the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 199. the nays are 222. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 113-271 by the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in part a of house report number 113-271, offered by mr. lowenthal of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 194. the nays are 228. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 4, printed in part a of house report 113-271, by the gentlelady from texas, his jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the redesignated the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4, printed in part a of house report number 113-2p 1, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 198. the nays -- not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in part a of house report 113-271, by the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in part a of house report number 113-271, offered by mr. polis of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 201. the chair: on this vote the yeas are 202. the nays are 221. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in part a of house report 113-271, by the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8, printed in part a of house report number 113-271, offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are --

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 195. the nays are 226. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendment, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having ad under consideration h.r. 19 65 reports the bill back to the

house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1965 and pursuant to house resolution 419 reports the bill, as amended, by the resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor, please say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes is. third reading. the clerk: a bill to streamline into onshore permitting, providing for onshore leasing certainty and oil shale development, economic

development and job creation nd for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. he house will be in order. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? mrs. kirkpatrick: in the current form. the clerk: mrs. kirkpatrick reports the bill back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 7, strike the closed

quotation marks and the following period at line 18 and after line 18 insert the following. f, ensuring a fair return for taxpayers, subparagraphs, a, b, c and and d should apply with respect to a major integrated oil company as defined in section 16785-c of the internal revenue code of 1986. only if the company agrees not to claim the domestic production activities deduction under section 199 of the internal revenue code of 1986. add at the end the following -- title, his provisions. section. pro-- ms. provisions. section, nothing in this act equires the secretary of the interior to allow energy development that would negatively impact land that is identified by the secretary in consultation with affected indian tribes as a native american sacred site or a cultural site.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. mrs. kirkpatrick: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. if it is adopted, this bill will immediately proceed to final passage. the big five oil companies are making record profits -- mr. dingell: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: the big five oil companies are making record profits. they've made $250 billion in profits in just the last two years. and at the same time, they are receiving $4 billion in oil and

tax breaks every year. u.s. oil production is at a 24-year high with the united states soon projected to be the top oil producer in the world. so before these big oil companies get even more drilling on public lands, taxpayer lands -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: so, mr. speaker, before these big oil companies get even more drilling rights on public taxpayer lands, they should give up these unneeded subsidies. otherwise, this is another giveaway to big oil. it expands drilling on public lands at the expense of public uses like hunting, fishing and recreation. it also goes far beyond the reforms for tribal

self-determination in energy development. it limits community input on projects that may affect the environment and it bars the door to justice for claims from victims of environmental disasters caused by energy development projects on indian lands. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. please remove your conversations from the house floor. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. kirkpatrick: this bill has real threats to our tribes, so we need to amend h.r. 1965 to remedy this and we need a fair return for taxpayers. this amendment is a way to lower the deficit, so it is a win-win for taxpayers. i urge my colleagues across the about o care so much our tribes to vote no -- excuse me -- to vote to close this massive tax loophole and

giveaway. i urge my colleagues across the side of the aisle to side with the american people, especially the native american people, instead of big oil and support this amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise too to claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the motion? mr. hastings: yes, i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you. mr. speaker, first, when we talk about taxes on energy, what we are talking about is raising taxes on the american people and the goods that they would buy because the cost of energy would rise because of that. so that's the first point to the gentlelady's argument. this motion to recommit is nothing more than raising taxes on energy in this country. second point, i find it absolutely ironic that here we are with another i would say political amendment, supposedly dealing with our native

american friends. all the time that my friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge, they never brought up anything in energy policy that would secure the rights in indian country for them to take advantage of their own land. we have a title in this bill, title 5, allows american indians to develop their lands as they see fit with american energy. this motion to recommit is wrong. vote no. vote for the underlying bill. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he noes have it. mrs. kirkpatrick: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule

20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this ote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 189. the nays are 232. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 192. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and include remarks extraneous material on h.r. 2728. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 20, 2013, at 11:51 a.m. that the senate passed with amendment h.r. 3304.

that the senate passed senate 381. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 419 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2728. the chair appoints the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 2728 which the clerk will report bide title. the clerk: to recognize states authority to wreck late oil and gas operations and promote american energy security, development, and job creation. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall be confined

to the bill and amendments specified in section 2 of house resolution 419. shall not exceed one hour with 40 minutes equally twided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on science, space, and technology. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings. . mr. hastings: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: the obama administration is once again attempting to block new energy production. keeping energy prices high and hurting middle-class families. the department of interior is proposing new regulations on the practice of hydraulic fracturing on federal and tribal lands. these regulations, once implemented next year, would in

all likelihood add new layers of red tape and lower energy production even further on federal land. for over two years, the natural resources committee has conducted extensive oversight of the obama administration's proposed regulations. we've held multiple hearings across the country and have heard from energy experts, tribal leaders and state officials who have all had the same message, that these are bad regulations that will potentially destroy jobs and stifle american energy production. according to one study, these new federal regulations would cost nearly $350 million annually. as a consequence, the 1.7 million jobs that is currently supported by shale oil and natural gas production, a number i might add, mr. chairman, that's expected to increase to 2.5 million by 2030, these jobs will be put in

jeopardy. these duplicate efforts already being carried out by states across the country. hydraulic fracturing has been safely and effectively regulated by sfates for decades -- states for decades. so the obama administration's proposed regulations are unnecessary, they're redundant and they simply waste precious time and money, duplicating at is already being done successfully. that's why two of our colleagues from texas, mr. flores and mr. cuellar, introduced the bipartisan h.r. 2628, the protecting states' rights to promote american energy security act, before us today. this bill prohibits the interior department from enforcing duplicative hydraulic fracturing regulations in any state that already has regulations or will adopt regulations in the future and recognizes states' authority to regulate this type of activity. the bill acknowledges as states

