. >> i don't any we need a large federal r & d program, although we do need to ensure that hydrofracturing can be done in a way that protecting drinking water and projects other environmental value. >> if you're a scientist, is there a documented case of drinking water from hydrofracturing? >> there is not. >> so 1.2 million -- despite 1.2 million applications, we should be expending money in the federal government for ten agencies to look for a reason to regulate hydrofractures. >> 1.2 million applications, doctor, you admit no documented cases of drinking water contamination. to me it looks like a why would goose chase. >> i think it's very important that we develop hydrofracing to where the american people have confidence in it. >> i'm going to interrupt you for a just a few minutes. do you think it's -- fearmongering press relief from the data from pavilion study and has to go back and collect some more data. do you think that's good science? >> i don't want to defend a particular press release. >> you have to have kchs in a technique that's been used 1.2 million times with no document

as an scientists with 1.2 million applications of hydrofracturing. despite 1.2 million applications with no case of drinking water contamination we should expend monies in the federal government for ten agencies to look for a reason to regulate hydrofracturing. as a scientist, 1.2 million applications, doctor. you admit to documented case of drinking water contamination. that looks like a wild-goose chase, but you might have a different opinion. >> it's important to develop hydrofracking in a way that the american public has confidence in it and can continue to rely on it. i think the danger is -- >> i'm going to interrupt you for a second because i have two more minutes with one question. do you think the scientific integrity whshgs the epa issues a fear-mongering press release about the data from pavilion study and has to go back and admit a few months later to go back and collect more data, do you think that's good science? >> i don't want to defend a particular press release. i didn't see it. >> i didn't suggest it. part of the reason the america

. >> you're a scientist, is there a documented case of contaminated drinking water from hydrofracturing >> there is not. >> 1.2 applications of the hydrofracturing, your testimony is despite 1.2 million applications with no case of drinking water contamination we should be expending money in the federal government for ten agencies to look for a reason to regulate hydrofracturing? science now, 1.2 applications, doctor, you admit no documented case of drinking water contamination. to me that looks like a wild goose chase but he might have a different opinion. >> i think it's important that we develop hydrofracturing in a way that the american public has confidence in it and can continue to rely on. i think the danger is -- >> i'm going to interrupt because i have two more minutes and one more question. do you think it is scientific integrity when the epa issues a press release, fear mongering press release about the data from the study and basically we have to go back and administer a few months later we have to go back and collect more data do you think that is good science? >> i don't w