the thing that is somewhat exceptional is that obama himself, more than most presidents, really wants to make the decisions and run the process himself. it is an open question whether obama will let his staff run things more, organized things more effectively for him. host: mac destler, thank you for your time today. that is it for our program. coming up next, and live a hearing of the senate environment and public works committee on natural gas, public health, and environment impact. among the panelists will be the deputy administrator of the epa, the director for the center of health and environment and the communities, the senior vice president for the pennsylvania health council, the vice chairman of the oklahoma corporation commission, and others. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> welcome to the joint hearing between the full environmental public works committee and the subcommittee on water and wildlife. i want to thank senator inhofe for renting this hearing and my colleagues that are here that are prepared to testify. let me start off by saying that the united states has as much natural gas as a saudi arabia has oil. according to penn state, rteh marcellus shale may be the second largest natural gas field in the world. we have enormous reserves that can help america meet its energy needs or do so in a way that produces far less pollution than coal and help the united states and its path to energy independence and improves our national security. fracking is now being used to extract shale in thousands of

new wells. in pasadena, more than 2300 marcellus wells were drilled this year. last year, the drilling would create more than 100,000 jobs in 2011 plus billions of dollars in economic value for the state. the natural-gas industry is booming, but it may be in jeopardy. new york has imposed a moratorium on fracking operations and new jersey is considering a ban on the practice. in maryland, they adopted an ordinance making the drilling of natural gas illegal within the town limits. why is this happening? the industry has failed to meet minimal acceptable bormann's levels for protecting human health and the environment. that is an industry failure and a failure of the regulatory

process. i am a strong supporter of domestic natural gas production but my support only comes when human health and the environment are protected. the record is replete with cases of contamination from improper cement jobs, cracked killing cases, drills bills, and disturbances releasing natural gas. in june, 2010, the pennsylvania land trust association identified 1600 violations which occurred dating back to 2008. there were 162 cases of improper construction and waste water impoundment. there were 50 cases of improper well casing constructions and four cases of blowout prevention. last june, it will blow out and

shot 35,000 gallons of gas into the air over a 16-hour period. waste water treatment plants are not capable of handling the content is the commander of the fracking operation. the water is returned to the surface and injected into underground wells or used by waste water treatment facility plants and the waste water treatment plants cannot handle that type of pollutants. what is the epa doing about this? we understand that fracking is exempt from the clean water act but it does involve wastewater treatment. as the epa acted on this? i hope this hearing will deal with that. the challenges that state regulators have not been able to

handle the issue and that we are exempt from federal laws is subject to other provisions within the clean water act. whether we have an adequate regulatory system that packs -- that protect the public that can get our gas to the country. i hope this year and will answer these questions and i think the witness is here today and our two colleagues who are participating in this hearing. we need to get this right. we need to figure out how we can get the natural gas that is plentiful in the united states in an environmentally safe way. we have allowed for state regulation but in some cases state regulation has been inadequate. we have federal laws which apply and some are exempt and the question is whether we are adhering to the federal environmental rules that are currently in existence. what do we do with the waste water? how we treat it? how'd we do with the danger to our environment? i hope this hearing will help us in that pursuit.

with that, let me turn to the ranking republican member of the full committee, senator inhofe. >> thank you. i am glad we are having this hearing. the states are doing a great job. on march 17, mark -- 1977 -- 1949, the first,fracturing job was performed in my home state of oklahoma. the practice has now been used on more than 1 million currently producing wells, 35,000 wells per year without one confirmed case of ground water contamination. don't take my word for it. let's hear what the state regulators say. there have been no documented cases of drinking water contamination that have resulted from hydraulic fracturing operations in the state of alabama.

there have been no verified cases of harm to ground water in the state of alaska as a result of hydraulic fracturing. another quote -- there is no indication that hydraulic fracturing has caused damage to the ground rotor or other resources in michigan. we've never received a complaint or allegation. the chairman of the root commission of texas says through hydraulic factoring, it has been used for over 60 years in texas and our railroad commission directors do not reflect a single documented surface of ground water contamination. the sampling is true from south dakota and all of these others.

i have these other statements i will include in the record. let me show you why this is the case. pull the chart up and this is very important. all that applies to people can see it. the chart elytra it's a cross- section of a typical well built in the marecellus well in pennsylvania. the blue line indicates the ground water. in between that groundwater our offer and a marcellus shale are almost two miles of solid rock. that is between the aquafer and the shale. the small box at the top is a picture of the empire state building. per ground water contamination to occur, frac fluids would have

to get through miles of solid rock. that it fluid migration cannot happen and does not happen. given these facts, what can explain calls for regulatory fracking? the obama administration wants to regulate fossil fuels out of existence. stephen shu said we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of europe. their price is about $8 per gallon. at the treasury department, alan kruger says the administration does not believe we can address the energy needs by finding more fossil fuels. that is what this is about.

his belief is now a reality. gas at the pump is approaching $4 and we think it will go up. if you think these data points are bad, they will grow far worse in the cap and trade agenda. the agency is maneuvering to regulate hydraulic fracturing, a practice that has been regulated by the states. the testimony today will confirm that states do not need the epa. we have a mentality in washington. the mentality in washington says nothing is done right unless it is done washington. the immense shale deposits are located in states that effectively regulate oil and gas.

there is a virtual boom in natural gas development and due to the absence of federal regulation. i would say that i agree with something that was said by the chairman this morning when he talked about the tremendous reserves in gas. it is greater than any country in the world. we could run this country for 90 years and natural gas without importing any from the middle east. that is why this is important for those who want to cut down our dependence on oil in the middle east, you start regulating, you cannot get natural gas from these deposits without hydraulic fracturing. it has worked and has been successful and we want to keep that for america, thank you. >> thank you for sharing this

important hearing -- chairing this important hearing. i want to express, but i don't speak for all members, we are grateful that the budget agreement does not include epa riders. a poll shows that 70% of people agree with that. we are here today to examine the public health and environmental impacts of natural gas drilling. recent advancements and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have led to significant expansion in improving u.s. natural gas reserves. we are glad to see that we can, in fact, extract natural gas. it is now economical where a few years ago, it was not. the discovery of new resources chris an opportunity for increased production of a cleaner, domestically produced fuel. one of the reasons for the increase in natural gas reserves

is the discovery of the marcellus shale in the appalachian region of the united states, west virginia, ohio, pennsylvania, and new york. with drilling likely to increase exponentially in coming years, it is critical that we ensure that efforts to extract natural gas but do not threaten the air we breathe and the water we drink. i want to thank senator casey for taking this issue on in a responsible way. i want to thank senator cardin because his state has a lot of stake here as well. i think oversight is important because there are questions that need to be answered. it will lead us the right way. a recent series of investigative reports in a "the new york times" highlighted the potential risks of natural gas drilling and the inconsistent efforts to regulate this booming industry. they reported that the hydraulic

fracturing process waste water is often contaminated with politicians including toxic metals, highly corrosive salt, carcinogens and radioactive elements. these are facts. a large amount of this waste water is disposed of in municipal sewage treatments that may or may not be equipped to remove the contaminants. these plans can discharge levels -- harmful levels of radiation into local water and a solid waste produced by content and an array of toxins. without the proper oversight, the disposal of drilling waste water poses threats to a quiet life and human health especially when public drinking water systems rely on waterways. concerns have been raised that chemicals contained in the process can contaminate ground water. federal and state regulators of and concerned citizens frankly

have not had all the information we need to determine whether drilling is causing ground water contamination. some companies have limited access to information on the chemicals they use in their drilling fluids. the federal government does not require full disclosure of chemicals injected into the ground. some states like wyoming now require disclosure of chemicals. i agree that some states are taking responsible action here. the industry is also recently lost a voluntary disclosure effort with the ground water protection council. that is encouraging, to but we have a long way to go before full disclosure is a consistent an industrywide practice. i believe in disclosure. let the facts come out and we will make a reasonable decision, i believe. i have highlighted a few of the i environmental issues that have been associated with natural gas drilling.

given the era of potential impacts, the need for more study, n.y. is taking time out from the state of iraq to and to study the issues before allowing widespread drilling. -- the state of new york is study issues before allowing widespread drilling. they are studying the impact of hydraulic fracturing. the agency will use an independent comprehensive and signs of a process to provide congress with unbiased information. there is much that we need to learn so that we can move forward in safe -- in a safe and responsible way. this hearing is an important step in the epw committee position on this issue and i look forward to hearing from my

colleagues on the other side. >> thank you very much. when it comes to american energy, we need it all, oil and natural gas. in my home state, we are familiar with exploration. we have oil and gas to coal and wind and these resources provide a great opportunity for our state and nation. it means jobs and economic security. wyoming ranks second in the country and natural gas production. fuel oil and gas industry supports nearly 20,000 jobs in the state of wyoming. we're talking with a state of the population of half a million people. the revenues generated are invested right at home and it helps builds schools, roads, and water systems and helps send kids to colleges. senator inhofe gave a compelling litany of success stories from across the country. i want to share a letter from the wyoming oil and gas

conservation commission. they regulate activities including hydraulic fracturing and wyoming. wyoming has no documented cases of ground water contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing. from 1999-2010, over 46,000 individual hydraulic fracturing wells stimulation treatments were performed. almost one other% of oil and gas wells require hydraulic fracturing to be commercial. a request a copy of this letter be placed in the record. it provides details about my home state rules for hydraulic fracturing. in wyoming, we have been producing oil and gas for a long time. the letter mentions over 46,000 of these procedures from 1999- 2010 alone. our experience goes back to the 1950's. wyoming is still a leader to make sure the appropriate safeguards are in shape for drilling and hydraulic fracturing and we take this

issue seriously. i appreciate senator boxer's comments about wyoming doing it right. it is about environmental stewardship and jobs. the state demonstrated this when it updated its rules just this last year. the changes include increased transparency. industry is required to disclose all the chemicals used in a well stimulation before and after hydraulic fracturing. most of the oil and gas production and america is dependent on hydraulic fracturing. without it, our resources will remain locked away and we will become increasingly dependent on foreign energy which is our threat to our energy security, are financial security, and our national security, thank you. >> we will now turn to our colleagues. >> thanks to the chairman of the full committee. it is good to be here with you today.

fracking has been around a long time, about 60 years. what has changed is the advent of horizontal drilling. if you fly into dallas/fort worth airport, you will be met with scenes of active drilling going on there thanks to the directional drilling that is capable from a single platform going out 1 mile or more into some of these is shale formations. i am glad to have the opportunity to share the perspective of my say on this practice. we helped develop this practice and it is essential to the development of 3 shale plant in our state. i want to focus on three points. texas and united states has a bountiful supply of natural gas. this has implications for job creation and our economy and

national security. the states are effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing already. federal regulation by the epa would inevitably lead to duplicative regulation and bureaucratic delays and diminish the production of this important energy resources. in texas, the oil and gas industry provides more than 1.7 million jobs and accounts for nearly 25% of our state's economy. over 11,000 wells have been completed in barnett shell and the dallas fort worth area. -- in the dallas-fort worth area. it contributes over 20% of the total texas natural gas production. in south texas,the eagleford shale, the long-term regional implications of the boom in

south texas are staggering. under modest assumptions, by 2020, they are expected to account for 11 + $6 billion in gross state product, $21.6 billion in total economic output impact, and supplied jobs. the hanesville shale plant was not viable a few years ago. i went to a drilling rig outside of nacogdoches, texas. it had more efficient equipment. the proliferation of these domestic resources has contributed to the texas ability to add jobs to our economy. if the job creators and workers

on this particular race or anxious about what they could expect from washington in terms of additional and to look at regulation. hydraulic fracturing has been used safely in tens of thousands of wells already and the practices have been studied extensively by the epa, ground water protection council, the interstate oil and gas compact commission, and it needs case, hydraulic fracturing has been judged to be environmentally sound. at every step in the process, energy producers are subject to state regulations and federal requirements. as you can see, the federal government is actively involved. the ground water protection council this week and the interstate oil and gas co. unveiled a web-based national registry for the disclosure of

chemical additives used in the fracking process. energy companies have a single source to publicly disclose these floats on a well by well basis. state regulators are also already aware of what chemicals have been used. this registry is an important tool for the education of the public. i must say that i'm joined here at the table by my good friend senator casey who is proposing legislation calls frack act that would go beyond public exposure and give the epa direct authority for the first time in our nation's history. there is no need to destroy the current partnership between state and federal regulators and put the epa and the driver's seat. we have seen them go through aggressive regulatory practices and engage in activity which is harmful to our economy.

