[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17601-17619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROTECTING STATES' RIGHTS TO PROMOTE AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2728.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2728.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1444


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2728) to recognize States' authority to regulate oil and gas 
operations and promote American energy security, development, and job 
creation, with Mr. Yoder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified 
in section 2 of House Resolution 419 and shall not exceed 1 hour, with 
40 minutes equally divided 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 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration is once again attempting to 
block new energy production, keeping energy prices high and hurting 
middle class families. The Department of the Interior is proposing new 
regulations on the practice of hydraulic fracturing on Federal and 
tribal lands. These regulations, once implemented next year, will in 
all likelihood add new layers of red tape and lower energy production 
even further on Federal land.
  For over 2 years, the Natural Resources Committee has conducted 
extensive oversight of the Obama administration's proposed regulations. 
We have held multiple hearings across the country and have heard from 
energy experts, tribal leaders, and State officials who have all had 
the same message: these are bad regulations that 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 are currently supported by shale oil and natural gas production--a 
number, I might add, Mr. Chairman, that is expected to increase to 2.5 
million by 2015--these jobs would be put in jeopardy. Even worse, these 
proposed regulations duplicate efforts already being carried out by 
States across the country.
  Hydraulic fracturing has been safely and effectively regulated by 
States for decades. So the Obama administration's proposed regulations 
are unnecessary, they are redundant, and they simply waste precious 
time and money duplicating what is already being done successfully.
  That is why two of our colleagues from Texas, Mr. Flores and Mr. 
Cuellar, introduced the bipartisan H.R. 2728, 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 that 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 hydrologic 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.
  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.

[[Page 17602]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to this bill. 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 posed to our drinking water 
supplies or the impacts of industrialization on our rural landscapes or 
the increased risk of earthquakes from wastewater injection or the 
emissions of methane or other noxious 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 to 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 FRESHER Act, also 
by Mr. Cartwright; and the FRAC Act, by Ms. DeGette. These are attempts 
to protect the air, the water, the land, and ensure that people know 
what is being injected into the ground under their homes. The 
Republicans will not bring any of these bills to the floor, and I doubt 
they will because, according to the Republicans, the real threat is too 
many regulations.
  This is preposterous, Mr. Chairman. Tell the people who want to know 
what chemicals are being injected under their homes that the real 
danger is that the Federal Government wants them to know. Tell the 
people who are seeing elevated levels of methane in their drinking 
water that the real danger is that 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 
wastewater that the real danger is the Federal Government wants to make 
sure that States have minimum standards.
  Mr. Chairman, I am 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. Worse 
than that, the bill will strip existing protections in place across the 
entire Nation.
  It would eliminate the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the National Park Service to regulate oil and gas operations on their 
own lands. It would prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service from 
enforcing wildlife protection regulations under the Endangered Species 
Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act--oh, yes, I know my colleagues 
will say, That is not true; read the bill--and any number of other laws 
everywhere across the country.
  Now I would like to think that these are unintended consequences of a 
poorly drafted bill, but given past attacks on the Endangered Species 
Act and such, I think there is reason to suspect that this is an 
intended consequence.
  They will say, This is about states' rights, but Democrats are 
actually focused on the 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.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the author of this 
legislation, who is a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, this bill will put the House on record in 
support of the shale energy boom, more American jobs, and lower energy 
prices, all of which are a direct result of hydraulic fracturing 
technology.
  For the average American family last year, the shale energy boom 
meant $1,200 per family in lower energy bills. During our slow economic 
recovery, it has been the lone bright spot responsible for creating the 
most new jobs, both in energy and in manufacturing.
  States have been effectively regulating fracturing on Federal, State, 
and private lands for over 50 years, and the States oppose the Federal 
Government trying to overrule their expertise. There is no demonstrated 
need for the Federal Government to waste taxpayer money by duplicating 
and complicating State efforts. The only reason for the Federal 
Government to get involved is to placate those who oppose the shale 
energy revolution and the jobs boom that has come from it. I hear the 
arguments:
  First, they will say that States might have insufficient regulations. 
The facts are that all States that produce oil and gas have 
comprehensive rules and regulations to ensure that hydraulic fracturing 
is done safely. Moreover, 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 it wants on Federal land. Well, for 
instance, States already effectively manage the wildlife and the water 
on Federal lands. Yet the environmental concern 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 the Interior rule 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 is a key economic input to a more prosperous future for all 
Americans. H.R. 2728 stops the Federal Government from more Federal 
regulation encroachment on State water authorities and potential 
infringement on State and private lands.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. I thank Chairman Hastings for his assistance in moving 
this legislation through his committee and the bill's co-lead, Mr. 
Cuellar.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2728 and support the 
American manufacturing renaissance, lower energy costs, and American 
jobs.
  Mr. HOLT. I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the senior ranking member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, now here, a group has done an assessment of the various 
State regulatory regimes, and as you can see, they vary 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 is essential, particularly if you are going through the water 
table to get to the gas. 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 laden with toxic materials not only from the fluids 
but from the ground itself. Other States allow it to be in open pits.
  Some States require disclosure of the chemicals that are used. Now 
how can you say there has been no contamination when there are 
contaminated wells in many places across the U.S.? Some of it has to do 
with baseline contamination with arsenic or other things, but if you 
don't know what they are sticking into the ground near your well or 
water table, you can't track what it is 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?

