perlmutter: would that be the problem in dimmock? mr.stein: it could have been drilling but it could have been casing as well. that was natural gas coming into people's homes. as far as the other fluids associated with the industry, it is mostly a surface issue. those are readily taken care of, in most cases. in terms of the flow backwater, it is my understanding that most of the flow back is reused to drill new wells. the quantity of flow back has gotten small. ship it to ohio or something for injection. the industry has developed ways to do that. in pennsylvania, there was a remarkable situation where one of the companies -- and i forget which 1 -- suggested, developed a way to drain: mind's -- to drain coal mines, but there was a state regulation saying you can't get economic advantage out of using a waste products. but the chemical engineers are at work to try to solve an issue so that in the future we won't have to use fresh water. rep. perlmutter: thank you. mr. lomax, i wanted to ask a question but my time is expired. rep. smith:

perlmutter: would that be the problem in dimmock ? mr. holstein: it could have been drilling but it could have been casing as well. that was natural gas coming into people's homes. as far as the other fluids associated with the industry, it is mostly a surface issue. those are readily taken care of, in most cases. in terms of the flow backwater it is my understanding that most of the flow back is reused to drill new wells. the quantity of flow back has gotten small. ship it to ohio or something for injection. the industry has developed ways to do that. in pennsylvania, there was a remarkable situation where one of the companies -- and i forget which 1 -- suggested developed a way to drain: mind's -- to drain coal mines, but there was a state regulation saying you can't get economic advantage out of using a waste products. but the chemical engineers are at work to try to solve an issue so that in the future we won't have to use fresh water. rep. perlmutter: thank you. mr. lomax, i wanted to ask a question but my time is expired. rep. smith

i rise in support of my amendment which i offer along with representatives perlmutter, polis welch tonko matsui and connolly which would cut the increase provided to the fossil energy resource account back to its fiscal year 2015 level and put that money toward the energy efficiency eere account. my amendment presents a question for the congress this evening. are we going to invest in the future of energy or are we going to continue to look backwards. we are certainly an all of the above country when it comes to where we get our energy. however that does not mean we have to be an all of the above country when it comes to how we spend our federal research dollars. for decades we have relied on fossil fuels, fuels that dirty our environment, are fundamentally changing our environment and keep us dependent on foreign sources of energy and are a finite resource. this is not sustainable over the long-term. energy that's clean and renewable is where our future lies. to put this in perspective, this budget proposes to cut the investment in renewable energy by $266 million from last year and inc