we have seen what happens when over-regulation and misinformation become the common narrative. additional layers of red tape, lost its, and research is can create death by a thousand cuts that run independent producers out of business and take valuable jobs as well as local, state, and federal tax revenue. without hydraulic fracturing, access to natural gas resources would be substantially restricted. i thank the committee for having the hearing and thank you for having me come testify on a very important topic. >> senator casey? >> i want to thank you for this hearing. i want to thank senator cornyn for his testimony. let me place my whole statement in the record. i will be brief.

in our state, we went through most of the 19th century and roughly about half of the 20th century not getting it right as it relates to the extraction of a natural resource, in c is caseoal and bouncing back with environmental regulation to make sure we are protecting public health and the environment. after 1950, we began to get it right. our state passed legislation like the clean streams lot in the early 1960's and as time went on, we started to do a much better job of regulating and making sure we were getting the balance right. today, we have to get it right. we have to be able to create jobs and there has been a tremendous increase in jobs in pennsylvania as a result of natural gas extraction. we have the availability of a domestically-produced source of energy and that is good news.

we need to pursue that. we have to balance both of those with the kind of protection for public health and safety as well as making sure that the groundwater and drinking water is protected. i will speak about my legislation in a moment, but it reached a point in our state where after all the history and the learning and experience, our state constitution was amended in the early 1970's. it added a simple statement but it is important for our commonwealth and the country. article one, section 27 of the pennsylvania constitution says that the people should have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural scenic, historic, and aesthetic values of the environment. it goes on to say that that obligation means that we hold the environment as trustees for future generations.

that is the directive from our state's constitution. it is not optional. it is not a maybe. it is a directive. i live in a state where that directive is very important to the commonwealth and important to people across the state. i think we can get this right. unfortunately, even though this process has been around awhile, the hydraulic fracturing process, there are still many questions about whether it will have the environmental impact that some are concerned about. i don't think it has to slow things down. these questions are being raised in a state where zero over five years, we were averaging only 17 wells per month and we are now well above 120 wells per month. nothing has slowed down here. there is tremendous growth of this industry and tremendous

opportunity with it. as we do that, we have to make sure that we get it right. i have three bills, one that deals with emergencies at well site, one that does the job training and i will skip over those. on the hydraulic fracturing, we are trying to amanda the safe water drinking act and the definition of under water injection to include underground injection of fluids pr oropping agnetebnts. used very we are trying to close a loophole in blthe law. it would require public disclosure of the chemicals but of the proprietary information.

we are not asking this legislation that the proprietary information is made part of public disclosure but just the chemicals. the good news is that we're getting a good bit of cooperation and help from the industry. companies are disclosing and we're having debates about the nature of disclosure but the most difficult issue is the question of regulation. i am in favor of a national standard. why should we have a set of tough environmental rules that protect drinking water and ground water in one state and have a state next door or across the country has a whole nother set of rules. i think we can get this right and i appreciate the opportunity to speak about this. i am grateful to be joined by senator cornyn at the table. we are both running out the door. >> let me thank you for your contribution. your legislation is one we want

to consider very closely. we thank senator cornyn as well. our objectives are the same. we have a large amount of natural gas and want to make sure we can get that safely and use it for our energy security in america. the two of you are excused, thank you very much. the first panel will consist of the deputy administrator of the environmental protection agency. nice to have you back before the committee. you may proceed as you wish and your entire statement will be made part of the record. >> i have to remember to push the button. madame chair, mr. chairman, and ranking members, thank you for inviting me to testify today. i am pleased to be here to

discuss natural gas production and the epa role in ensuring that public health and environment are protected. let me begin by saying that natural gas is a very important fuel for our country. it can enhance our domestic energy options, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies, and serve as a bridge fuel to the future and renewable energy sources. it's produced responsibly, it has the essential to improve air quality, stabilize prices, and provide greater certainty about the future reserves. as president obama said in a recent town hall meeting, recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves of natural gas in the shell under our feet. we have to now make sure we are doing it safely without polluting our water supplies. the president has ordered the epa, the department of the interior, and the department of energy to work together with industry, the environmental community, and states to come up

with best practices for the environment and safety. the clean water act and the safe water act upon our statutes used to insure natural gas restriction does not impair water quality. we believe natural gas can be and must be extracted responsibly in a way that secures its promise for the benefit of all. if improperly managed, hydraulic fracturing could potentially result in public health and environmental impacts. the impacts to water could include stress on surface water and ground water supplies get on the use of fresh water for these operations, potential contamination of drinking waterf aquaponicsers resulting from faulty well -- contamination of drinking water aquafers.

the epa will not hesitate to protect americans whose health may be addressed. we remain committed to working with state officials who are on the front lines of regulating natural gas activities. epa will use the authority they had given but we are also leading an understanding the science behind potential drinking water contamination from fracking. epa launched a study last year to understand the issue. when completed, this research study will help us better understand the conditions that may be associated with the potential contamination of drinking water resources as well as factors that may lead to human health exposure and rest. we await the result of this study. we will also use our legal authorities where appropriate. while congress exempted specific oil and gas production activities, a number of

environmental protection's continue to apply. while the energy policy act of 2005 and excluded hydraulic fracturing, these activities are still regulated under the safe drinking water act when diesel fuels are used. flowback and produced water through injection is regulated under the safe drinking act. in addition to our authorities, epa regular its waste waters under the clean water act. when they are discharged into publicly-owned treatment. states play a major if not leading role in the implementation. for stays with fully delegated programs including many in themarcellus shale region, states have a huge responsibility. epa gives guidance to the states on how to follow these rules and

make sure they are addressing the threats to public health. the issues surrounding natural gas extraction are lengthy and complicated. by addressing public concerns, natural gas production can and will proceed in a responsible manner that protect public health and enhances our public options. i will be happy to take any questions at this time. >> thank you very much for your testimony. i agreed that there are significant environmental laws that give epa authority to act in this area. there is general agreement on this committee and in congress. we want to be able to tap into the natural gas reserves in this nation. we believe that is an energy source that we have. we want to be able to obtain that energy source. we want to do it in a safe and environmentally-sound manner.

you have certain responsibilities under environmental laws that you are responsible to enforce. i listened to senator inhofe talk about a f how theracking practice works. you inject fluids that contain certain chemicals. those fluids that are extracted and when they are extracting, they bring out the original clause but they bring out a whole host of potential pollutants that could be very damaging to public health. what then happens to the fluid that is remove during the fracking procedure? the best practices, as i understand it, of many of the gas companies is to recycle that fluid. that is fine. they take out the hard chemicals and dispose of them properly. they refuse the fluids in a way

that is constructive to getting more natural gas. in some cases, they inject the fluids back into the earth in underground wells. that is also a sound environmental choice. in some cases, they take it to the waste water treatment facility plant close by. that presents a significant problem. let me cite a letter that was sent by the epa, the regional administrator, sean garvin to the pennsylvania environmental agency. the epa said that waste water resulting from gas drilling operations contain materials that may present a threat to human health and aquatic environments. many of these substances are not completely removed by waste water treatment elite -- facilities. some of the may harm human or "light.

it seems to me that you have the responsibility to make sure that the waste water treatment facilities are complying with the permit. if you believe there's a danger to the public health because of the inability to remove certain pollutants, you need to take action. has epa taken action and if not, why not? >> thank you for that question. there are a number of factors that would be involved with taking action when these fluids are used in a publicly-owned treatment works. there needs to be a caretaker that the pollutants will not go through a certain plant or will not disrupt the sewage treatment plant operation. in the case that you cited in pennsylvania, the regional administrator has been working with the state.

we have issued in the past, information collection so we can understand what is going on to those different sewage treatment plants. in many cases, those plants have stopped taking some of those fracking fluids. we are in the process of working with pennsylvania and they have responded to that letter. we feel like we're making good progress in their. >> we appreciate that. some of us think this is a clear issue. we think there needs to be pretty definitive action by epa so we can avoid this public health risk. there are other areas you could be enforcing the environmental laws. it diesel is a f in theracking process, there is no exemption. had there been enforced and actions taken?

>> we have taken enforcement actions through issuing orders or whether we think there is an eminent and substantial endangerment. in terms of enforcement where there may be diesel fluids being used forfracking, we are in the process of collecting information on that. we are in the process of going through enforcement procedures. >> let me yield to senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to point out that there are other points of view within pennsylvania regarding the need for federal intern prevention. kantor attention.

-- or federal intervention. according to secretary cransier, pa. already requires the regulation of frack fluids. because of a long history of oil and gas development and comprehensive regulatory structure, pennsylvania does not need federal intervention to ensure an appropriate balance between resource development and protection. i want to submit two studies from penn state university regarding the economic impact.

the studies found a marcellus activity generated $3.9 billion in value-added, $389 million in state and local tax revenues, and more than 44,000 job. by 2020, x -- employment would expand by 200,000 jobs. state revenues would exceed $1 billion. penn state university, i am quoting from the 2009 study. this proposes to regulate fracking water. i would like to submit the testimony from the ground water protection council. that is a national association

injection control agency whose mission is to promote the protection and conservation of ground water. that is what they do for a living and their testimony describes the new process. frack focus requires disclosure on a well by well basis. participation is voluntary, within the first eight hours,frackfocus.org had 20 companies signed on and 9 were up loading data on 309 wells. the largest companies are clamoring for this opportunity and they are participating. the states are running successful regulatory programs and we will hear from some of them today.

i would hope that directs perciasepe, you can stick around and hear some of their testimony. by understand that president obama has s the presidential advisory board to look into fracking. to help me understand these various studies and how they fit together, it would be helpful if you could commit to breed my staff on the efforts on a regular basis. i am sure you would do that. that way we can properly see what this oversight is doing. i was going to hold this up. this ismarcellus shale. this is how they get the gas out of this formation.

states are different. in the state of cocom, the anadarko shale -- in the state anadarkooma, the sha dark of shale is different. one-size-fits-all does not work in this case. are they not doing a good job in the states? >> there are many states taking leadership on this issue. as i mentioned, they are on the front lines on the safe water drinking act and the clean water act or they have authority. let me go back to the pennsylvania example. when fracking fluids and water was being brought to the publicly owned water treatment works, the responsibility for

the discharge is the state. the discharge permit did not contain limits on some of the material that were in the fluids going to the sewage treatment plants. it is the kind of back-and-forth of oversight between epa and the state that is important to make sure that we have a level playing field. you are correct. there is no one-size-fits-all. the geology and all of these different shale formations around the country are different. they are at different depths. we have to be able to look at those things in that way. our primary role is oversight and the state programs where they are running the programs, providing guidance where we can, and where we see some eminent endangerment, we may take our own action on that. >> my time is expired.