[[Page 17603]]

  We are having a gold rush right now for fracking. It is not exactly 
like this is going to have an impact if we put in place a reasonable 
floor of Federal regulations. One Macondo, just one Macondo 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 are going to see a strong push-back for strong regulations.
  Quite frankly, I don't think that the regulations being proposed by 
this administration are stringent enough for a floor. They are probably 
above maybe some of these people on the bottom, but they are way below 
some of the best-performing States here.
  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 is on a flyway, 
migratory birds land there and die quickly, the Federal Government 
can't do anything about it. If that State allows open pits, we can't do 
anything about that. That is up to that State, and that is 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 regulations, well, then, good. But if someone else is 
a bad actor, and they want to drag it down, and 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?
  It is bad enough that they are allowing people to do it on private 
lands and do it on their State lands. But these are Federal lands. We 
are going to require and should require a higher bar to protect the 
public, to protect the environment, to protect these precious resources 
and do this responsibly.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
to ask the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee if he could tell me who did that study.
  I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for him 
to tell me who did that study.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for the question.
  It was done by an advocacy group called Resources for the Future. It 
is kind of like your study that says it will cost $350 million, which 
was done by industry. It is an advocacy group. You have an industry 
advocacy group. We have an environmental advocacy group.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for responding.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Lamborn), chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this 
legislation.
  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 
cosponsor.
  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 a 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 is only an average of 27 days.
  The Federal regulations being proposed by the administration will add 
an entirely new layer of regulations to the already cumbersome Federal 
process. This will increase the cost of producing energy and does not 
help working American families.
  The proposed Federal regulations also ignore the extensive work done 
by the States to regulate hydraulic fractures within their borders. Our 
committee has heard from numerous witnesses from Utah, Wyoming, 
Colorado, and other States who have 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 hydraulic fracturing 
for over 40 years and has the toughest disclosure rule in the Nation. 
Even our Democratic Governor, John Hickenlooper, to his credit, 
believes that it is 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.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene 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. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague. Although, I have to 
admit, sometimes I feel a little awkward listening to my colleagues' 
statements, but I am glad that report showed Texas is one of the more 
tougher States that regulates hydraulic fracturing.
  Mr. Chairman, in the State of Texas, hydraulic fracturing has been a 
common practice for many years. The technique, combined with horizontal 
drilling, has 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 a manufacturing 
renaissance. Thus far, State agencies have done a great job of 
regulating hydraulic practices on State and private lands.
  In Texas, the Railroad Commission--inappropriately named--has set a 
variety of standards that aim to protect the environment and allow for 
the development of this vital natural resource.
  I am a firm believer in property rights and that whoever owns that 
land should have the right to regulate that land.
  I would not support the Federal Government regulating the development 
of natural gas or the practice of hydraulic fracturing on State and/or 
private lands. More importantly, I cannot support the idea of 
legislation that would prevent the Federal Government from regulating 
Federal lands. Unfortunately, that is what this bill is asking us to 
do.
  I understand and support the desire to develop our natural resources 
in the most economical way possible with as little bureaucratic red 
tape as possible. I know the significant advantage that the shale gas 
boom has provided our domestic petrochemical industry, various 
manufacturers, and a whole host of end-users.
  Let's make sure, though, that the Department of the Interior does 
their job and does not have to transfer oversight of Federal lands to 
State lands. We need the Department of the Interior to allow resource 
development under Federal law.
  I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill. Hopefully, we will 
bring up a bill that will make the Department of the Interior actually 
let us produce on our Federal lands.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in my good friend from 
Texas' comments, especially in light of the fact that there are a 
significant number of jobs in his district and in Texas that are 
powered by natural gas that comes from the shale energy revolution.
  My friend from Texas undoubtedly knows that the Federal Government 
takes 10 times as long to issue a permit as does the State of Texas for 
energy activities, and I wouldn't want to have the Federal Government 
add another layer of complexity to that.