are doing a good job and an effective job regulating this activity. and ironically, mr. chairman, officials from the obama administration itself have admitted that there has not been one known case of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. the reason i mention this, mr. chairman, is because groundwater contamination is the argument most frequently used against this process. the bill also recognizes that states are able to carefully craft regulations to meet the unique geological and hydrological needs of their states. a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure, like this administration is trying to impose, will not work and is certainly not the answer. but i want to be very clear. this bill does not prevent the federal government from implementing baseline standards in states where none exist. this bill simply prevents the federal government from wasting time, money and resources by

imposing duplicative red tape on a process that is widely regarded as being properly regulated by the states. so i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. chairman, i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. holt: and i rise in opposition to this. apparently, mr. chairman, the republican majority believes that the greatest threat that americans face from hydraulic fracturing today is too many regulations. they don't seem to be concerned about the danger opposed to our drinking water supplies or the impacts of industrialization on our rural landscapes or the increased risk of earthquakes from waste water injection or the emissions of methane or other chemicals into the air or the identity of the mystery chemicals being pumped underground, nor the disposal of waste safely. americans are concerned about

these things and so should we be. the house democrats are trying do something about that. my colleagues and i have introduced an entire series of bills designed to address the very real impacts that fracking has on american communities, the breathe act by mr. polis, the shared act by ms. schakowsky, the cleaner act by mr. cartwright, the frsher act by mr. cartwright and the frack act by ms. degette. this is an attempt to protect the air, the water, the land and people know what is being injected under the ground under their homes. but the republicans won't bring any of these bills to the floor and i doubt they will. they think that the threat is too many regulations. this is preposterous, mr. speaker. tell them what the real danger the federal government wants them to know. elevated levels of methane in drinking water, the real danger

is the federal government wants to ensure that the wells are built better so they will not leak methane. mr. chairman, tell the people living next to the huge open pits of waste water that the real danger is the federal government wants to make sure that states have minimum standards. mr. chairman, i'm astonished that the sponsors of this bill and the leadership would even bring the bill to the floor. it will do nothing, absolutely nothing to address any of the concerns that families have legitimately about the impacts of fracking in their communities. and worse than that, the bill will strip existing protections across the entire nation. it would eliminate the ability of the fish and wildlife service and the national park service to operate oil and gas operations on their own land and enforcing wildlife protection regulations under the endangered species act and the migratory treaty act. oh, yes, i know my colleagues will say that's not true. read the bill.

and any number of other laws everywhere across the country. now, i'd like to think these are unintended consequences of a poorly drafted bill, but given past attacks on the endangered species act and such, i think there's reason to suspect that this is an intended consequence. they will say this is about states' rights, but democrats are actually focused on american people's rights, their rights to clean air, their rights to clean water, to be free of hazardous waste, to know what is happening under their very feet. i urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and to bring up legislation that will really deal with the health and safety of americans across the country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the author of this legislation, a member of the natural resources committee, mr. flores. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. flores: mr. speaker, this

will put the people on record in support of the shale energy boom, lower energy prices, which is the result of hydraulic fracturing technology. the shale energy boom meant $1,200 per family and lower -- in lower energy bills. during our low economic recovery, this created the most new jobs, both in energy and manufacturing. states have been effectively regulating fracturing on federal, state and private lands over 50 years and the states oppose the federal government from trying to overrule their expertise. there's no demonstrated need for the federal government to waste taxpayer money by duplicating and complicating states' efforts. the only reason for the federal government to get involved is to placate those who oppose the shale energy revolution and the jobs that's come from it. here are their arguments. first, they say that states might have insufficient regulations. the facts are that states that produce oil and gas have comprehensive rules and

regulations to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is done safely. there are many federal laws that will continue to apply to energy development and this bill will not change those. second, they argue that the federal government should be able to apply any rules and regulations they want on federal lands. for instance, states effectively manage the wildlife and water on federal lands. yet, the environmental concerns surrounding fracturing is water protection and water protection authorities have always been the purview of the states. third, the proponents of federal regulation argue that the administration will not expand the department of interior role to state and to private lands. instead of embracing the booming shale energy production, this administration has directed over 10 federal agencies to look for ways to override state rules in this regard. energy has a key economic input for the future of all americans. h.r. 2728 stops the federal government from more federal regulation, encroachment on state water authority and

potential infringement on state federal and private land. mr. chairman, i want to thank chairman hastings for moving this legislation forward in his committee. i'd like to have 30 seconds. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. flores: i thank chairman hastings for moving this bill to the committee and the bill's co-lead, mr. cuellar. i ask my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2728 and to support the american manufacturing renaissance, lower energy costs and create jobs. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, the ranking -- the senior ranking member of the resources democrats. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. now, here is a -- a group has done an assessment of the

various state regulatory regime. as you can see they very tremendously -- they think that the best is maryland. there are others gathered toward the top, the middle and then way down here at the bottom you have virginia. some states require comprehensive pressure testing of the casing. that's essential, particularly if you're going through the water table to get to the gas. you know, if you get the leaks, then you destroy the water table. some states don't require that. some states require that you contain the fluids that come back up, the waste products layden with toxic materials, not only from the fluids but from the ground itself. other states allow it to be an open pit. some states require disclosure of the chemicals that are used. how can you say there are no contamination when there are contaminated wells in many places across the u.s., some of it has to deal with baseline contamination with arsenic or other things? if you don't know what they're sticking into the ground near

their well or water table, you can't track what it is, you know, that was a baseline before and/or what is pollution that has resulted. we don't know that so why not require disclosure of the chemicals? i mean, you know, we're having a gold rush right now for fracking. it's not exactly like this is going to have an impact if we put in place a reasonable floor of federal regulations. one one thing in this industry, one well that blows out in a large aquifer or some other disaster and this whole thing is going to come grinding to a halt and then you're going to see a pushback for regulations. quite frankly, i don't think that the regulations being proposed by this administration is being stringent enough. they are probably above maybe some of these people at the bottom but low some of the best performing states. why should it be different state to state to state? what is it? do we want to protect the