once you start at the federal level, it grows. that is my concern. senator bozman, i mentioned a lot of these reserves and i am concerned about over-regulation. we will hear from that we've -- we will hear from some of the state level in the next panel. >> i hear what my colleague is saying about his preference for state regulation. i would cite an example of new york, shutting it down for the moment. they are concerned. since senator kasich's name was mentioned, he was not here to explain what he meant. he said in his state constitution, it calls for defending the quality of air and water. if the state next door does not have the same type laws, what

happens is that his state could be impacted. i don't have a particular position on where we go for it here except i think we need to have the facts. will the epa study look broadly at the potential impact to drinking water including impact from waste water that is produced during the hydraulic fracturing processed? >> we are characterizing fracking fluids. we have gotten information from the companies and will examine the produced water. the fluids don't contain radiation and nuclei. they occur in the rock formation but they come out. >> >> so the answer is yes. >> yes. >> will the epa use a comprehensive and scientific process to provide an accurate and unbiased assessment which will help us make sure drilling

is done safely and responsibly and protect the public health? >> yes, not only will the study plan peer-reviewed, but the result will bepeer-reviewed as well then let me ask a question about diesel fuel. a number of representatives and the house -- in the house said that diesel fuel continues to be used in hydraulic fracturing. to your knowledge, is that true? the safe drinking water act exemption for hydraulic fracturing specifically does not include the use of diesel fuel. my understanding is that you still have the ability to regulate that. the document was signed to eliminate the use of diesel. can you provide us with an update on what effort epa is taking to protect the public health from diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing? >>the moa with all companies was

inr a hydraulicf fracking methane production, not shale. that is where there was concern because many of those four missions are at a more shallow depth. we are in the process of confirming and reviewing the information we receive from congress. we have information requests oust the company's number looking at that as well. >> many of us have mentioned that gallant -- millions of gallons of waste water produced during the process can contain radioactive elements. these reports indicate waste water is being sent to municipal waste water treatment plants that may not be equipped to treat this waste which could result in the discharge of harmful toxins to local waterways.

what authority does the epa have to address the treatment of waste water from natural gas drilling operations? >> there are several steps that have to be taken in terms of the use of a publicly-owned treatment works for disposal of the flow is. the limits have to be placed on the permit for the sewage treatment plants. if the state -- the agency that is running the pollution program in that state, they need to put those limits on those plants. at the state is offering the pretreatment program -- if the state is offering the printer and program, they would be required to do that. epa is looking into a guidance on what pre-treatment might be useful for those kind of wastes. the first step would be making sure we have the right limits and every plant that is going to be receiving those wastes. as part our oversight responsibility. >> say you have that responsibility right now.

are you working with municipal wastewater treatment plants? >> we are working where the states are permitting authorities. y. >> i will submit the rest of my questions for the record, thank you. >> thank you for having this hearing. we certainly need the resources that this engenders. currently, as it stands, the gas and oil industry is regulated by the states as far as these type of things? >> where the states have been delicate awaited the authority under the clean water or safe water act, they are the ones

that have primacy. epa provides the oversight of those states. i just went through an example of what that oversight might look like in a particular place. that is in my written testimony. like almost all the other pollution laws we have, it is an interaction between the states and the federal government with the federal government providing oversight and a delegation of authority. >> as we have new technology and this is certainly a new technology that has not been around long and is very effective, we should understand the potential risk and deal with it. we should deal with that in an sound way. my feeling is that the responsibility as the agency to provide good science to help scientists and make their decisions. i feel strongly it needs to

remain at the state level. in the past, the oil industry has worked fairly well in doing that. there is a good record there. i would be inclined to continue as we are now with the epa providing sound science. when you do the studies, how do you make it such that a isn apartness? do you select the people that do this study? what separation is there in that regard? >> we have a science advisory board that epa uses for many of its peer-review. >> is that appointed by the epa? >> yes. it is an independent federal advisory committee.

it provides advice to the administrator on science matters we present to it. they can set up special panels if they need the expertise to look at a particular sub. cheject. they operate in a similar way to the national academy of scientists. >> thank you very much for your testimony. >> a few things alive for more essential than what do we drink and government has few responsibilities as critical as protecting our country's water supply. i will make my statement. communities across the country are reporting serious contamination. of their water supplies from a drilling process that we are

looking at. the environmental protection agency has been powerless to protect these communities because a republican congress prohibited epa from setting standards. this so-called halliburton loophole eliminates the federal oversight that we would like to see on companies that inject chemicals into the ground in order to breach -- in order to get to the hard to reach natural gas. some states have adopted strong laws to restrictfracking. nots face it, water does recognize state boundaries. you may live in a state that has strong laws against this process but the state next door does not. your water and your family could be still at risk. the risk to humans is not limited to those live -- who

live near the drilling site. during the process, the waste water that flows back to the service can also be highly contaminated. a recent investigation revealed that the waste water can and up and rivers and streams and even if it is taken to waste water treatment plants, the water often contains radioactive and toxic materials that the treatment facilities cannot remove. anyon't want to make mistakes in our representation. natural gas has its advantages. it is critical for our energy needs. natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than oil and important to domestic energy sources. nothing is more important than the health of our children and risking their health is an unacceptable price under any condition.

we simply cannot allow their drinking water for our rivers and streams to be contaminated by natural gas drilling. when a cleaner fuel to replace or dirty coal and oil but we cannot allow the cure to be worse than the disease. i would like to help introduce the bill to close the halliburton loophole and restore it would also require chemical companies to disclose the chemicals they use in the process. 25 years ago i offered the right to know law on a toxic chemical releases in the air to make sure that people know about potential hazardous substances in their communities. parents have the right to know what is in the fracking fluid that can contaminate the water their children drink.

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

emissions from oil and gas activities would be regulated from the clean air act, depending on the size and the type of the mission that it is. there have been problems with some areas of the country where the emissions from all the activity going on related to natural gas extraction, that it has created and in print -- increase in emissions of organic compounds or nitrogen oxide that contributed to ozone. it is certainly something that would have to be carefully looked at. and there is authority under the clean air act -- >> that is the conclusion you have come to act epa. and -- at epa. when can we find out what is happening and what we can do to prevent it from coming over to new jersey? >> well, the clean air act

requires technology to be used. and this is the process that epa is continually looking at in terms of how it goes about looking -- working with the states and with the industry directly on those standards that would be used. one of the things i mentioned in my opening comments was that the president has asked the department of energy, department of interior that has responsibilities on public land, epa, which as the regulatory oversight responsibilities, to work with industry to find the best practices. certainly one of the things we want to make sure we are looking at is what are the best practices to be used to minimize the air impacts of the actual practice of gas extraction. on the other side of the coin is the big advantage to air pollution, of using natural gas

for and a jeep production in the united states. and so, we have to make sure we balance that out properly in the long term care quality plans for the country. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding the hearing. i would ask unanimous consent to put my opening statement in the record. >> without objection. >> mr. perciasepe, in 2005, the energy policy act included exemption for hydraulic fracturing -- under the safe water drinking act. however, there was also an exemption of the exemption, as you were well aware, for hydraulic fracturing with diesel fuel. if you inject the fuel with diesel in it, the statutory exemption did not apply. recently a house committee report found that millions of gallons of diesel had been injected since 2005, including

hundreds of thousands of gallons in new mexico. what is epa's position? do you need a federal permit to inject a diesel fuel underground in a hydraulic fracturing operation, and if not, please explain the court rulings that came out in 1997 and the 2005 exemption for exemption for diesel. >> hydraulic fracturing using diesel fuel for the fluid is subject to the safe drinking water act requirements. >> that is under the court's ruling. correct? >> it is the plain reading of the law, the 2005 law that you just referred to. we have the information that we received from the congress and we also are in the process of gathering our own information as

we are going through our analysis. and so, we will be looking into this issue of the diesel use and will be following up on it soon. >> my very specific question here -- in a sense, it is a legal question -- do you need a permit to injected diesel fuel? what is the epa's position on that specific question? >> where a state has primacy -- and i actually have a letter, the state of texas railroad commission, said the ranking member -- senator inhofe mentioned earlier, issued a letter inside the state of texas that they can't use diesel fuel without getting a permit from them. >> that is the texas situation. >> the same law for the whole country. subject to the requirements -- >> states are -- of states are not doing what texas is going

are you requiring a permit? >> we are trying to gather the information where diesel fuel it -- fluids maybe being used. we have the&that was given to us. we also have information from the companies now. >> the answer to the legal question, do you need a permit to inject diesel fuel, you are not giving an answer -- >> i just said, subject to the state drinking water act. >> but are you requiring -- if the state is not requiring a permit, are you requiring a permit? >> we have to find out where -- that is our investigation going on now, where are these fluids being used. we have to know where it is being used to require a permit. >> ok. let me go on to something -- >> let me be clear. using diesel fluids for hydraulic fracturing in shale is subject to the safe drinking water act.

it would be required to get a permit. >> would the gentleman yield for one moment so i could get the facts straight for one issue? >> you are taking the chairman's time. i will give you an extra minute. according to our job information, 19 states using diesel as part of their injection process. between 2005 and 2009, 32 million gallons of injection flow would used that contain be so -- diesel. i would appreciate if you can verify it force. i think senator udall's point it is it appears permits are needed and we have not seen enforcement by epa. >> i think the german for yielding but i want to make sure the right numbers. you mentioned hundreds of thousands. we have 32 million gallons used that included diesel. >> maybe asking is another way -- if they did not get a permit they were in violation of law.

>> yes. >> ok, good. moving on. in the marcellus shale, most of date -- water is not disposed of by injection wells, but rather transported to waste-water treatment plants, many miscible and then treated and discharged into waterways. here i am trying to get to best practices. is this better or worse than disposing reduced border in underground injection? -- disposing used water and underground injection? >> underground injection well for disposal will be permits it to deal with these issues. what we have in many places -- i do not want to say everywhere -- the discharge limits on the actual switch treatment plants, the limits it has for discharge into the water it is permitted to discharge, may not have the for the chemical

constituents that might be in the fluids going into the plant to be treated. so there would be no way to know if it is meeting the limits before it discharge the water. not saying it is the case every place, but many publicly owned sewage treatment plants have not put limits on the discharge to deal with the constituents of the fracking floyd's or produced water. that is the issue we are working on and pennsylvania, for instance. >> you are seeing that as the problem, it sounds like. if they don't adjust their waste water treatment plants to deal what is coming in, which isn't like municipal sewage -- it is much different in terms of constituents -- that could be a real problem and you are trying to get a top of that. but not either putting limits on the plant and figuring out how the plan handles it, or treating the floods before it is brought

to the plant so it can be compatible with the plan. those are the two approaches you can take with a sewage treatment plant. whereas a permit class ii -- i think that is right, class ii -- underground injection control well would be permited to deal with those issues. >> today we have them just loading this produce water in trucks and driving it over to the waste water treatment plants and dumping it in the waste water treatment plant. are you aware they are pretreating it? >> a number of those instances where we have learned about this are ones we are working directly with the states or gathering information under enforcement authority under the clean water act. >> thank you very much. thank you for your service. >> senator merkley? >> thank you, mr. chair. i wanted to ask about the article the cornell university

researchers came out with a recently that tried to look at the impact of fracking on fugitive methane. methane being a very potent global warming gas, far worse than carbon dioxide, and the initial finding was natural gas is worse than coal in terms of greenhouse gas footprint over 20 years, roughly equal to coal over 100-your footprint, which is a real surprise to many of us. is this an issue that you all -- epa are analyzing and looking into. ? >> we have had a voluntary program working with companies to tighten the system, to reduce fugitive emissions of methane, which is a natural gas, however, this study -- which i did not believe it is published yet, but

discuss the newspapers and the basic outlines are available there -- is an important piece of information we need to bring into the discussion. if it is indeed out of linkage of the system, these are generally problems that can be addressed through proper controls or collection controls at the wellhead. so, i think it needs to be taken into account. the other issue i mentioned earlier on the clean-air, the same kinds of techniques to reduce the emissions for regular criteria pollutants also reduce the emissions of methane. and this is something that is going to have been looked at over the long haul. we are going to have to make sure that fugitive emissions can be reduced. >> my understanding is a lot of these emissions are the result

of actually the fracking fluid carrying methane to the surface, and if it goes into a pond or anywhere else, the gas into the atmosphere. so, if it is contained in the fluid, which strategies are there that could address this? >> there are technologies that can be used when the floods come to the surface due >> that is what i am asking. what technologies? >> i am not familiar with the details -- they are both tightening of the system but also collected and strip or some other -- i am not 100% certain on the technology. we have been working with companies on a voluntary program to do some of these, and i think i can follow up with you, if it is ok, giving you more specifics on what technologies have been tried and use. we would be very interested in

sharing that with the committee. obviously it is something -- a steady, after which we view it -- it adds to this discussion, we will definitely want to be looking as a country at reducing the emissions from these facilities. in addition, we want to be looking at reducing the emissions of criteria pollutants -- all of that can be done together in a common sense kind of way. >> are you familiar with the documentary "gas land?" >> generally. >> quite a dramatic demonstration. i have not seen it. i just read a description. the filmmaker runs his kitchen faucet and then holds a cigarette lighter next to it and a ball of fire erupts, there is so much gas that has entered into the water supply from fracking in the area.