[[Page 17604]]

  We are not plowing new ground with my bill. The Federal Government 
already defers to the States on the management of wildlife and water on 
Federal lands.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2728 with my good friend, 
Bill Flores, and, of course, our chairman also.
  The U.S. has become the world's largest producer of oil and natural 
gas, surpassing Russia this year. The transformation of our energy 
production has rejuvenated our middle class by reviving core American 
industries and bringing 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 would prevent the Interior Department from enforcing 
Federal rules related to hydraulic fracturing in States that already 
have existing oversight rules, like my 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 would untangle redundant regulation in States that have 
created their own regulations that address well design, location, water 
quality, emissions, wildlife protection, and health and safety.
  I represent the Eagle Ford Shale area in Texas, which is one of the 
largest production areas in the United States. That shale has 
transformed my area, whether it is Webb County, LaSalle, Atascosa, 
Wilson, or McMullen County. The other counties there have been 
transformed by Eagle Ford.
  I also worked at the State for many years as a legislator, and I 
understand the Railroad Commission. I understand they also do a good 
job.
  Therefore, the State of Texas has passed smart regulations by working 
directly with our communities and with our counties, with our industry, 
and is leading the Nation in establishing FracFocus, which informs all 
Texans what materials are used in the fracking activities.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 30 additional 
seconds.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Our State governments know their own land best. Let us 
improve how our government functions, empower our States to enforce 
their own laws on their own lands, and continue this energy growth that 
we have.
  With that, I thank the chairman, Mr. Bill Flores, and also the 
ranking member, Mr. Holt, who allowed me to speak.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), another member of 
the Resources Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to my dear friend, Bill 
Flores, and to Doc Hastings, chairman of our committee. I appreciate 
Mr. 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. This bill helps us 
do that.
  I got into a discussion with one of our colleagues across the aisle 
who is now in the Senate, and I brought this up to him in previous 
years. If a State has a regulatory body that is addressing the issue, 
has cleaner air, cleaner water, is doing the job, then let them do it. 
Let's not add another layer of bureaucracy that takes away jobs. It 
slows the economy.
  I am very grateful that it looks like we are 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 colleague and I applaud my friends that support this 
bill. This is going to help America.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), another member of 
the Resources Committee.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2728, the 
Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act.
  Hydraulic fracturing has been critical to the production of our rich 
Montana-Bakken oil. It is 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, 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 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 percent 
unemployment? This rule could deny our Native Americans the 
independence 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. 
That means jobs and lower energy prices.
  I urge passage of H.R. 2728.
  Mr. HOLT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a former member 
of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, natural gas is revitalizing American industries. It is 
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 have seen the process my whole 
life. I have seen new technological innovations that keep us more safe, 
keep the process safe, protect the well bores, and protect the water.
  So who would be against a process that is rebuilding American 
industries, that is rebuilding the job base of this country?
  Sand sales you would not seem to identify with this particular 
process, and yet that is exactly why sand sales are soaring in the 
country and the production of chemicals is soaring--because of the use 
of this process called hydraulic fracturing.
  It has been around for decades. New Mexico has safe drinking water, 
but we have also got plentiful jobs, and American consumers have lower 
costs of living, all because of a process.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PEARCE. 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 is killing jobs across the country. Give us 
our freedom and we will protect the environment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It is 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. 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

[[Page 17605]]

Land Management practices would be gone.
  It gets rid of requirements to protect sacred sites and historic 
properties. It would throw out the regulation that prevents occupancy 
within a quarter of a 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 brings up an interesting point 
about the difference in State regulations. We would hope that anybody 
in the drilling area would have access to the chemicals that are being 
injected into these wells under their very feet, under their homes.