above-ground resources and not have open pits? well, under this bill, if you have an open pit, it's on a flyway, migratory bird land there and die quickly. the federal government can't do anything about it. and that state allows open pits, can't do anything about that. that's up to that state and that's a fact. a number of states allow open pits. we should have a regulatory regime where the federal government, on its lands, which belong to all the people of the united states, sets a reasonable floor for regulations. if a state like maryland wants to go above good solid regulation, well, then good. but if someone is a bad actor and they want to drag it down, they want to have open pits, they don't want to test the casing, they don't want to do other things that are absolutely essential to protect resources, then they can do that. on federal lands? you know, it's bad enough they're allowing people to do it on private lands. do it on their state lands. these are federal lands. we are going to require a

higher bar to protect the public, to protect the environment, to protect these precious resources. and do this responsibly. with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. hastings: if the gentleman will yield before his time is up? mr. defazio: i just yielded back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to ask the speaker's ranking member of the resources committee if he could tell me who did that study and i yield to the gentleman 15 seconds if he can tell me who did that study. i'll yield to the gentleman. mr. defazio: it's a group kind of like your study that says it will cost $350 million -- mr. hastings: what was the name again? mr. defazio: advocacy group. mr. hastings: i just wanted to hear the name. what is the name? mr. defazio: resources for the future. mr. hastings: resources for the future. ok. i thank the gentleman for responding. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the chairman of

the subcommittee that dealt with this legislation, the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 2728 which came through the subcommittee i chair and which i am pleased to co-sponsor. this bipartisan legislation requires the department of the interior to defer to state regulations regarding hydraulic fracturing on federal lands within the states. these proposed federal regulations will lead to more bureaucratic red tape that will further discourage energy producers from developing on federal land. the time period for approving a simple application for permit to drill has only increased under president obama. an energy producer can wait for nearly a year for a permit to be approved on federal land while in my home state of colorado it's only an average f 27 days. the regulations proposed by the administration will add a new layer of regulations to the

already cumbersome process. it will increase the cost of producing energy and doesn't help working families. the proposed federal regulations ignore the extensive work done by the states to regulate hydraulic fracturing within their borders. our committee has heard from numerous witnesses from utah, wyoming, colorado and other state who was testified to the extensive process these states went through to draft their regulations, regulations that are very successful. no one can show where states are dropping the ball. my home state of colorado has been safely using try -- hydraulic fracturing for over ho years and has the toughest disclosure rules in the nation. even our democratic governor, to his credit, believeses the state's responsibility to regulate the industry. the states know their own geology and water better than bureaucrats in washington do this bill will eliminate federal regulations that are unnecessary, burdensome, and expensive. please support h.r. 2728.

thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green a member of the energy and commerce committee and someone who is as expert as anyone in this chamber on oil and gas industry and regulations. mr. green: i thank the gentleman. sometimes i feel awkward listening to my league's statements, i'm glad that report showed texas is one of the tougher states that regulate hydraulic fracturing. the state of texas and hide ralic fracking has been used if years. it's made the idea of energy independence in the united states almost a reality. across the united states the development of natural gas continues to power our economic engine and is the foundation of our manufacturing renaissance. thus far, states have done a

great job of regulating hydraulic fracture option state and private lands. in texas the railroad commission set a variety of standards that protect the environment and oy allow for development of this vital natural resources. i'm a firm believer in property right, whoever owns the property should be able to regulate the land. i would not support the federal government regulating on state or private lands. more importantly, i can't support legislation that would prevent the federal government from regulating federal lands. unfortunately, that's what this bill is asking taos do i understand and support the idea to promote our natural resources in the most economical way possible with as lit relled tape as possible. i know the significant advantage of the shale gas boom has provided our petrochemical industry. let's make sure the department of the interior does their job and not have to transfer oversight of federal lands to

state land. we need the department of the interior to allow resource development under federal law and i encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill and hopefully we'll bring up a bill that will make the department of the interior actually let us produce on our federal lands. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- the chair: the gentleman from texas yield back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield 30 seconds to the sponsor of the legislation, mr. flores. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. -- mr. flores: i'm disappointed in my good friend from texas' comments especially as there are a good number of jobs that come from natural gas. my friend from texas undoubtedly knows the federal government takes 10 times as long to issue a permit as the state of texas for energy activities. i wouldn't want to have the federal government add another layer of complexity to that. we're not plowing new ground with my bill. the federal government defers to the states on the management

of wildlife and water on federal lands. i yield back. -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cuellar: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 2728 with my good friend bill flores and of course our chairman. the u.s. has become the world's argest producer of natural gas . the transformation of our energy production has regenerated a middle class by reviving poor american industries an bringing the blue collar jobs back to u.s. soil. in light of this new american energy revolution we must ensure that we have a smarter and more focused approach to energy regulation. this legislation will prevent the interior adopt from -- department from enforcing

federal rules related to hydraulic fracturing in states like my home state of texas and the railroad commission in my home state this legislation is not about more or less regulation. this bill helps our federal government work in a smarter and more cost effective manner. we need to enable states to regulate their own lands because they know it better and not try to create a federal one size fits all approach this bill will untangle redundant regulation and states have their own regulations that address well design lork case, water quality, emissions, wildlife protection and health and safety. port sent the eagle shale in my state. counties.formed the

i also worked at the state for many years as a legislator and i understand the rail red commission and i understand they do a good job. therefore in our state, the state of texas, has passed regulations by working directly without communities -- with our communities work our industry, and leads the state in informing all texason what is materials are used in the fracking activity. our state -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: our state empowers them to tchont energy growth that we have and with that i thank the chairman, mr. bill lores and also the members here, mr. holt, to allow me to