this is a pretty dramatic demonstration of the concern people have about their water supply. >> yes, we definitely have examples, and we have seen some, where the drinking water supplies have been contaminated with methane itself. and those cases we have learned of this, epa is taking enforcement actions to correct those problems or deal with those problems. as senator inhofe showed earlier -- sorry, senator -- as he showed earlier in his chart, which shows the shale layers of being very deep, but the actual well has to go through drinking water so if it is not properly constructed, it is conceivable and possible -- and we have examples where we have seen methane contamination -- how

that happened, it is the subject of some of our analysis. >> in that area, despite the halliburton loophole, you feel you have enforcement powers? >> when there is endangerment we have enforcement powers under the state drinking water act. >> thank you. >> mr. perciasepe, again, thank you for your testimony. epa has authority here to act in certain areas. and obviously if we think it is not adequate we would look at taking action, and senator casey have introduced legislation. but it seems to me it is pretty clear as it relates to waste water treatment facility issues on the fluids that are returned to the surface. it is my understanding there are still seven waste water treatment facility plants taking today the fluid coming out of fracking. with your own agency already acknowledging it presents a threat to human health, i would hope that would be at the

highest priority as we look at the appropriate role for the epa. i think senator udall's point concerning the diesel issues is one that also requires the epa to take a more definitive action. senator merkley also raised an abortion issue also. i hope you will respond to the urgency of some of these issues. as you already pointed out, you have the authority. it is now your responsibility to take action. any member seeking a second round? you are okay? if not then -- yes, sir. >> i just wanted to confirm what you just said, senator, that epa is all acting on these fronts. we are taking action where there is imminent endangerment, as we just discussed. i think if you look and step back for a minute, of the dynamic between the states and the federal government and how we are working on -- how we

shared our authorities under these laws for many years, something epa that irresponsible and oversight is one we are very much pushing forward on in a very strong and strenuous way. if i step back to my opening comments and simply say, providing a framework that provides public confidence in what we are doing here because of the great need of the country has to develop these resources for our energy needs, what we also need to do at the same time is get together and make sure we are providing the confidence the public needs -- the public needs. new not see in the long haul situations where there isn't unknown, uncertainty, or like the state of new york, for instance, has to stop all but it ain't what they are figuring out what is going on. we need to be looking at it from that perspective on a national level, how do we create the public confidence to move forward in the ways we need to move forward.

so, i appreciate the chance to share some of these thoughts. >> we fully agree and want to work with you closely. the chesapeake bay foundation and a host of groups petitioned the obama administration to conduct an environmental impact statement to help understand the impact of all of the wells being currently operated. without objection, i would include in the record a copy of their petition. thank you very much for your testimony. >> thank you. >> we will turn to our second panel, dr. bob summers, acting secretary of maryland department of environment, dr. dan volz, director of center for healthy environment and communities, mr. jett ubinger, senior vice- president of the environmental council, jeff cloud, oklahoma and our mental conservation commission, and david -- director of colorado oil and gas commission. we will start with dr. summers.

welcome. you need to put a microphone on. they are a little tricky. >> thank you, chairman carden, ranking member inhofe, honorable members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share maryland deposit experience and concerns with hydraulic fracturing in the shale. i am baba summers, acting secretary for marilyn's department of environment -- bob summers, acting secretary for maryland and's department of environment. in these two counties in the western part of our state gas companies -- gas rates of more than 100,000 acres. we are just beginning to enter into this. we currently have applications from two companies for a total

of five wells. we are very mindful of the tremendous benefits that could accrue to the environment and economy by exploring and exploiting these gas reserves, but we are equally alert to the risks of adverse public health and environmental effects. our paramount concern is protecting public health, the environment, and are ground and surface water quality. we are proceeding cautiously and deliberately and not intended to allow drilling and fracking in the marcellus shale in maryland until the issues are resolved to our satisfaction. there are numerous issues. we heard a lot about those already. some of the things we are particularly concerned about, adequacy and sustainability of surface water and ground water in the regions that supply fracking, minimum requirements for constructing, casing, and cementing wells, minimum requirements for the integrity testing of those wells,

requirements for installing and testing blowout prevention equipment, potential for gas migration from the well, including migration that can be induced by some of the layers that the well goes through versus failure of the well as self. save and transport of fracking fluid. proper handling and disposal of naturally occurring radioactive material. and many other aspects of this complex operation. that needs to be control . in maryland, we are moving forward and we anticipate two stages in doing this. first, over the next year, we are surveying existing practices and selecting best practices for drilling and fracking of wells. these will cover all aspects of safe operation and design, delivery, management of materials, drilling, casing, cementing, fracking, and waste

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

studying and regulating the activities such as deep drilling, horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracking and waste disposal. while we think states should retain their responsibility in and should be able to enact more stringent requirements if they desire, the federal regulatory for would ensure at least basic protection of public health -- floor would ensure at least basic protection. oversight's such as occurs now with the clean water act and safe drinking act is and put -- particularly important. it to protect the interstate waters like the susquehanna river, potomac river, just a big day, to draw critical resources. in fact, today we have right here probably but, river water which also needs to be protected for the citizens in this area -- potomac river water. we commend the congress for directing epa to conduct this research.

the state's need the federal government to leave -- lead and land resources to help us in this effort. we support the legislation we just heard discussed today in -- today to allow regulation under the federal law, under the state drinking water act, and to require disclosure. so, thank you for taking the initiative to enquire into this important issue and for providing this opportunity. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, dr. summers. now i will turn to dr. volz. >> thank you all for the opportunity to testify this morning at this joint hearing on public health and environmental impacts. i believe that unconventional gas extraction in deep shale deposits presents considerable risks to public health and safety as well as to environmental resources,

particularly water quality and," organisms. my testimony -- aquatic organisms. three public health and environmental policy areas related to unconventional natural gas production. number one, it is largely unregulated citings unregulatediting of these wells. patterns of violations from marcellus shale well selling impact on resources, and i think an important issue that has been brought up a couple of times, the toxic substances that are entering surface water sources from disposal of flowback waters. through grind treatment and sewage treatment plants. first of all, i will talk about the unregulated siting of natural gas wells in areas of high population density, which also occurs near schools, critical infrastructure. this is shown in slide three of

my presentation that i gave to the committees today. unconventional gas extraction wells are highly industrialized operations that bear little resemblance to what we know in the northeastern united states of conventional oil and gas exploration. these wells are highly industrialized and there could be risks of catastrophic blowouts, explosions, and/or fire. any of these can create an immediately dangerous to life and health situation. the unregulated siting of unconventional natural gas wells and production facilities -- in a residential neighborhood, near critical infrastructure -- is very unwise public health preparedness policy, especially in light of the tens of billions of dollars that we are spending at the federal and state level to reduce risk from terror

attacks on usa citizens and damage to critical infrastructure. secondly, the higher rates and differential patterns of oil and gas act violations -- and they are a listing on slide four of my presentation digging -- are very different as compared to conventional oil and gas wells and suggest a much greater impact to drinking water and aquatic resources. we have done a study at my outfit that showed marcellus wells have 1.5 to four times -- depending on the denominator -- more violations than conventional oil and gas well per of sending well and those violations are more serious and the violations have a more direct impact on water quality. things like failures to minimize accelerated erosion,

implement erosion and sedimentation plans, discharge of pollution to of the waters in the commonwealth of pennsylvania, many violations of the clean streams law, failure to properly store, transport, process, or dispose of residual waste, and failures to adequately construct or maintain these impoundments that hold actually toxic low that water. -- flowback what. the problem my group has been working at, both sewage treatment plants and brine treatment plants -- looking at disposal of flowback fluids through these plants. we sampled a brine treatment facility in indiana county, pennsylvania, called pennsylvania birne treatment, josephine facility, and we found

going -- coming out of the effluent pipes or discharge of nine pollutants, all access of nationally recognized human and/or aquatic health standards into the nearby black lake creek. these contaminants and included barry m. -- barium and what was coming out at times were above minimum risk level for drinking water for children and 27 times epa consumption concentration for fish and fish plus what. bromide was coming out in the e fluent -- effluent water, the level almost 10,000 times the level that the water treatment facilities like to see in background water of 100 parts per billion. benzene was found coming out at

two times the drinking water standard. and six times its epa consumption criteria. 1.5 times the drinking water minimum risk level for children. lastly, we found -- toxyethanol, a glycol ether used in marcellus shale gas extraction. we found that coming out between 24 times the 55 times the derived drinking water minimal risk level for intermediate exposure for men, women, and children. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for your testimony. mr. ubinger? >> thank you, chairwoman boxer, cardin, ranking member inhofe

and senator sessions to provide testimony from the pens of an environmental council concerning work related to shale gas development in pennsylvania. it goes without saying, and a number of members have already spoken about this, there are enormous economic and strategic energy and the patience to the development of shale gas resource but as you have been quick to add, it must be done right. pennsylvania's bridge is a patient and the shale gas boom is relatively recent. over the last five years with the development of the marcellus shale formation. as our written testimony suggest, the development of the shale gas formation of pennsylvania increased at an ever quickening pace and is expected to go so. while we and pennsylvania and appreciate the economic at a beach of shell gas development we are cognizant that the route its history, penn's woods paid an enormous price of -- for the exploitation of resources. in today's political discourse, and many context, much is said

the burden our current actions will impose on future generations to come. today in pennsylvania, when it comes to the legacy of natural resource asked what -- exploitation, we are that a future generation and the cost of new -- restoration of degradation from prior resource exploitation is substantial. if the lessons of the past have taught us anything it is this -- now, what we are in the formative years of the shale gas industry, an industry that will be a prominent part of the landscape for generations, we must identify and quantify the impact of land, water, air, and communities, and establish a regulatory framework that mitigates the impacts to the greatest extent practicable so avoidable environmental degradation is not part of our legacy for future generations. the written testimony was submitted to committee staff last week describes our work over the past 2 1/2 years and identify as a number of enhancements to tens of a