                              {time}  1515

  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. Let's see. We have got here oxyalkylated phenol 
resins; we have terpenes and terpenoids; we have quaternary amines. 
These are all items that are held confidentially, proprietarily; and 
under this legislation that we are considering, a State could make sure 
that they are not disclosed.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a State that 
is booming because of this activity.
  Mr. PERRY. I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and Mr. Flores for 
bringing H.R. 2728 to the floor for this opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind everybody that, although 
they might say, Why do we do this? Why is the rhetoric important? I 
mean, if we don't counter the kind of alternate reality that the other 
side often touts, people will think that that is reality. I will remind 
everybody in the room that the Federal Government and every State 
government has said that there has been not one accident--zero--
referring to the aquifer regarding hydraulic fracking--not one.
  People in Washington have never been to Dimock; they have never been 
to Renovo or to Tidioute or to Warren, Pennsylvania. They don't know 
anything about these places and what happens here, but yet they want to 
regulate us. The people who live there are the ones who are working 
there, and they have the greatest stake in protecting the environment.
  Let me tell you what it has done for Pennsylvania: $750 million in 
road and infrastructure and improvements since 2008 has been provided 
by the gas industry. The average income is up $1,200 because of it; 
$1.8 billion in tax revenue has been generated by responsible shale 
development.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PERRY. Ninety-six percent of the employment comes out of the 
Appalachian basin. That is in Pennsylvania. That is where we live. 
There has been a $650 savings per household per year because of it, and 
there are 232,000 associated jobs with an average pay of $83,305 a 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a list of agencies that these people must 
comply with for every single portion of this. I am going to run out of 
time, but I am going to run out of time just going through them, all 
right: the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
the County Conservation District.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds as I see he is on a roll.
  Mr. PERRY. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of 
Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 
Commission, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation, the Occupational Health and Safety 
Administration, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware 
River Basin Commission, the Pennsylvania Historic Museum Commission, 
and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Council.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, all of those chemicals that were noted on 
every job site are listed on a material safety data sheet, which is 
required by law.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues say that there have been no cases of 
contamination from the fracking, itself. What about leakage from poorly 
constructed wells? What about leakage from unlined pits? Are they 
prepared to claim that there has never been water contamination because 
of this? That is what the Bureau of Land Management regulations and 
rules get at--well construction, wastewater management, the threats to 
drinking water in neighboring communities. This legislation would gut--
it would remove--any possibility of such rules.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), another member 
from an energy-producing State.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, we are producing more energy now than 
we have ever produced, and it is thanks to new technologies like 
hydraulic fracking for making that happen.
  The Eagle Ford shale in the district I represent has created over 
400,000 jobs and, roughly, $2.6 billion in salaries in a 13-county 
area. The benefits from this are not isolated. Shale has brought back 
rail, steel, plastics, sand, and manufacturing; and the average U.S. 
household's energy costs have gone way down. I have seen numbers as 
high as $1,200 less for energy bills. This technology isn't new. We 
have been using it in Texas for over 60 years. It is regulated by the 
Texas Railroad Commission, and they do a great job.
  All of these people with all of the scare tactics sometimes forget 
that, when hydraulic fracking is done, it is done a mile below or two 
miles below the water table. It is safe. It is well regulated by the 
State. It is good for the economy. It is turning the balance of trade. 
It is saving us money on energy. It is also creating an economic 
revival in this country. We have got to let States regulate it. I urge 
the support of this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me inquire of my friend 
from New Jersey if he is prepared to close. We had some further 
requests for time, but I don't see them, and sometimes they don't get 
their time when they don't come down here.
  Mr. HOLT. I say to the gentleman from Washington that we are in the 
same situation. I was expecting a few other speakers. In not seeing 
them, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOLT. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  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 oil 
and gas operations in National Park Service units; 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 wastewater management regulations; the plugging and 
abandonment regulations, 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 the least disruption to wildlife; the protections for sacred 
sites, historic trails, fisheries, and wetlands; and much more.
  It has been sold as a states' rights bill that would only block the 
Bureau of Land Management's 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