speak. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm grate to feel my dear friend bill flores and to doc hastings, chairman of our committee, appreciate so much henry cuellar's comments. the truth is we have been working on this for a long time and mr. flores has gotten it here, this is fantastic, because we need jobs in america. we need more of our own energy in america. and this bill helps us do that. i've gotten into discussion with one of our colleagues across the aisle who is now down in the senate and i brought this up to him in previous years. look, if a state has a regulatory body addressing the issue, has cleaner air, cleaner water, is doing the job, then let them do it. let's don't add another layer of bureaucracy that takes away

jobs. it slows the economy and i am very grateful that it looks like we're going to pass a bill that creates jobs instead of these job-ending things that have been happening down the hall and down pennsylvania avenue. so i applaud my colleagues. i applaud my friends that support this bill. this is going to help america. thanks so much, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wash is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another member of the committee, the gentleman from montana, mr. daines. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. daines: i rise in support of h.r. 2728, the propecting -- protecting states rights to promote energy security act. hydraulic fracturing has been important to the production of our rich montana oil. it's key not only to our state's economy but also to unlocking a valuable source of revenue for the federal

government and our state. this helps fund our schools, it helps fund our teachers and our infrastructure in montana. montana has smart environmentally sensitive regulations of this process already in place. like most montanans, i love to hike. i love to hunt. i love to fish. we are the safeguards of the environment in montana. we do not need bureaucrats back in washington telling us how to protect our lands in montana. yet the obama administration has put more senseless barriers in place by stiffening the federal restraint and red tape on this process. do you realize that montana indian tribes face over 50% un employment? this rule could deny our native americans the infence that energy development on their lands can make possible. h.r. 2728 would ensure the federal government does not get in the way of responsible energy development on tribal land and throughout montana.

washington, d.c. needs to look more like montana, not the other way around. the people of montana and our country need a responsible energy plan that protects our environment and creates a better future for our kids and that means jobs and that means lower energy prices. i urge passage of h.r. 2728 and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield to a former member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, natural gas is revitalizing american industries. it's revitalizing the middle class. that natural gas is being produced because we do a

process called hydraulic fracturing. my background is in oil and gas, i've seen the process my whole life. i've seen new technological innovations that keep us safe, keep the process sound, protect the well bores and protect the water system of who would be against a process that is rebuilding american industries? that is rebuilding the job base of this country? sand sells wouldn't seem to have anything to do with this yet it's soaring in this country. new mexico has safe drinking water and plentiful jobs and american consumers have lower costs of living, all because of a process. new mexico knows how to regulate its industry.

do not -- new mexico knows how to regulate its own industry. do not force us to live by some cookie cutter mold that has produced an affordable care act that's killing jobs across the country. give us our freedom and we'll protect the environment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: it's traditional and appropriate in this country that matters dealing with health and safety, clean water and clean air, are handled at the interstate level, at the federal level. but this legislation would remove all sorts of regulations. best practices that are designed to minimize the environmental impact of oil and gas legislation for bureau of

land management practices, they'd be gone. gets rid of requirements to protect sacred sites and historic properties. it would mean that -- it would throw out the regulation that prevents occupancy within a quarter mile of designated fisheries. it would remove the regulation that you can't do any of these activities in the floodplain of the yellowstone river. and on and on. my colleague a moment ago talked about the booming industry in chemicals because of fracking. yes, that's -- that brings up an interesting point about the difference in state regulations. we would hope that you could have -- that anybody in the drilling area would have access to the chemicals that are being injected into these wells under their very feet, underer that

homes. but if you look at what some states allow now, they allow chemicals that are confidential. proprietary. undisclosed. to be used. and they number in the dozens. resins, turpines and turpinoids. these are all items that are held confidentially. proprietary. and under this legislation that we're considering, a state could make sure that they are not disclosed. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania a state that is booming because

of this activity, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. the chair: the gentleman is ecognized for one minute. mr. perry: i want to thank them for this opportunity and just like to remind everybody, although they might say, why do they do this, why is the rhetoric important? if we don't counter the alternate reality that the other side touts, people think that is reality. i'd remind everybody in the room that the federal government and every state government has said not one, not one, zero, there will be zero accidents regarding hydraulic fracking, not one. people in washington have never been to warren in pennsylvania. they don't know anything about these places or what happens here, yet they want to regulate us. the people that live there are the ones that are working there and they have the greatest stake in protecting the environment. let me tell you what it's done for pennsylvania. $750 million in road and

infrastructure improvement since 2008, provided by the gas industry. average income of up $1,200 of it. $1.8 billion in tax revenue due to responsible shale development. mr. hastings: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 second. mr. perry: 96% of the employment comes out of the appalachian basin. $650 per savings per household per year because of it and 232,000 associated jobs with an average pay of $83,305 a year. mr. speaker, mr. chairman, there's a list of folks that -- of agencies that these people must comply with every single portion of this. i am going to run out of time going through them. the department of environmental protection, the u.s. army corps of engineers, the u.s. environmental protection agency, the county conservation -- mr. hastings: i yield the

gentleman 15 seconds. mr. perry: department of conservation and natural resources, pennsylvania fish and folk commission, pennsylvania game commission, pennsylvania department of transportation, occupational health and safety administration, delaware river basin commission, pennsylvania historic museum commission, finally, mr. speaker, all those chemicals that were noted on every jobsite are listed on a materials safety data sheet required by law. i'd yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues say there have been no cases of contamination from the fracking itself. well, what about leakage from poorly constructed wells? what about leakage from unlined pits? are they prepared to claim there's never been water contamination because of this? because that's what the bureau of land management regulations and rules get at. well construction, waste water management, the threats to

drinking water in neighboring communities and this legislation would gut -- would remove any possibility of such rules. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i'm very pleased to yield one minute to another member from another energy-producing state, the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, is recognized for one minute. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we're producing more energy now than we've ever produced and it's thanks to new technologies like hydraulic fracking that's making that happen. in the district i represent has created over 400,000 jobs and roughly $2.6 billion in salaries in a 13-county area. it's not isolated, the benefits, from this. shale has brought back rail, plastic, sand and manufacturing. and the average u.s. household's energy costs have gone way down. i've seen numbers as high as $1,200 less for energy bills.