deposit pre-existing regulatory structure which we believe are essential to approve the management of shale gas development. i would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions the community may have with respect to written testimony. r, what i would like to focus on at the moment is the issue of cumulative impact. the question is -- how we efficiently acquire relevant information to objectively assess and mitigate the cumulative impact of a variety of activities that are required to extract, process, and move natural gas from wellhead to the market. we believe the elements of an efficient process for assessing and mitigating cumulative impacts are found in a program established by the susquehanna river basin commission for hydraulic withdrawals -- a collection program that predates the marcellus shale development pennsylvania, but the data base, which expanded to include more information from had water areas and the marcellus shale reasons of the river basins is used to make

informed decisions for authorization of water withdrawals and informed decisions as to when the authorized withdrawals must be suspended to avoid adverse impacts. the key, we think, is it is the retain collection of data. similar debates assessment programs and not currently feasible for assessing the kilted impact of other attributes of shell gas developments such as discharges from service management of waste water or air emissions from shale gas activities because capacity to collect relevant field data it is not available. the environmental council believes shale gas the element cannot be properly managed without an investment and a capacity to retailing measure impacts on an ongoing basis. we further believe the federal government as well as the states have a vital role in establishing and funding a continuing research agenda -- agenda that would enable the valuation of data required to assess and mitigate impacts. we also believe it is vitally

important shale gas industry and government focus at federal -- both federal and state, collaborate to develop and demonstrate the data best management practices and require implementation of practices through a program regulations. in closing, let me reiterate -- the successful development of shale gas resources is economically important to the states in which it occurs and strategically important for the country as a whole but it is critical we do it right. the pennsylvania environmental council focused its efforts on the development of a regulatory program and then to land-based of proactive information-driven process is designed to identify and quantify in packs, and tim deede impacts, and to mitigate the the best possible through best practices appreciably codified. we believe our recommendations for pandering to conservative model for others in the regulations of unconventional natural gas development. once again, let me thank the committee for this opportunity to present testimony. >> thank you for your testimony.

mr. cloud? >> [inaudible] appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today about the regulation of hydraulic fracturing -- factoring and oklahoma that in many decades of experience and i ask my corrected testimony be admitted to the record. feet -- thank you. corporation commission was given the responsibility in 1914. currently the commission hasn't -- exclusive state jurisdiction on all oil and gas activity in oklahoma, oversight and enforcement of rules aimed at pollution prevention and abatement and protecting the water supply. presently there are over 185,000 wells in oklahoma and thousands of miles of gathering and transmission pipelines. in recent years, of the shale and oklahoma has been an important source of natural gas. the development of oklahomas and shale, like other shall regions in the united states, have been

made possible by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology. hydraulic fracturing has been used in oklahoma for over 60 years and more than 100,000 of global wealth have been hydraulically fractured over the period, over that more than half century of experience there has not been one single documented instance of contamination to ground water or drinking water as a result. to say we take protection of our water quality seriously would be an understatement. our rules are constantly reviewed and updated. a general prohibition against pollution of any service or subsurface fresh water from well completion activities. oklahoma corporation commission rules address procedures in an event of unanticipated operation or mechanical changes. standard commission rules also require an operator to cement a well completion report within 30 days of completion activities. volumes of the fluids used in the process are required on the

form. last far, oklahoma corporation commission volunteered to have its hydraulic fracturing program reviewed by a 12-year- old multi stakeholder organization known by state review of oil and gas and garments of regulation. october 2010, denver 2011, a seven-person multi stakeholder review team conducted an in- depth examination of the hydraulic regulatory program. the review team concluded, lesley savage of railroad commission, will month -- well month -- and noted critic of domestic oil and gas industry, and jim collins of the independent petroleum association of america. official observers include the oklahoma sierra club and united states and arm of the protection agency region six. the review team concluded the oklahoma program is over all well managed, professional, and

meets objectives. incidently, the u.s. epa and department of energy provided grant funding for them to support their activities. in oklahoma collaboration involving the regulation of oil and gas industry, other stakeholders, and my state agency staff repeatedly led to successful development of rules and policies to address environmental protection issues, particularly protection of water. the example -- two particular way -- lakes accept -- lakes that are exceptionally clean that provide very high quality water to a city of 100 miles away. the lakes are also on top of a deep rock deposit that holds the huge amounts of natural gas which in the best interest of all, and the nation, we want to allow the petroleum industry to find and produce. without the need of federal intervention, the city of oklahoma city, regulated oil and gas industry, and state work together for acceptable protections because we all realize it is and are mutual best interest to ensure proper

and practical water and environmental protections. nature by itself unfortunately did not bless oklahoma with any large natural bodies of water so fresh war is especially precious. oklahoma has more than 50 man- made lakes. it is worth noting that texas is currently suing oklahoma in federal court to get our state's water. we must be doing something right. all of us can agree there needs to be rules of the road and the need to be followed and in force. we are making sure these rules are followed an oak, causing water and our environment are protected. our record is clear -- state regulation is the best way to meet the goals. i and my two fellow commissioners hold elected statewide positions. directly accountable to our fellow oklahomans and we all that -- and we all have the best and personal interest to ensure the water is protected. not to be trite, but we drink the water, too. >> thank you for your testimony. mr. neslin?

>> thank you. chairman, ranking member inhofe and other members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide our perspective on how cavallerano protect public health and the environment while we develop our oil and gas resources. my name is david neslin, director of the colorado oil and gas conservation commission. we are a major oil and gas producing state with a rich natural heritage and driving out poor economy. i want to focus my comments today on the subject of hydraulic fracturing. most of, rob's for the 4000 will and gas wells as well as the thousands of new ones to be drilled in the coming years rely on hydraulic fracturing. this is vital to unlocking our rich oil and gas reserves, which are a critical source of domestic energy and provide a good paying jobs and needed tax revenues to our communities. it is also essential this development occurs in an environmentally responsible manner. this is a fundamental part of

our regulatory mission and something everyone at our agency takes very seriously. to this in that, our environmental professionals investigated hundreds of ground water complaints over the years. to date, no verified instance of hydraulic fracturing harming ground water. these investigations are all public it -- publicly available. we require operators to test water quality repeatedly and over time in more than 1900 water wells in one of our most productive natural gas fields. thousands of nearby oil and gas wells have been hydraulically fractured and if fracturing fluids were to reach but wells you would expect the waters, composition to change. -- statistically significant changes. this analysis is like was publicly available. in addition, the comprehensively updated regulations to address a broad range of environmental issues. , rules strike a responsible balance between energy development and environmental protection, and they reflect

substantial input from local governments, will and gas companies, environmental groups, and thousands of individuals from across our state. other states have taken are taking similar action including wyoming, oklahoma, ohio, pennsylvania, arkansas. these recent rulemaking is exemplified the benefits associated with a state oversight and site specific regulation and specifically address hydraulic fracturing. in colorado, wells must be cased and cemented to protect our for furs and well pressure must be monitored during the fracturing. the must inventory chemicals including fracturing fluids and provide information upon request to the state and certain health care professionals. mandatory setbacks and enhance the environment protections for oil and gas bill and in your public drinking water sources. pressor test -- pressure testing, water wells sampling as required for methane wells. enhanced the requirements of

permitting, pit mining and monitoring to ensure that waste, including any flowback of law would properly maintained. these are important and have substantially improved ground water protection but we have not stop there. we are continuing to take proactive, cost-effective steps to make sure hydraulic fracturing protects public health and the m armond. we and other states worked closely with ground for the protection council on the lawns of a new web site fracfocus.org -- oil and gas operators militarily but -- list chemicals used. second, we arranged to have hydraulic fracturing regulations professionally audited this summer by stronger, and national organization of state regulators and industry and environmental representatives. a stronger recently completed similar reviews of oklahoma, as you heard, as well as pennsylvania, ohio, and louisiana, and we are having

them reviewed colorado's program to determine whether further improvements can be made. we are actively investigating alleged use of diesel fuel or fluids containing diesel fool -- fuel for fracturing in, what. while i agree the regulations would have prevented contamination of drinking water item g we are collecting and permission to independently access. we continue to address public concerns and an open and transparent manner. just this last february our commission convened a full public hearing to examine allocation of water well contamination. in that case, our commissioners -- it averse board of environmental, industry, local government, and other sectors, unanimously determined hydraulic fracturing had not impacted the well and question. in summary i want to stress how seriously we take this subject and many other states are taking similar action. our experience and that of other states demonstrate how hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas

activities are effectively regulated the state level. highly diverse regional and local conditions are more fully understood and rules can be tailored to fit the needs of local basins, landscapes, and local communities. thank you. >> thank you all for your testimony. i will urge the committee members to limit yourselves a four-minute rounds so we can get the panel completed before the vote on the floor. let me thank all of you for your testimony. mr. cloud, i want to compliment the actions taken in your state of oklahoma. i think you provided a good model that should be used in other states. i am very impressed that the backflow by state action can be either recycled or must be put into, as i understand it, one of the containment wells, which operates under the clean water act. it seems to me you have been able to do exactly what mr. perciasepe indicated -- the

federal government working with the state to develop the right framework for dealing with natural gas extraction. why is it that you prohibit the backflow from entering into our west water -- waste water treatment plants? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe the state for many years since we have been doing hydraulic fracturing for 60 years, we kept a close eye on it and we just make sure the fluids be kept out of the water supplies and they are never send to water treatment facilities, as you outlined. only to be recycled or back injected into a band of wells. then i think it is the right way to proceed and curious why pending and other states still allowing the backflow to enter treatment facility plants? either one of my friends from pennsylvania have an explanation why the state is still permitting that? >> i think i do, senator.

essentially it boiled down to go, there was a pressing need to dispose of a lot of material. there were a lot of wells drilled a very quickly. i believe it was an oversight by our pennsylvania department of environmental protection, that a lot of this material were going to the brine treatment facilities, very inefficient, as well as to which treatment plants -- >> as far as -- requires some transportation but there were wells that could have accepted it. >> in ohio, certification. >> but a transportation a cost issue, a pragmatic decision made -- we never want to see public help put at risk due to a pragmatic judgment. dr. summers, as i understand the marilyn legislature did not act

on moratorium -- maryland legislature did not act on moratorium. but it is under the -- until the state for public health? >> we just started to receive permits. we have been watching very closely what is going on in pennsylvania. reviewing the work out of new york, looking at what is going on in other states. very interested to look more closely how wyoming is handling it. our plans are to proceed cautiously, to make sure we do have the best practices in place so we are able to take advantage of the information these other states that have more experience than we do have, and also trying to work with the environmental protection agency because, as i said, we believe that their role is very critical in providing the background information and technical support. >> thank you.

senator inhofe? >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry about the votes coming up but i believe you are doing the right thing. although we would all like to have more time to ask questions. first of all wanted to talk to commissioner cloud and director neslin. director neslin, you did not say what percentage of your wells would be hydraulically fraced. a restaurant in the state of oklahoma and colorado that would be using their technology? >> intact -- colorado it would be substantially all wells. in oklahoma, essentially the same. 185,000 active wells and 100,000 have been fracked, but the new wells utilizing horizontal drilling are all -- >> for those who were not here for my opening statement, we initiated the very first hydraulic fracturing in oklahoma 60 years ago. so we know something about it.

