very up to date. >> that's correct. >> is there a place where blm is going to keep regulations in place in all different states? >> in developing our proposed rule, we looked at colorado, we looked at wyoming, we did look at texas, we even looked at 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 that to 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 operation 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 have 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 diesel 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 distillates, 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, as a diesel fuel. that's a very broad definition. and that is the concern there that this suddenly seems to reach out with a net to be able to snag everything in it. one other quick comment i want to get a chance to share additional 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 benzine 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 terms of chemicals 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 work closely with them on implementing these programs 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 mandatory in a 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, mr. pool 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. >> okay. on may 11th, roy sennic, spokesman for the regional epa office tested 59 wells in demic 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 that's been 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 increase, and there's been a huge increase, but most of it has taken place in the private second it has not taken place -- 96% of tore. 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 day, but i'm trying to

determine, because i'm hearing all the time about this tremendous increase under this administration and the fact of the matter is it has 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 intrigued by his answer, the testimony of mr. mckeon, uwenta 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. thank you for being here. we will follow up on additional questions to submit for the record and follow up on that. with that, we are adjourned.

wroo inside you'll find each member of the house and the senate including contact information, district maps, and committee assignments. also information on cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/shop. with the house debating the 2013 spending bill for homeland security we're joined by tim starks of congressional quarterly. what are some key issues lawmakers will debate? >> there's agreement on the funding levels in the bill. in the past there's been a fight where republicans are trying to cut funding for state and local grants, and democrats want to increase them.

the democrats don't want more than is in there now. they're closer than they have been in past years. so that leaves a couple issues that are points of disagreement. one a republican bill that restricted funding for the bureau of immigration and customs enforcement to spend any money on any abortion certificaservices. the democrats would like to see that language removed. it's unclear whether there will be a removal of that language because democrats got some things modifying the language that they liked during the committee discussion, so there may not be enough energy or momentum to try and take that language out. there are other things that you might see republicans, for instance, pushing for more border security funding. the bill does decrease slightly that immigration and customs enforcement bureau so you may see them try to increase that funding -- those funding levels. and then democrats are also upset about some requirements in the bill that say they have to

have a certain number of detention beds at i.c.e. they would like to see that language removed because they say that it doesn't really fit the need of what's out there. >> you mentioned the issue of abortion. what other policy rider issues might we see in the debate? >> well, this bill has often been a vehicle for some of the language at guantanamo. so that's one thing that you might see. the language is often saying that you cannot transfer anyone to u.s. soil with any of the funds in this bill. that's in there again this year like it has been in past years, but i don't know if there would be an effort to strip it. traditionally they are not like that, have not had the votes to get it. >> looking more broadly at the bill, compare it to the spending level of last year and what agencies and programs does it specifically cover? >> it is a very, very small decrease at least in terms of how many other departments are facing big decreases. i think it's something like 1.2%

decrease from last year. the components of the department that suffer the most are some of the management type can accounts and in particular the transportation and security administration. the administration had wanted congress to increase the security fee that airline passengers pay because expenses have gone up enormously and the fee has not been increased in like a decade. soap the administration wanted that. the republicans said, no way, we're not going to do it. we don't like you proposing it. we'll reduce tsa funding as a result of that. then some other agencies that are affected, coast guard is a big, big component of this department of homeland security and the administration of proposed cutbacks that were very unpopular. this bill scales back those cutbacks. they'll cut the funding a little bit. it's still about $10 billion. so that gives you a sense of how big the coast guard is within the department of homeland security budget because we're talking about approximately a

$40 billion bill just in terms of discretionary funding that lawmakers can move around and then another $5.5 billion in disaster relief that doesn't count against those spending caps. so there's an awful lot covered by the department of homeland security, overall spending bill. a couple of big components in particular. >> where is the senate with their version of the homeland security bill? >> that's also somewhat more similar than they have been in the past. this bill in the house is about $3 $39.1 billion. the one in the senate is $39.5 billion. that's not as big a difference as in past years and some of the issues that have been big points of dispute between the house and senate, have been some of those first responder local state and local grants but because the republicans said, okay, we cut the funds in past years, we're not going to institute those kinds of cuts this year. the democrats in the senate are much closer to the