this technology isn't new. we've been using this in texas over 60 years. it's regulated by the texas railroad commission, and they do a great job. all these people with all the scare tactics sometimes forget that when hydraulic fracking is done, it's done a mile below or two miles below the water table. it's safe, it's well regulated by the state, it's good for the economy, it's turning the balance of trade, it's saving us money on energy and it's creating an economic revival in this country. we got to let states regulate it. i urge support of this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, let me inquire of my friend from new jersey if he's prepared to close. we had some further requests, but i don't see them and sometimes they don't get their time when they come down here. i ask if he's prepared to close. mr. holt: i say to the gentleman from washington, we are in the same situation. i was combecting a few other

speakers -- expecting a few other speakers. not seeing them, i'd be prepared to close. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. chairman, here is a partial list of the federal laws, rules and regulations that could not be enforced were this bill to become law. the endangered species act, the migratory bird treaty act, the national park service unit. the oil and gas operations in national wildlife refuges, the casing and cementing regulations. such as should have been applied in the deepwater horizon case. the waste water management regulation, the plugging and abanned on thement regulation. in other words, when pits or wells are abandoned, the best management practices for oil and gas drilling on public lands.

the timing limits of when operations could be conducted with lease disruption to wildlife. the protections for sacred sites, historic trails, fisheries, wetlands. it would block the bureau of land management fracking rules. but it would strip agencies on federal lands of the authority to enforce almost every regulation on the books because any state that has any regulation that affects these activities means that none of these regulations could apply. they'd all be superseded by the state regulation. that's what the bill says. and as for whether there is any damage done, i would point to my friend, this picture. maybe you have little trouble seeing it. but essentially it shows burning tap water. no, this had is not a staged picture. this happened in a residence.

this is methane flaming. because the water is full of methane. now, i know my colleagues will say, oh, but that's not because of fracking. there must be some other reason. there must be. well, they haven't found it. they have blamed it on all sorts of other things, but it happens where the fracking is occurring. so if it's a case where the practice has gotten ahead of the science. the practice has gotten ahead of our regulations, has gotten ahead of our understanding. and the idea to reduce regulations and understanding o that we could do it faster is preposterous. this is not the way you protect public health. this is not the way you protect public safety. it is not the way you stimulate the economy. it is false to proceed in disregard for the protection of

the environment. and so with that, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2728. mr. hastings: if the gentleman will yield real quickly? mr. holt: i'd be happy to yield for a question. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, might i inquire how much time the gentleman from new jersey has left? the chair: the gentleman has four minutes left. mr. hastings: i'd advise the gentleman to reserve his time so he can have time -- mr. holt: i appreciate the advice. it's possible that some of my speakers will arrive. and i do urge -- i urge that we vote no but i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm very pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader from a state who would like to do more offshore, even though we're talking onshore, but i

yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor, is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from washington. i rise today in support of the protecting states' rights to promote american energy security act. over the last 10 years, america has been experiencing a shale energy boom, and because of new technology in hydraulic fracturing, the development of energy resources has been environmentally friendly. while the technology that has made this boom possible is truly impressive, i want to take a moment and focus on the impact this boom is having on hardworking middle-class families. many of these families are living paycheck to paycheck. many have gone years without a meaningful raise. but powering their lights or heating their homes is not an optional expense. an unexpected rise in a monthly utility bill means less money for new school clothes, the college savings account or even

a night out at the movie. that is why it's so important that we pursue policies that lower energy costs. hydraulic fracturing is one such policy. a recent study found that absent hydraulic fracturing, a family's home energy bills and other costs for goods and services would have been $1,200 higher last year. the study concludes that continued production of our domestic energy resources could increase disposable household income principally by lowering costs by $800 over the next two years. this is the type of relief american families deserve. but lower energy costs for working families is not the only benefit of hydraulic fracturing. the same study shows that the natural gas and shale oil industry contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 alone.

going forward, it's predicted to add a total of 2 1/2 million jobs by 2015. these are good, well-paying jobs right here in america. and for those who've been struggling to find work for months or in some cases years, this kind of advancement in energy technology could allow these folks to find work, get back on their feet and provide for their families. it is no coincidence that areas of our country with active domestic energy production from hydraulic fracturing are experiencing lower levels of unemployment. these benefits to working families are now under threat. they are under threat from newly proposed federal regulations by this administration that would cost our economy jobs, keep energy bills from falling and hinder our cause to become more energy secure. state governments and local regulators have been very

effective with implementing environmentally sound regulations to meet the specific geological requirements for their states for over 60 years. this act will keep the federal government from imposing redundant regulations and needless red tape that will only raise the monthly utility bills for millions of american families and cost americans jobs. the states and local regulators should be allowed to do this job without federal interference, and i saw firsthand when i accompanied my colleague from north dakota, kevin cramer, in williston, well heads that are being drilled. and the last thing they need in that state and that area are the federal regulators coming in to tell them how to drill a well. this bill is an opportunity for the house to act in a bipartisan manner and show our constituents that we're serious about creating jobs, we're serious about easing the burden of high energy costs and serious about strengthening our