over the last few weeks there has been a lot of focus of disposal of flowback water and produced water from oil and gas wells, especially in pennsylvania. could you tell us how this water is disposed of in your two respective states? >> in colorado, the majority of the water is recycled and reused. if you are talking about the final disposal of the water, about 60% is re-injected deep underground, permited underground injection wells, 20 percent discharge servers waters under state water quality permits that did contain environmental and health-based standards. >> in oklahoma we recycle most of the white water, but when it is used up, we have 10,500 injection wells we put the water -- the fluids down in. >> roughly the same they are doing in colorado. how did agencies respond to --

investigate ground water complaints? your agency recently investigated -- i think the southern colorado, some complaints. can you tell us how you do that? >> this is the event i mentioned that led to the hearing this past february. a couple of things are important. we had a complaint and we had an inspector on site in 16 hours collecting samples. he has a ph.d. in chemistry and -- 25 years of experience. he spent over 40 hours investigating the alleged contamination, worked with other members of our staff, including the engineering staff. wrote a 30-page report documenting his investigation and the various types of analysis used as part of the exercise. when the land owner was dissatisfied with the conclusion the staff had drawn, which was there had been no impact, he received a full hearing, half- day hearing before a commission within 60 days. and then are commission

unanimously confirmed the stands findings. in terms of the rigor of the analysis, timeliness of the work and transparency of the process, this compares very well. >> about the same in oklahoma? >> it is about the same. we have an extensive field staff all over the state monitoring the wells and the well activity. >> only have about 30 seconds left. i would like to have you talk about new technologies coming along. is there a procedure -- i will just confined to commissioner cloud -- any kind of procedure you investigate the new technologies and what dangers that could come up and what you do to mitigate these? >> as i said, our staff is on top of it all the time and we have a complaint division, if anybody has a complaint like outlined in, roddick, we are 24- hour accessible and we try to stay on top of every single instance. >> thank you very much. dr. ... volz, you make comments

about risk levels. there is a very negative article in be "pittsburg tribune review" yesterday i am sure you have read by now. i would like to ask if that be made a part of the record. >> without objection, and will be included. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator merkley? >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. neslin, as i listen in the testimony it sounds like there has never been any problem and, rather -- "no verify incident of hydraulic fracturing harming ground water." how do we square that with the documentary i referred to earlier where mike markum takes and pours water out of his kitchen faucet, holds a cigarette lighter up to it and after a few seconds, i quote -- "a ball of fire erupts out of the sink, almost and belting his head -- and the galloping his

head." how does this square with no verified incidents of hydraulic fracturing harming ground water? >> we investigated that allegation and investigated that well. the facts are that that water well was completed and a coal bearing formation that contains biogenic methane, not related to oil and gas development. there are published papers by the u.s. geological survey and the color of the geological survey dating back more than 30 years verifying that fact, that in these formations there is naturally occurring biogenic methane not attributable to oil and gas development, not released by oil and gas the element. the allegations were thoroughly investigated, laboratory analyses were done and the conclusion is this was biogenic methane not related to oil and gas development. as i say, based on not just the work of our staff but scientific papers from the geological survey dating back decades.

>> basically if he had been running his water 30 years ago he would have had exactly the same problem? >> yes, sir. them interesting. -- >> interesting. thank you for addressing that. dr. volz, in your paper you referred to a long list of chemicals that are coming out of the brine treatment facility. barium, strongman, bromide, benzene, glycol ether, chloride developed these -- specifically to try to address the challenge of the flowback fluids and clean them up? >> senator, this is an older flowback fluid treatment facility that has been in operation for about 25 years. and up until about five years ago, only took care of conventional oil and gas flow woods.

now it is dealing with these marcellus lewis -- fluids. >> the technology is completely ineffective in terms of the flowback fluid? >> yes. >> if you are looking and indoor facility designed specifically -- that all of these problems would have been addressed? >> i am not sure of that, sir. i think there needs to be a definitive review of all of the processes used by treatment facilities, not only in the state of pennsylvania -- because waste water from the state of pennsylvania is actually being treated by these plants, and sewage treatment plants, in new york, new jersey, maryland, ohio, and west virginia, as well as pennsylvania. >> i may have misinterpreted the pictures presented in your slides, but it looks like the pipes coming out of the brine

and treatment facility into a creek, just dumping all of this in effectively treated, highly contaminated dangerous stuff right into the creek on the surface and pennsylvania. is that is what is happening? >> that is exactly what is happening. there is very little treatment done at that plant accept -- except to remove some of the very impaired precipitated with a sulfate solution nd barium is lower. is still high, but much lower than the flowback water but many other contaminants not treated by the facility at all. >> why is pending a positive part in allowing a highly contaminated fluid being put into a creek? >> i don't know, sir. >> thank you. >> we will break away from the hearing because the u.s. house is gaveling in for word general speeches. legislative work underway at 2:00. two bills -- extending the commission planning the ron reagan centennial celebration.

first speeches, legislative work at two. members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour. and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each but in in event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. last week iraqi forces unleashed a surprise attack on camp asheroff, the home of thousands of iranian exiles, including innocent men, women, and children. 2,500 members of the iraqi military armed with military weapons attacked those 3,000

unarmed iranian exiles. she's iranian civilians are pro-american. they are exiles from iran because of their opposition to the evil dictator, the little tyrant of the desert, ahmadinejad. the iraqi showed no mercy in their attack. they used live ammunition against people who could not defend them selves. they ran over these citizens smashing them with their american-made humvees. an estimated 300 people were injured and 33 people were murdered. iraqi soldiers still occupy parts of the camp. we don't even know if the attackers are all iraqis. it has been reported that some of these occupiers could be iranian agents to seek to harm the iranian dissidents living in this camp. the international community cannot tolerate this unprovoked violent attack by the government of iraq. we have a legal and moral obligation to ensure the safety of iranian dissidents in the camp.

the innocent people who live there continue to be in danger as we speak. it's been reported that the government of iraq blocked the delivery of american humanitarian aid to the wounded until sunday, two days after the attack. just yesterday the iraqi government announced that they plan to close the camp and move its residents out of the country. this is exactly what ahmadinejad wants. if this happens, mr. speaker, these people's lives are in total danger. why? right now some citizens of the camp are members of the m.e.k., it is on the united states list of foreign terrorist organizations. the f.t.o. designation by the united states is still being used by iran to justify the harsh treatment of its own citizens, the m.e.k., worldwide. many nations have already removed the m.e.k. off the f.t.o. list so the government of iran uses our designation as a justification to harm the m.e.k. citizens. that is why the iranian government praised the attack

on camp asharoff on the dissidents. by not taking the m.e.k. off the f.t.o. list we are endangering the innocent people and empowering the government of iran to harm them. they are on our side. they oppose the evil dictator in iran. this is just another example of the inconsistency the united states plenty with our foreign policy. in one breath we say publicly we need to protect the camp. yet in the second breath we won't take the m.e.k. off the foreign terrorist organization list. 54 of my colleagues have joined me on a resolution urging the secretary of state to immediately remove the m.e.k. from the f.t.o. list. the state department has yet to give convincing evidence that the m.e.k. is an f.t.o. time they make their case or remove them from the designation. failure to do this sends mixed signals to both the iranian and iraqi governments. these governments think they have a license to kill these dissidents. this is a matter of life or death for the people in camp

asharofff more iraqi attacks occur on these people, the blood will be on the hands of the iraqi government and the little tyrant of the desert, ahmadinejad. we must make it clear to the iraqis they do not have the right to attack the camp just because america is leaving town. we must tolerate these -- not tolerate these crimes against innocent civilians that we have legally and morally promised to protect. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, the republican budget for fiscal 2012 that the house will take up later this week is not a path to prosperity. rather it is more accurately a path to the past. just like brush's ill tated attempt to privatize social security, the path to the past eviscerates medicare, forcing retirees to bear the brunt of

cost increases, severely jeopardizes their access to health care, replaces today's guaranteed access with a limited voucher system. today thanks to medicare, every one of america's senior citizens has access to health care coverage. before medicare was enacted in 1965, roughly half of all seniors suffered without health insurance. this path to the past would send america's seniors back to the times of scrambling to find coverage while always worrying how we'll be able to aforward rising health care costs. the republican path to the past brings back the doughnut hole in medicare part d prescription drug coverage. under the doughnut hole, many seniors have been forced to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for prescription medication because they weren't covered, but part d. i was proud to fix that inequity and eliminate the doughnut hole during the previous congress.

unfortunately the republican path to the past brings it back. once again requiring many seniors to pay thousands of dollars extra for their prescription drugs. that's a past americans don't want. the republican path to the past destroys medicaid, replacing it with a vastly limited monetary grant to the states, forcing them to either reduce benefits to lower income families or reduce the number of eligible families. or both. currently 34 million children receive health care through medicaid. from 1997 through 2009, the percentage of children without health insurance dropped from 13.9% to 8.2%, largely because of medicaid. the republican path to the past risks the future of millions of america's children by risking that coverage. that's a past america does not want. the path to the past incredulously blames rising college tuition on efforts to make pell grants more accessible to kids and return the nation to a system where only the wealthy can afford college. contrary to what the republican budget states, college tuition

costs have been rising long before the expansion of pell grants. in fact, from 2002 to 2007, tuition costs rose 31% more than the rate of inflation, the worst five-year increase in college costs in over 30 years. in response last year, we reformed the student loan program, expanded the pell grant program, and allowed hundreds of thousands of students the ability to make higher education more affordable. the republican path to the past returns the nation to the years of rising tuition without any relief. that's a past america does not want. the republican path to the past ignores the economic recovery and indiscriminately slashes investments away that goldman sachs will lower economic growth by 2% and increase unemployment by 1%. during the height of the great recession for several months, 700,000 americans lost their jobs. according to march zandi, the economist with moody's analytics and advisor to senator mccain's presidential campaign, those policies would

cost american workers another 700,000 jobs. the economic policy institute projected a loss of 800,000 jobs while the senate for american progress said it will cost 900,000 jobs, that's a past america does not want to go back to, the republican budget proposal, the path to the past, returns us to the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. throwing the young, the elderly, the sick, and disadvantaged on their own fates. that's not an america i believe in. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. as many people know and i do not say this with pride, but for years i have been signing letters to the immediate and extended families of those killed in afghanistan and iraq. i have signed over 9,966 letters, it is a constant

reminder to me of the high cost of war. our country's in a deep financial shape. it continues to amaze me that we would raise the debt sealing, spend money we don't have, and cut much needed programs for my seniors and children while we continue to spend $8 billion a month in afghanistan. karzai's a corrupt leader. his government is corrupt. he has stated would he rather side with the taliban than the united states and this is based on an article in "the washington post" on december 8 of 2010. what sense does it make to sacrifice our young american lives on money, resources for a man who does not want our country -- troops in his country? it simply does not make any sense at all. according to a march 15, "washington post"/abc news poll, 73% of americans want our troops out of afghanistan this summer. last week every member of congress received an associated foreign press article from

congressman peter welch. i do not have time to read the whole article but let me share some excerpts from his letter to each of my colleagues and his lesion colleagues, and i quote the letter from congressman welch. i want to draw your attention to a recent associated foreign press article detailing the funneling of usaid dollars to the afghan taliban reportedly making reconstruction funds the main source of income for insurgents. i continue to quote from the letter. according to the story an estimated 10% of the cost of every development project is used to pay off the taliban. the united states has spent $56.1 billion in afghanistan since 2002. mr. speaker, let me remind the congress and the american citizens that taliban are killing and maiming the americans, soldiers, marines, and others. mr. speaker, it is time this congress debate the afghan war and to bring our troops home.