[[Page 17606]]

that none of these regulations could apply, that they would all be 
superseded by the State regulations. That is what the bill says.
  As for whether there is any damage done, I would point my friends to 
this picture. Maybe you have a little trouble seeing it, but, 
essentially, it shows burning tap water. No, this 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 is not because of 
fracking. There must be some other reason. There must be.
  They haven't found it. They have blamed it on all sorts of other 
things, but it happens where the fracking is occurring.
  So this is a case in which the practice has gotten ahead of the 
science, in which the practice has gotten ahead of our regulations, in 
which it has gotten ahead of our understanding; and the idea to reduce 
regulations and understanding so 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 economy to proceed in disregard for the 
protection of the environment.
  So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 
2728.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman for a question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how 
much time the gentleman from New Jersey has left if he is going to 
yield back.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would advise the gentleman to reserve 
his time because one of our speakers came, which we didn't think was 
going to happen. So I would advise the gentleman to reserve his time so 
that he has time to respond.
  Mr. HOLT. I appreciate the advice. It is possible that some of my 
speakers will arrive. I urge that we vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished 
majority leader, who is from a State that would like to do more 
offshore even though we are talking about onshore.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 
the monthly utility bill means less money for new school clothes, the 
college savings account, or even a night out at the movies. That is why 
it is 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 the continued 
production of our domestic energy resources could increase disposable 
household income--principally by lowering costs--by $800 over the next 
2 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 showed that the natural gas and 
shale oil industry contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 alone. 
Going forward, it is predicted to add a total of 2.5 million jobs by 
2015. These are good, well-paying jobs right here in America. For those 
who have been struggling to find work for months or, in some cases, for 
years, this kind of advancement in energy technology could allow these 
folks to find work, to get back on their feet, and to 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 
geologic requirements of 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 of 
millions of American families and cost America new jobs.
  The States and local regulators should be allowed to do this job 
without any Federal interference. I saw firsthand, when I accompanied 
my colleague from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer, to Williston, wellheads 
that were being drilled, and the last thing they need in that State, in 
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 are serious about creating 
jobs, that we are serious about easing the burden of high energy costs, 
and are serious about strengthening our energy security.
  I want to thank all of 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 to this issue for working middle class families. I also want 
to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and the Science Committee for their 
important contribution to this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This is Groundhog Day, Mr. Chairman. I 
would say to my friend, now I have no more speakers whom I can foresee 
at all, so I am prepared to close if the gentleman doesn't repeat his 
last statement.
  Mr. HOLT. Then I will take just a moment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, in closing, when I showed the picture of the 
burning tap water, I saw expressions of incredulity from the other side 
of the aisle. Surely that can't be true; or if it is true, surely it is 
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 wells greater than a mile from the fracking operations. 
Now, it is hard to tell when you are deep in the ground where that 
methane is leaking and what other chemicals, undisclosed chemicals, are 
leaking with that methane.
  There is something here that should be regulated, and this 
legislation would prevent such regulations. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  The underlying bill, as has been mentioned several times, is about 
American jobs and American energy security.
  Just last week, the International Energy Agency released its World 
Energy

[[Page 17607]]