energy security. i want to thank all those involved and the chairman of the committee, as well as congressman bill flores, and the rest of chairman hastings' natural resources committee for their hard work and dedication for this issue. i want to thank chairman lamar smith and the science committee for their conthink bution -- contribution to this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: groundhog day, mr. chairman. aid ask my friend -- i'd ask my friend, now i have no more that i can foresee at all and so i'm prepared to close. if the gentleman doesn't repeat his last statement. mr. holt: well, then, i'll take just a moment -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i'll reserve. mr. holt: when i showed the picture of the burning tap water, i saw expressions of

incredituality from those on the other side of the aisle. surely that can't be true or if it is true it's not because of fracking. a duke university study found that methane contamination was in 115 of 141 shallow residential drinking wells that they studied. six times higher than in wells greater than a mile from the fracking operation. now, it's hard to tell when you're deep in the ground where that methane is leaking and what other chemicals, undisclosed chemicals are eaking with that methane. but there's something here that should be regulated and this legislation would prevent such regulations. i urge a no vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: how much time do

i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. hastings: i yield myself the balance of my time. the underlying bill has been menged several times, it's about american jobs and american energy security. just last week, the international energy agency released its world energy outlook and in that report they predicted that the u.s. would surpass saudi arabia and become the top oil producer in the world in only two more years. now this is great news for the economy, great news for american workers, great news for potential energy prices, and mr. chairman, it's great news for our national security this recent boom in energy production would not be possible without the new technological advances of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. let me give you an example. in the year 2000, shale gas, which is the prime marea you go after with hydraulic

fracturing, provided just 1% of our nation's natural gas supply. today, it's 25%. and that number will only continue to grow. now while the white house is quick to take credit for this uptick in energy production the truth is this increase is happening in spite of this administration's policies and not because of them. because what has been well documented, all of the increase in energy production is happening on state and private lands, not on federal lands. currently 93% of shale oil wells are located on private and state land and only 7% on federal lands. so that simply means there's a great potential on federal lands that are currently being ignored because of the regulatory hoops. and i suggest that if the department of the interior goes rough with their regulations on fracking that would be

duplicative of those states, it would only keep that 7% where it is rather than increasing. it seems to me from the standpoint of policy for our country, it's best to be as energy secure as we can possibly be because that means that we are secure from a national security standpoint. finally and certainly not least that means that american jobs, good-paying american jobs are creating energy for he american consumer. that's what this bill is all about. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack.

the gentleman from texas, mr. smith is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. myth: each week there's more good news about the benefits of the energy revolution under way across america. whether it's the manufacturing renaissance spurred by affordable natural gas or the new opportunities for good-paying energy jobs, the benefits of the shale revolution can hardly be overstated. for that reason, i'm happy to support h.r. 2728, a bill that seeks to prevent redundant federal regulation where states already have environmental protections in place. h. reform 2728 also incorporates legislation reported by the science committee, the hydraulic fracturing study improvement act. title 2 of this legislation

holds the e.p.a. accountable by requiring it to base its studies on the facts instead of worst case scenarios that exist only in the e.p.a.'s imagineation. in its zeal to regulate, they've rouged to link contamination to hydraulic fracturing. it's made the claim in three high profile cases only to be forced to retract the statements after the facts come out. the e.p. amp's track record doesn't instill confidence. the science committee has conducted numerous oversight hearings on e.p.a. research. these efforts have revealed that the e.p.a.'s approach is to try to find problems without considering whether these problems would actually occur in the real world. tite 28 correct this is by requiring a real world look at risk that gives an honest evaluation of probability. this will prevent the misuse of the e.p.a. studies by those

looking for an excuse to -- excuse to scare people. tite 28 of this legislation will enhance our ability to ensure continued safe and responsible production of america's natural energy resources. mr. speaker, i'll reserve the alance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from oregon is ecognized. ms. bonamici: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. bonamici: title 2 of this act is a bill passed by the science committee, the e.p.a. hydraulic fracturing study improvement act. this is a piece of legislation that should not have been passed out of the committee. first, tite 28 contains provisions that designate the study as a highly influential scientific assessment and require e.p.a. to follow its standard preer reviewed

protocols for this assessment. this lack wadge is unnecessary because the e.p.a. considers the study to be a highly influential scientific assessment. secondly, this bill will affect the e.p.a.'s ability to carry out its important work. it may force the e.p.a. to delay production on their final report of the effect of hydraulic fracturing on water quality. it would delay an important report that's based on a study the e.p.a. initiated more than three years ago. the study was reviewed and approved the the independent science advisory board. the science advisory board found the study to be appropriate and comprehensive. the american public should not have to wait any longer before receiving a scientific analysis of whether their water is afingted by hydraulic fracturing. what i found troubling is the science committee never got information from the science advisory board which validated the study regarding its opinion about the bill, nor did we get

comments from the e.p.a. or other experts. in fact the bill never had a hearing. this bill effectively attempts to micromanage the e.p.a. without a factual basis for doing system of the bill requires an e.p.a. to do an ad hoc analysis by requiring them to quantitatively estimate the probabilities and impact os drinking watter from hydraulic fracturing. however, this was never a study that was set up to determine the risk effects of hydraulic fracturing. it was nonet examine the sibes to determine if hydraulic fracturing operation had any effect on groundwater. by requiring an ad hoc risk analysis on a study not designed to acquire the data necessary to do a risk analysis, the e.p.a. would be forced to try to fit a round peg in a square hole. what remains truly unclear is why this language is included when it is so unnecessary. if the current study were to find a link between fracking

and groundwater contamination, then a full risk assessment will be required before the agency can establish any regulations to address the issue. what this bill is doing here is requiring a risk analysis simultaneously and as part of the very study that is meant to determine if there is a need for risk analysis. these efforts to become involved in directing the specific details of scientific process are very troubling. it appears the bill is setting up the e.p.a. to fail. if the e.p.a. doesn't complete the study by the deadline, they failed. if the e.p.a. completes the study but the ad hoc risk analysis is not as detailed as the bill's proponents expect they will have also failed. more importantly their ad hoc risk analysis may taint the tai ta mind that analysis. it is not in the public interest to have this study delayed any longer. let the e.p.a. complete their study. if the science shows the effects connecting hydraulic