here we are talking about cutting spending from programs that help the american people but yet we continue to send billions and billions of dollars to a corrupt leader. it doesn't make sense. mr. speaker, we could save american lives which is the most important but also $8 billion a month if we would bring our troops home from afghanistan. mr. speaker, i will continue to come to the floor once a week and i will bring photographs in the way of posters to remind the american people and my colleagues in washington of the price of war. right beside me now is the air force honor guard at dover bringing a hero home in a transfer case which is known as a coffin as well, flag draped. mr. speaker, it is time for this congress to debate the issue of bringing our troops home from afghanistan. how many more can we afford to give lives of our young americans to a corrupt leader? it makes no sense. i want my colleagues in both parties to awaken. jim mcgovern, democrat, walter

jones, a conservative will soon have a bill that we will put on the floor to debate bringing our troops home. i hope the american people will join us in bringing our troops home. mr. speaker, as i do always when i close, i will ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i will ask god to please bless the men and women in our uniform. i will ask god in his loving arms to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq, and, mr. speaker, i'll ask god to please bless the house and senate we will do what is right in the eyes of god for the american people. and i will ask god to give wisdom, strength, and courage to president obama that he will do what is right in the eyes of the people for his people. and i will close by asking god three times, please, god, please, god, please, god, continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes.

mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. congress this week will focus on the ryan republican budget. the most profoundly negative and cynical plan ever advanced by a major party in the house of representatives. there are lots of individual analysis that are available to americans, not from spin masters but from serious journalists and anialists and -- analysts and i strongly hope people will take the time to look at it. they will find in the course of their research that there are a number of very fundamental flaws. first and foremost, there is no fundamental reform of our defense spending. something that is driving the deficit dramatically. we sidestep opportunities to reform agricultural programs. it actually takes us backwards

on health care. and there are $4 trillion of program cuts over the next 10 years falling primarily on low and moderate income americans. it is a hypocritical approach. last year americans were given television ads from republican candidates accusing democrats of slashing medicare for senior citizens. now we see that the republicans are taking all of those proposed slashed spending and using it to finance their program, to reduce taxes for those that need it the least. in addition, people will be able to verify that senior citizens, starting in 2020, will be bearing a far greater furred for paying for their own

medicare than ever in the affordable care act in any of the reforms. it replaces a steep curve of increased medicare spending, no doubt about it. that's why in the affordable care act we embedded reform proposals to bend that cost curve. it's replaced without proposals that reduce medicare spending, just simply slash the support that seniors can get. it's repleased with a much greater -- it's replaced with a much greater curve increase for private insurance. that's their approach is to give a voucher to insurance companies to provide insurance for senior citizens for health care. bear in mind, the reason we got medicare in the first place is because senior citizens were not profitable. they couldn't buy comprehensive

health insurance in an affordable fashion before medicare. what leads anybody to believe that somehow aging americans are going to be more attractive to the health insurance industry in the future? and by replacing medicare, which actually has reduced cost increases below what is cost in the private health insurance company, you're actually going to replace overall health care costs. but nowhere is that cynicism more evident than in a bill that's coming to the floor, i think, tomorrow. the legislation to end the preventative and -- prevention and health fund under the affordable care act. already in states like mine we've received millions of dollars for prevention activities, for wellness clinics, to help people stop

smoking, to improve the training of health professionals. these are investments to help make americans healthier in the first place and reduce the demand for health care costs. there was a time, mr. speaker, when prevention was a bipartisan issue. in fact, in our deliberations in the ways and means committee in last congress people on both sides of the aisle were talking about the need to deal with prevention programs to keep people healthy in the first place. what a said state when the first actions of this congress is to repeal this bipartisan concept of a health prevention fund. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, for five minutes.

mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize home farming day, an initiative launched by the nonprofit organization urban farming in partnership with the kraft foods triskit brand. nurturing and inspiring healthier eating habits nationwide. last year the first farming day resulted in the planting of 50 new farms in unused urban spaces in 20 cities. i was pleased that my office could participate in the groundbreaking on one of those gardens in my congressional district. this year urban farming and kraft planned to replant all 50 gardens and add 15 new farms throughout the country totaling 65 community-base farm homes. food grown goes directly to the

volunteers who grow the crops, along with their families and communities. volunteers can also donate to local food banks for those that are in need. in my home district, crops are delivered to the pantry in naperville, illinois, where they provide people with fresh, healthy meals. mr. speaker, from the white house to our own back yards and windo seals, more and more americans are taking up the fun and healthy pastime of growing their own food. it's not unlike what our family did in world war ii when they planted 250 victory gardens. i recall looking in my mom's victory garden in getting raspberries. home gardening is an activity most people enjoy. a 2010 survey found that 66% of americans have some form of lawn or garden and younger americans between the ages of

25 and 40 are now gardening at the same rate as the general population. and home family day is an opportunity to encourage that trend, especially among young people in urban communities where fresh fruits and vegetables may be less available. whether on a kitchen countertop or a balcony flower box or at a community plot, home farming is a great way for people of all ages to celebrate natural living and treat themselves to some fresh fruits and vegetables while they're at it. it's a goal worth pursuing and i want to congratulate the cracker brand manufactured in my congressional district and the home farming movement for helping to show americans how easy it is to grow fresh vegetables and herbs right in their back yard. i want to congratulate urban farming and their partners in their success in expanding home farming day across the country, encouraging communities to utilize open spaces, to bring

fresh ingredients to our homes. with that i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for five minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today to celebrate the 41 district of columbia elected officials and residents led by mayor vincent gray and five members of the d.c. city council who were arrested in front of the hart office senate office building yesterday evening and hundreds of others who gathered to protest their second-class treatment as american citizens by the republican house, the democratic-led senate and the administration. the 2011 continuing resolution, due on the floor this week, contains a sinister trade that

takes the district's self-governing rights to spend its own local funds on abortion services for poor women, as many jurisdictions have long done. the c.r. also funds the startup of a new private school voucher program but only in d.c. about which no local elected official was consulted. it is the house republicans who have been on an un-democratic war path against the district's home rule, but yesterday residents did not stand it who in the end accepted republican demand. the house will hear from me again as i try to remove this. but they have turned a deaf ear to me on the city's most basic

rights to local control. congress continually and smarial refused my bill and several amendments to allow the district to spend its own local funds to avoid a shutdown of the city government that would have occurred with a federal shutdown even though only our local funds were involved. yesterday, however, congress and the country heard from the people themselves. house rules do not allow members to organize demonstrations and yesterday's spontaneous outpouring of citizens where i was not present showed why the people must always speak for themselves. d.c. vote organized yesterday's mammoth demonstration. in a couple of days, and residents point of order onto

constitution avenue and showed an outrage at being traded on a congressional auction block. yesterday, the house, the senate and the administration heard the voices and saw the faces of our city. the house may disagree with abuse of our american citizens' constitutional reproductive rights but they would not have mandates on how our local citizens may spend the local taxes they raise. the speaker may favor private school vouchers but no american would agree that he's premps should override a city's local decision for public charter schools as the alternative to our private schools. the house may continue to ignore me, but yesterday d.c. elected officials and residents , like millions of others

throughout the world, showed that the people will not be ignored forever. i will offer a separate statement, including the names of the residents and officials who were arrested with gratitude. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the remainder of her time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 2:00 p.m.

places that they can speak. i don't think there's enough of them but there are places. >> every day while driving to school i pass a stranger near the community mall. each day he wakes up, turns half a mile to the corner and stays in the same place all day. the stranger is familiar to everyone, but known to no one. is there nothing being done to end this tragedy? nothing to help the homeless? >> founded nearly six million

very low-income households pay more than half their monthly income for rent or live in severely substandard housing. our recently released homeless assessment report found that on any given night in america more than 640,000 men, women and children are without housing. >> hi. i'm michelle. i'm the coordinator of the food shelf and give you a quick tour of our facility. this is kind of our stocking room in here where we have our overflow of essentials that we give out. >> my name is cassie and a coordinator of the mahtomedi food shelf. our food shelf, i say almost every day, is very blessed because this community is so extremely supportive. i mean, there are some children that are struggling to keep

food on the shelf and we keep up with demand. there's no problem. we try to give everyone approximately a week's work of groceries once a month. a family of four receives about six bags of groceries, about 100 pounds of food. >> they have a database that's national. get a multitude of information. we're usually called for the first call of help which is what they should do, if they are in a situation where they don't have a job or they're close to losing their house they can call 211 and hopefully get the information they need. >> if we did not get one more donation this would be gone in a week. >> food shelves like this one are put in place to help those just like the stranger i see on

the corner. a stranger who is a stranger no more. >> i'm brad. i've been homeless now for almost 5 1/2 years. it's really tough here in minnesota, but there's nice people, like even the guy i'm doing this documentary for, that they say if you give you get twice as big back. i'm hoping to someday land a job or do what i have to to survive the way the economy is. and it's tough out here. i don't drink so i ain't out here for alcohol or drugs. it's -- i hope it gets better basically.

i've been sober now for almost 10 years. life has changed except for no work. i even went to a company where i go outside and pick up cigarette butts for like $3 an hour and it didn't last. the federal government won't give you loans for any assistance or anything because i'm a male. i shouldn't be labeled -- it should be anybody. and to a point where let's say a month, they're just using the system or something, then i can see that nothing's changed because they want the handout part. they won't say it straight out but that's the way it is. you're a white male with no kids. >> although brad may have seemed as if the federal government did nothing to

assist the homeless, there are in fact many programs out there. >> families, do they receive federal assistance to do this? >> many do. they don't all receive federal assistance. there are a lot of mission based shelters that don't. but the federal government does provide a pretty ample amount of money, over $2 billion, just for shelters, transitional housing and supportive housing, and disability housing and for emergency assistance for people. so there's extensive network. over 40,000 programs to assist homeless people in the country. >> i spoke with the woman who works for one of these programs. this shelter would have welcomed brad. >> we help the homeless, anything from mental health to housing. and the thing we have down here

is 18 years old sleeping down here. don't go to school. >> individuals are thankful for the programs that are provided. the one thing they can't provide is employment. soon after, the downfall of the economy forced the company to close. >> there's something the government can do but i stand here and i got a little -- i look around. these guys out of work. there's a lot of guys out of work. i'm hoping i can get something. like i said, it's a good place. it's a good place, man. >> you know, it's nice to be doing this but you got to do what you got to do to survive.

>> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos and continue today's documentary on our facebook and twitter pages. you're watching c-span. bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it's "washington journal," our live pilot program about our news of the day, connecting you with elected officials, policymakers and journalists. weekdays watch live coverage of the house and at night congressional hearings and policy forums. and also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends you can see our signature interview programs. on saturdays "the communicators" and on sundays "newsmakers," "q&a" and also the british house of come -- commons. c-span, washington your way.

a public service created by america's cable companies. >> former louisiana governor buddy roemer has been visiting cities. on road to the white house we talked about a possible run for the presidency. it's just under an hour. >> i hadn't made up my mind to explore until about a month ago. five weeks ago, exactly. i had been out of politics literally and figuratively for the most part of 20 years. i build community banks. i love doing it.

i'm' businessman. i'm not a lawyer. my training is to grow companies, to build companies. but beginning about six months ago i became concerned about what was happening and not happening in america. and so for the first time in a long time i thought that maybe my skills of planning, business man, putting budgets together, reforming a tax code, these sorts of things is exactly what this country might need. and then finally i became concerned about what i proceed to be the lack of leadership. a foreign policy that's foot footed, a domestic policy that's nonexistent. and i became concerned. two words got me in the end, debt. i've never seen anything like this. as a banker i deal with debt all day long, how to manage it, how to eliminate it. i don't like it. it's dangerous.

it costs us jobs. particularly when you're borrowing your money from your competition. and the second word that got me was indebtedness. washington, d.c.'s a boom town. the rest of america's hurting. why is that? it's because all the lobbyists, the special interests, the influence money comes here. it's too much. it's too big. it doesn't encourage innovation and leadership. and i decided to explore the possibility of running for president on those two issues, debt and indebtedness. >> so as we speak to you in the spring of 2011, the state of the union is -- >> love america. let me be careful here. it's the right place to be. our best years are ahead of us, but the state of the union is perilous. we owe $14.7 trillion.

we spend $300 billion a month and we borrow $120 billion of that. the last 12 years we've created a net of zero new jobs. let me say it again. in the fall of 1998 there were 131 million americans working off the farm. that's called nonfarm payroll. you know what that number was last month? 131 million. we are a nation challenged globally and we seem to be unprepared. it bothered me. >> so what do you bring to this race? you talk about your business experience. you've been in the house of representatives. you served one term as louisiana governor. you lost re-election. you came back in 1995 and lost that race. so what have you learned over the years? >> oh, if you learn from your mistakes -- i'm better off than

what i used to be. i was a young, arrogant man. ran for congress the first time and lost. ran again and then won four successive times easily. i like politics in essence i like running. i ran for governor. gets all odds, as you can remember, a guy named edwin edwards. better known guys than me. i took no tax money. i ended money in a corrupt state. it was breathtaking, some said. and i won that race. four years later having lowered the highest unemployment rate in america, which was over 12%, to less than half that, 6%, having balanced the budget four years in a row, having cleaned up air and water, having started a trust fund to repave our highways, feeling pretty good about myself, i changed

parties midway through my term, the only governor to do it, i changed from a conservative democrat to a republican and faced re-election against david duke and edwin edwards, one of the most infamous races in american history. they had more money than i. they were maybe more skilled politicses than i. the polls showed that my changing parties cost me six points. i lost by less than a point in a very heartbreaking election. but i learned a lot. i learned that if i make a major move like changing parties i have to do it soon enough that people will understand it over time. i did it with about six or seven months to go in that campaign. that was my bad. that was my mistake. and i've learned that a couple times that timing is important. but that's not why i run. i mean, i'm the only guy who considers running who's been

both a congressman and a governor and i like that experience. but more importantly, i'm one of several guys running who've built his own company. mine's a community bank who's met a payroll, who's done a business plan, who actually figures out where the market is and how to capture it. i put all that together with a belief that we ought to limit the money that politicians accept and i believe this is the kind of campaign that america needs. now, if you like the way things are, you won't be for me. but if you'd like to take another look, if you'd like a guy who was a conservative democrat in congress and worked with the republican reagan every day that's how you put a country together. that's what we need to do now. we need a president that's more than a republican. we need a president who's an american, who would reach out to both parties and the

independence and the tea parties and say, look, we must do this. if i run for re-election after being elected i won't do it until there's six or seven months left. our president now is already running for re-election and his term is barely half over. it's not right. we need to concentrate on america, not on me, not on my party, on america. so i had worked this out in my 67 years. i'm not a baby. i'm a grown man. i'm old enough to know what needs to be done and i'm young enough to do it. and i'm excited about it. >> a couple issues in louisiana because you talked about education reform. ending teacher tenure. that was your intention but it didn't happen under your watch. >> what happened was that we did it, we started teacher testing for the first time in history. then, i was defeated by edwards and he threw it all out. he got the legislature to undo

it so they had to wait five more years after edwards to start it again. so this was -- i did mine in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. then edwards took over from me. his fourth term from governor he undid it, undid the teacher testing, undid the three or four things that we had done in education for four years and then mike foster, another republican, took over as governor and started those programs again. >> he was a political adversary, but describe your relationship with edwards? >> interesting. when i started in politics as a young man i ran for the constitutional convention to rewrite our constitution. >> in louisiana? >> yeah. i was 28.9. and i worked with edwards who called for that constitutional rewrite. i was a proponent of what he was trying to do. i thought it was the right thing to do.

over the years we grew far apart and the issue was corruption. the issue was money in politics. i thought that the governor of louisiana didn't need to take unlimited checks from the oil companies and from the chemical companies and the toxic waste companies and those that abuse the air and water and edwards and i, a falling out is a polite way of saying we became political adversaries at that point. when he ran for re-election the third time, billy tosan, a congressman from louisiana, bob livingston, a republican congressman from louisiana, jim brown, secretary of state and i decided independently to run against him and five of us with a guy named speedy long -- that's a great louisiana name, who was a former congressman, those six ran in that election.

i won. >> did you push for him to have a pardon by president bush when he went to prison? >> i did not. my belief is that public corruption is the worst kind of corruption. in a nation of representative democracy. and that edwards had never said that he made a mistake. he never admitted that. he didn't show evidence of remorse. there was no medical reason to release him, i thought. so my position was that he should serve his term or confess his since, his transgressions and show evidence that he had reconstructed himself. i saw no evidence of that. >> take us back to 1990-1991 when he considered switching from a democrat to a republican, why the change? >> we were a one-party state. we were 96% democratic in the

legislature. we were born democrats in louisiana in the 1970's and 1980's. when i became governor i realized the weakness of that system. there was no debate. there were no second opinions. there was no constitutional conflict that could be resolved with middle ground or higher ground. and i felt the only way to make it happen fairly quickly was to change parties. now, i obviously, steve, had a part of me that while i served in the congress, very conservative democrat, voted with the republicans, i won't make up a number, 75% to 80% of the time. i loved reagan. thought he was a great president. i had the same relationship with senior bush, not with george w. but with george sr. i loved him. i respected him. so i had an opportunity, i thought, to change parties, set an example and to turn that 95

/5, 96/4 into a two-party system. i don't take credit for it. i was a factor in it. today the legislature is about 45/55 republican-democrat. i did it for the same reason that louisiana was a lot like egypt. i remember going to egypt for the first time as a younger man as a member of congress in 1988, 1989. mubarak was president. i mean, louisiana was like that. it was a one-party state. it was -- it stepped on its people. they lived on welfare. they -- it had the highest unemployment rate in america. i mean, this was a tough state to grab and try to turn it around. and at the end of three years of doing that i thought i needed to change parties to

finish the job. so i did and i'm proud of it. >> you were in congress with blue dog democrats and rockefeller republicans. if you look at the state of these two parties today, is there room in the democratic party for a conservative and conversely in the republican party a liberal? >> geez, i don't know. good question. evidence is against the finding of variety and diversity. we tend now to be a nation of headlines. are you with me or against me, they ask. let me answer you this way, in my opinion, the nation is stronger when there's a diversity of opinion that touches each other, that overlaps. and that's the way coalitions are built. every now and then you'll have an election where the democrats control the white house, the

senate and the house of representatives. it didn't work very well, did it? i remember a few years before that the republicans had an election that controlled the white house and the house and the senate. it didn't work very well, did it? we -- i would like us to be a nation where a party leads and a second party has constructive criticism. but they work together to build america. i don't know right now. that's why my issue is money. to me the power of money, special interest money, has way too much influence in washington. i saw in "the wall street journal" recently a home price list over the last year. it was memphis, it was st. louis, it was new york, it was tampa, it was washington, d.c., it was atlanta, it was chicago. the price of homes over the last year in this country have dropped in chicago, it was 7.5%. in atlanta i make a number, 8%,

but something like that. just every place except one. do you know where that was? washington, d.c. 3.6%. it's a boom town, steve. i mean, all the lobbyists, all the big check holders, all the special interests come here. not for good government. they come here to get their way in the government because they know the plain people, the average people in america are trying to work at their jobs and they don't have time to come to washington. who is your lobbyist? i bet general electric has a team of them. they made $14.7 billion and they didn't pay one penny in taxes. now, i'm not fussing at g.e. but i am picking on them. they're an example of what's wrong in america. they want the tax code for them. it ought to be written for plain people. now, i believe tax code rates ought to be low. i believe we ought to be a tax haven for the world. it will create jobs if we rewrite it and do it.

that's -- but for a country like -- a company like g.e. to not pay for a single marine or soldier to protect their assets in the world, to not pay for one school teacher, to not pay for one fireman, to not pay for one police officer is not right, and i'm going to take it beyond to the code. the code's 5,500 pages long. you can't read it, steve. neither can the average american but the lobbyists and -- lobbyists can. i should run for congress for $100. they say, oh, you can't win with $100. yes, we can. it's the only way to win. let me give you a number. if i get one person out of 100 to contribute $100 to my campaign i will have more money

in the primary than john mccain and mitt romney did last time they ran 3 1/2 years ago. i will have $300 million in the primary. when you win the primary with clean money in small amounts you turn the face of president with whom you have real differences and you have a debate of specifics and a classy debate and you need two out of 100. two out of 100, steve, would give you $600 million against a president who's going to have $1 billion and we can win. >> let me ask you about some of the issues. you talk about tax code. talk about $14.7 trillion, almost $15 trillion debt. how do you bring down the debt and how do you raise revenue? >> with a plan. it's real simple. all my life, my training and my practice has been business planning.

i helped build companies. my bank is five years ago and it's $670 million. we made money throughout the recession. we didn't get a penny of bailout money. i think it was called tarp. zero. it can be done old-fashioned way. a business plan and in customers one at a time. that's the way you bring our debt in control. you start with a target number of 18.5% which is the amount of federal spending of the gross domestic product. it should be 18.5%. today it's 25%. it's too high. so it's spending that's the problem, not taxes to decrease the deficit. we'll work on spending. we'll put everything on the table, entitlements, military, oil subsidies in louisiana, ethanol subsidies in iowa.

oh, yeah. you put it on the table and you have a five-year plan. i know a president only has four but the office will continue. congress will continue. a five-year plan to reduce spending by 1% of gross domestic product. a year for five years and the budget will come down to 18.5%. steve, when i hear political leaders or presidents talk about spending and deficits and they don't mention a target figure, their lips are moving, they're not telling the truth. get a target figure. i tell you where mine is. 18.5% will fund what america needs, will keep a strong military, will help us grow jobs, will make government lean, will provide for social security and medicare with some changes in both and we can talk about that. but the first thing you need is a plan, and the first thing in

your plan is the budget target. 18.5%. the second thing is time. it will take five years to do it right. with the house -- without hurting people, without slamming people to the ground while protecting our economy. and the third thing -- i'll make a third point if i can quickly. everything has to be on the table. now you will treat some programs different from others, but it all has to be on the table. you go after waste, fraud and abuse. that's the old language that i've heard for 30 years and nobody goes after it. you'll have to consolidate programs. you'll ask why you need an energy department. they find no new oil. you ask why you need an education department. they don't teach a single child. you'll ask why you need a commerce department. they haven't created a single new job. so you go through that kind of re-organization and downsizing and then you ask for management and business principles to be adopted. i'll give you two examples.

the number of federal employees who will retire in the next 10 years is 42% of our work force. if we could take half of them and not replace them. they're retired. you're not firing them. replace half of them with new technology, you would make government much more efficient, and you would save about $35 billion a year. that's just one example. i could give you 10 other examples. we need to eliminate all the energy subsidies and come up with an energy plan. that saves you $45 billion. housing subsidies, $42 billion. you can go right down the line. look, when these guys say all they can save is $38 billion out of a $3.6 trillion budget, they're wrong. they've never run a business. they've never put a business plan together. and you can do it. healthy people, steve.

you don't have to hurt them. >> would you eliminate the department of education or the energy department? where would you cut and what would you get rid of? >> my enemies will say, he's eliminating them. what i'm doing is taking away their bureaucratic function. they would be a resource center, data that we need to have an energy policy, data that we need to help our children. but if i can do it with a little money running both, i would keep them. if i have to eliminate them to do what i want to do, i would eliminate them. i would consolidate certain functions into maybe a department of government which does the block grants and the nonoverhead things that need to be done. but we don't need a department of education. we don't need a department of energy. we don't even need a department of commerce. what we need is a leaner government that helps companies and people that need hel