Outlook. In that report, they predicted that the U.S. would surpass 
Saudi Arabia and become the top oil producer in the world in only 2 
more years. Now, this is great news for our economy, it is great news 
for American workers, it is great news for potential energy prices, 
and, Mr. Chairman, it is 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 area that you go after with hydraulic fracturing, 
provided just 1 percent of our Nation's natural gas supplies. Today, it 
is 25 percent. That number will only continue to grow.
  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 percent of shale oil wells are located on private and State lands 
and only 7 percent on Federal lands. That simply means that there is a 
great potential on Federal lands that are currently being ignored 
because of the regulatory hoops.
  I suggest that if the Department of the Interior goes through with 
their regulations on fracking that would be duplicative of those 
States, it would only keep that 7 percent where it is rather than 
increasing. It seems to me, from a standpoint of policy for our 
country, it is 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 the energy for the American 
consumer. That is 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 from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Each week there is more good news about the benefits of the energy 
revolution underway across America. Whether it is 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 am happy to support H.R. 2728, 
a bill that seeks to prevent redundant Federal regulations where States 
already have environmental protections in place.
  H.R. 2728 also incorporates legislation reported by the Science 
Committee--the Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act. Title II of 
this legislation holds the EPA accountable by requiring it to base its 
studies on the facts instead of worst-case scenarios that exist only in 
the EPA's imagination.
  In its zeal to regulate, the EPA has rushed to link water 
contamination to hydraulic fracturing. It has made this claim in three 
high-profile cases, only to be forced to retract its statements after 
the facts have come out. The EPA's track record does not instill 
confidence in their ongoing studies of the relationship between 
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.
  The Science Committee has conducted numerous oversight hearings on 
EPA research. These efforts have revealed that the EPA's approach is to 
try to find problems without considering whether these problems would 
actually occur in the real world. Title II corrects this by requiring a 
real-world look at risk that gives an honest evaluation of probability. 
This will prevent the misuse of the EPA's studies by those simply 
looking for an excuse to scare people. Title II of this legislation 
will enhance our ability to ensure continued safe and responsible 
production of America's natural energy resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to 
Promote American Energy Security Act.
  Title II of this act is a bill passed by the Science Committee, the 
EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Improvement Act. This is a piece of 
legislation that should not have been passed out of the committee.
  First, title II contains provisions that designate the fracking study 
is a highly influential scientific assessment and requires EPA to 
follow its standard peer review protocols for such assessments. This 
language is unnecessary because EPA already considers the fracking 
study to be a highly influential scientific assessment.
  Second, and importantly, unfortunately, this bill will obstruct EPA's 
ability to carry out its important work. The requirements of this bill 
may force the EPA to delay production of their final report on the 
effects of hydraulic fracturing on water quality. This bill could delay 
an important report that is based on a study that the EPA initiated 
more than 3 years ago. The study was reviewed and approved by the EPA's 
independent Science Advisory Board. The Science Advisory Board found 
the study to be both appropriate and comprehensive. The American public 
should not have to wait any longer before they receive a scientific 
analysis of whether their water has been affected by hydraulic 
fracturing.
  What I found troubling is that 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 
EPA or any other experts. In fact, the bill never had a hearing. This 
bill effectively attempts to micromanage the EPA without a factual 
basis for doing so.
  The bill requires the EPA to do an ad hoc risk analysis by requiring 
them to quantitatively estimate the probabilities, uncertainties, and 
consequences of impacts to drinking water from hydraulic fracturing; 
however, this was never a study that was set up to determine the risk 
effects of hydraulic fracturing. The study was meant to examine the 
science to determine if hydraulic fracturing operations have any effect 
on groundwater. By requiring an ad hoc risk analysis on a study that 
was not designed to acquire the data necessary to do a risk analysis, 
the EPA 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 a risk analysis. These efforts to 
become involved in directing the specific details of scientific process 
are very troubling.
  It appears that this bill is setting up the EPA to fail. If the EPA 
doesn't complete the study by the deadline, they have failed; and if 
the EPA completes the study but the ad hoc risk analysis is not as 
detailed as the bill's proponents expect, then they would have also 
failed. More importantly, their ad hoc risk analysis may taint the very 
accurate scientific data behind that analysis.
  It is not in the public interest to have this study delayed any 
longer. Let the EPA complete their study. If the science shows the 
effects connecting hydraulic fracturing with contaminated groundwater, 
then we will let the EPA's long-established process of doing a risk 
assessment after such a study to be followed completely with all the 
I's dotted and T's crossed.
  It is also difficult to understand how the proponents of the bill 
reconcile title II with title I. Title I clearly attempts to prevent 
the Federal Government from having oversight inspection or enforcement 
responsibility for hydraulic fracturing regulations. However, if the 
States are supposed to regulate, don't they need the science to support 
those regulations?

[[Page 17608]]

  This study is designed to be the science that provides the Federal 
Government and the States with the information they will need to make 
policy choices about the effects of hydraulic fracturing on 
groundwater. By possibly delaying this study, we delay the ability of 
the States or the Federal Government to make prudent choices to protect 
the American public.
  If you support hydraulic fracturing, delaying the study will not 
speed up the process of opening new areas of the country to hydraulic 
fracturing. Title II of H.R. 2728 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.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on the way to yielding time to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming, I want to point out that the underlying bill, 
the science bill that is contained in the underlying bill, did pass by 
voice vote in the Science Committee.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), who 
is also the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee on the Science 
Committee.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the right of State 
governments to regulate hydraulic fracturing. I am pleased that the 
bill before us also includes Chairman Lamar Smith's bill to ensure the 
integrity of Federal research into hydraulic fracturing.
  Mr. Chairman, the EPA botched its study linking hydraulic fracturing 
to groundwater contamination in a 2011 report on groundwater in 
Pavillion, Wyoming. The report was so flawed that the EPA was forced to 
disavow their preliminary conclusion that hydraulic fracturing caused 
contamination in Pavillion.
  The EPA's phoney preliminary conclusions were widely reported, 
altered national public perception, and the EPA did not back away until 
the damage was already done. Two years later, the EPA turned the study 
over to the State of Wyoming where it will undergo the scientific rigor 
it deserves.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 regulation, so much so that even the Bureau of Land 
Management holds up Wyoming as a model.
  What works for Wyoming might not work for Texas or Pennsylvania. The 
hydrology and the geology are different. Any State that 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?
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2728.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  To clarify, there was opposition to the legislation in the Science 
Committee; however, there is no recorded vote.
  I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Collins), who is a member of the Science Committee.
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity 
to speak today.
  I want to speak out about the importance of the EPA Hydraulic 
Fracturing Study Improvement Act, legislation that makes up title II of 
the act.
  The EPA is currently conducting a multiyear study on the relationship 
between hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and groundwater. This 
legislation will greatly improve the value of the EPA study by 
increasing transparency and requiring it to include an objective risk 
assessment.