fracturing with contaminated groundwater, we'll let the peamplet's long-established process of doing a risk assessment after such a study be followed. it's also difficult to understand how the proponents of the bill reconcile title two and title one. title one clearly attempts to prevent them having oversight inspection or responsibility for regulations. if the states are supposed to regulate, don't they need the science to support the regulations? this is designed to be the science to provide the information they need to make decisions about thesques of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater. if you support hydraulic fracturing, delaying this study will not speed up the process of opening up new air dwhreefs country to hydraulic fracturing. title 2 will only delay an

important scientific study and ironically may delay the development of new shale fields throughout the united states. i urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: on the way to yielding to the gentlewoman from wyoming, i want to point out that the science bill contained in the underlying bill passed by voice vote in the science committee. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from wyoming, chairman of the energy subcommittee on the science committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the right of state governments to regulate hydraulic fracturing. i'm pleased that the bill before us also includes chairman lamar smith's bill to ensure the integrity of federal research into hydraulic fracturing. mr. speaker, the e.p.a. botched its study linking hydraulic

fracturing to groundwater contamination in a 2011 report on groundwater in pavel, wyoming. the report was -- in pavilion, wyoming. the report was so flawed they were forced to disavow their initial conclusion that hydraulic fracturing caused contamination in pavilion. their phony conclusions were widely reported, altered national public perception and the e.p.a. did not back away until the damage was already done. two years later, the e.p.a. turned the study over to the state of wyoming where it will undergo the scientific rigor it deserves. mr. speaker, the question today is not whether hydraulic fracturing should be regulated. it should. but we shouldn't allow the federal government to regulate when states are already stepping up to the plate. my home state of wyoming has

been a leader in hydraulic fracturing regulations. so much so that then bureau of land management holds up wyoming as a model. what works for wyoming might not work for texas. or pennsylvania. the hydrology and geology are different. any state that accums -- assumes the responsibility of regulating hydraulic fracturing should be allowed to do so. governors, legislators and state regulators care about the well being of the citizens in their state. more than that, who better to regulate the practice than those who live near the wells who drink the groundwater, and who know the local geology, hydrology, and industries better than anyone. urge my colleagues to support 2728. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon is recognized.

ms. bonamici: i yield myself such time as i may consume. to clarify, there was opposition to the legislation in the science committee, however there was no recorded vote and i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. collins a member of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. collins: thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i want to speak out about the importance of the e.p.a. thigh hie drawlic fracturing study improvement act. legislation that makes up title 2 of the act. e.p.a. is currently conducting a multiyear study on the relation between hydraulic fracturing or fracking and ground wourt. -- groundwater. this will greatly improve the sthreefl e.p.a.'s study by increasing transparency and requiring toyota include an objective risk asaysment. hydraulic fracturing has been studied over and over again. my home state of new york is a

prime example of how studies can stall job creation. in new york, a moretorium on hydraulic fracturing was enacted in 2008. now, five years later, that moratorium is still in place because the new york department of environmental conservation is conducting a study on the environmental impact of fracking. yet no details of the study have been reveal and a date of completion has yet to be announced. now the e.p.a. is trying to do a similar study which will only further delay a practice that many states currently allow and are benefiting from. fracking represents one of the greatest opportunities for strengthening our nation's energy security and spurring economic growth. if new york would allow fracking, 520 shale gas wells would sustain over 60,000 new and needed jobs. this legislation will increase transparency and accuracy in

how the e.p.a. reports on the study of hydraulic fracturing and will get rid of the need for duplicative studies like the one being done in new york. additionally the risk assessment requirement will turn the study into a useful tool for both scientists and decisionmakers. by providing decisionmakers with the data and information they need in order to become comfortable with fracking, we can help create jobs and further our nation's energy independence. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from oregon is ecognized. ms. bonamici: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we're prepared to close so we preserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: in 2010, the appropriation act required the e.p.a. to perform a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and ground water contamination. the final report is currently expected to be released in

2016. e.p.a.'s preposed study plan was approved by the e.p.a. science advisory board. the science advisory board determined that e.p.a.'s approach was generally appropriate and comprehensive. further, the science advisory board recommended that some analysis of risk be considered in the study, but a full risk assessment could add another five years to seven years of the release date. it mischaracterized the e.p.a. study plan as flawed for failing to include a comprehensive risk assessment. that position is not consistent with the conclusions of the highly qualified scientists, researchers and industry representatives who are members of the e.p.a.'s independent science advisory board. and importantly, title 2 could clay the release of this very -- delay the release of this very important study. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon yields back. the gentleman from texas.

mr. smith: mr. speaker, we actually have two more individuals who will speak on this side so if the gentlewoman from oregon wants to claim some time after our next speaker, she would be welcomed to do so. meanwhile, i'll yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, who is a distinguished member of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. weber, is recognized for two minutes. mr. weber: thank you, chairman smith. mr. speaker, texas has produced half of all new jobs in america in recent years. even "time" magazine notices how things are good in texas. they call it maybe the future of america. the creation of many of these jobs in texas would not be possible without hydraulic fracturing. fracking is reaching previously untapped shale natural gas deposits thereby increasing our nation's natural gas supply and lowering the cost of energy for all americans.

seemingly unaware of the economic benefits of america's energy renaissance, the obama administration has moved to regulate fracking on federal lands and to spend millions of dollars in studies at the e.p.a. despite its safe usage in texas for over 60 years. the e.p.a. is 0-3 when it comes to hydraulic fracturing alarmism. there are allegations of groundwater contaminations in texas, wyoming and pennsylvania, all struck out after proper review and analysis. that's why i support h.r. 2728, because it will leave the regulation of fracking up to the states. we care about our states more than any bureaucrat up here in washington, d.c., and one size doesn't fit all. texas was environmentally friendly before being green was cool. this legislation also holds the e.p.a. accountable for taxpayers by requiring that their multimillion dollar study of hydraulic fracturing -- here's a novel thought --

follow basic and widely agreed upon scientific procedures. we've got it right in texas. that ought to leave us a-- they ought to leave us alone and get this economy moving again. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentlewoman from oregon. ms. bonamici: i thank the chairman, mr. smith from texas, for his offer to reclaim. i will reclaim and reserve any remaining time. thank you. the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman reclaims and reserves. mr. smith: actually, mr. speaker, we are now on our last speaker and so if the gentlewoman wants to yield ack, we can proceed. the chair: the gentlelady from oregon. ms. bonamici: may i inquire whether there are other speakers? mr. smith: we are on our last speaker now to respond to the gentleman from oregon. ms. bonamici: i yield back, thank you. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. mr. smith: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from north dakota, mr. cramer, also of the science committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: i thank the hairman. constituents sent me to washington from destroying the very economy. in carrying out that charge, i get the opportunity to tell the north dakota success story in washington with the hopes that we can duplicate it around our country. a major part of telling that story, of course, is talking about the successful regulation of hydraulic fracturing in our state. glen helms, the testified in the natural resources committee on this very issue saying that our oil and gas rules are reviewed at least every two years through a public comment process. north dakota regulations already address flowback disposal, chemical disclosure, well construction and well bore

pressure testing and have reduced well bore failures from six per year to zero. from six to zero. that's success at the state level. in addition to the fact that any federal high droughtic fracturing rule will be duplicative, the rules will be impractical to address across the nation where geological ircumstances are a wide array. north dakota have gone from number 38 to number six in economic success. while the b.l.m. is developing a hydraulic fracturing rules, the e.p.a. is conducting studies on the potential of impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. a stated goal of the e.p.a. study is to ask the question, quote, what are possible impacts? they retate, possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. the independent advisors have raised questions with one member stating, quote, there is no quantitative risk assessment

included in e.p.a.'s research effort. despite, mr. chairman, no cases of hydraulic fracturing impacting drinking water resource, title 2 does not prevent the e.p.a. from conducting such studies but ensures any such study done is held to the highest standards. i urge passage so the federal government cannot impose its mediocrity on states' success. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota's highly has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources, printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-27 is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be considered for purpose

under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 113-271. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject for amendment and shall not be subject for demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in art b of house report 113-271. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-271 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 419, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed, each will

control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i yield myself, not seeing other speakers here, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: i rise in support of the amendment that i'm introducing, along with mr. peters and mr. polis, to allow the secretary of the interior to regulate methane. now, methane is the second most abundant green house gas emitted in the united states and the oil and gas industry is responsible for about 30% of all methane emissions into the atmosphere. methane is a superpollutant. re than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the atmosphere. now, we know that methane can and sometimes does leak from fracked wells. that's what we see here with the ignited tap water. now, this so-called fugitive methane also contributes to air

pollution itself, as smog which threatens public health by triggering asthma attacks and aggravating conditions with people of bronchitis and emif a sema. methane -- emphasema. at times, this rivals the air quality of bad days in los angeles, areas in pennsylvania. a more climate-friendly energy source, natural gas, which is mostly methane, leaks at every stage of the production. not just in the groundwater and hence into drinking water wells, it does leak and it does affect the earth's climate. and it's true that burning methane releases least carbon dioxide than burning an equivalent amount of coal, but the methane itself is a greenhouse gas and fugitive methane emissions, in excess of only a few percent, removes the

regular tiff advantages of natural gars -- relative advantages of natural gas. aside were issues of climate and health, leaked methane represents lost royalties for the federal government, lost revenue for oil and gas companies. and i know that supporting greater profits for big oil is something that my colleagues should be eager to support. our amendment will help prevent the wasteful leakage of natural gas, will limit avoidable methane emissions and will protect air quality and public health. urge a yes vote on the holt-peters-polis amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the legislation before the house today is designed to eliminate duplicative regulations and allow for increased energy

productions. that's the intent of the legislation. yet, here we are with an amendment that creates a loophole in the bill to allow the government to oppose back door regulations to restrict and block american energy production which of course we know would result in lost job opportunities. the 728 aims to give ate regulations within their borders. i want to say that give. it aims the states prime is i in regulating hydraulic fracturing within their borders. so if a state regulatory body wants to implement emissions regulations, which this it amendment addresses, in conjunction with their other rules and regulations, they are free to implement their own regulations beyond what is already required. nothing in this bill prevents

any state from putting mission -- emission -- at the end of it regulations in place. and further, the secretary has the authority to manage methane emissions from production on federal lands and working collaboratively we have seen significant reduction in the last two years because of that effort. owever, attempting to have regulations through a loophole that will cost american jobs and inhibit energy production, in my mind is simply not the way to go. so this amendment aims to impose controversial and political regulations into a bill that is simply about american energy production, and i urge a no vote. let me just make one other point and i'll probably repeat this again. there's nothing in this bill that prevents a state from regulating emissions within their state which, of course, would take effect of what the

gentleman is trying to do. so with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: thank you, mr. chairman. the whole point of the underlying bill is to make it impossible for the department of the interior, the bureau of land management, the secretary of the interior to impose regulations. it says if the state has any regulations, then the federal egulations don't count. all this amendment would do is on the important issue of fugitive methane, leaked methane, methane that get into the atmosphere by whatever means because of the drilling and fracking, should be limited. and it should be limited for several reasons. it is a potent greenhouse gas and it is lost revenue. so