                              {time}  1545

  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 moratorium on hydraulic fracturing was enacted in 
2008. Now, 5 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 this study 
have been revealed, and a date of completion has yet to be announced.
  Now the EPA 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 could 
sustain 62,000 new and needed jobs.
  This legislation will increase transparency and accuracy in how the 
EPA 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.
  Ms. BONAMICI. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. We are prepared to close, so I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, in 2010, the Department of Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act required the EPA 
to perform a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and 
groundwater contamination. The final report is currently expected to be 
released in 2016.
  EPA's proposed study plan was reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory 
Board. The Science Advisory Board determined that EPA's approach was 
generally appropriate and comprehensive. Further, the Science Advisory 
Board recommended that some analysis of risks be considered in the 
study, but a full risk assessment could add another 5 to 7 years to the 
expected release date.
  The proponents of this legislation mischaracterize the EPA's 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 EPA's independent Science Advisory Board, and 
importantly, title II could delay the release of this very important 
study. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we actually have two more 
individuals who will speak on this side, so if the gentlewoman from 
Oregon wants to reclaim some time after our next speaker, she is 
welcome to do so.
  Meanwhile, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) 
who is a distinguished member of the Science Committee.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Smith.
  Texas has produced half of all new jobs in America in recent years. 
Even Time magazine noted 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 all 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 EPA, 
despite its safe usage in Texas for over 60 years.
  The EPA is zero for three when it comes to hydraulic fracturing

[[Page 17609]]

alarmism. Their allegations of groundwater contamination in Texas, 
Pennsylvania, and Wyoming all struck out after proper review and 
analysis.
  That is 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 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 EPA accountable to taxpayers by requiring 
that their multimillion-dollar study of hydraulic fracturing follow 
basic and widely agreed upon scientific processes. We have it right in 
Texas. They ought to leave us alone, and we will help create jobs and 
get this economy moving again.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, Mr. Smith from 
Texas, for his offer to reclaim. I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. BONAMICI. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we are now on our last speaker, so 
if the gentlelady wants to yield back, we can proceed.
  Ms. BONAMICI. May I inquire whether there are other speakers?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. We are on our last speaker now, to respond to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), also a member of the Science Committee.
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the citizens of North Dakota sent me to Washington in 
large part to protect our thriving economy from the overreaching 
regulations, often based on faulty science, from destroying that very 
economy. In carrying out that charge, I get the opportunity to tell the 
North Dakota success story in Washington, with the hope 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.
  Lynn Helms, the director of North Dakota's Department of Mineral 
Resources, testified in the Natural Resources Committee on this very 
issue, saying:

       Our oil and gas rules are reviewed at least every 2 years 
     through a public comment process. North Dakota regulations 
     also address flow-back 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 is success at the State level.
  In addition to the fact that any Federal hydraulic fracturing rule 
will be duplicative, the rules will be impractical to implement across 
the Nation, where environmental and geological circumstances are as 
diverse as the views in this Chamber.
  North Dakota has gone from number nine to number two in oil 
production, and at the same time from number 38 to number 6 in economic 
success.
  While the BLM is developing its hydraulic fracturing rules, the EPA 
is conducting studies on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing 
on drinking water resources. A stated goal of the EPA study is to ask 
the question: What are possible impacts--I restate, possible impacts--
of hydraulic fracturing fluids on drinking water? Even the EPA's 
independent advisers have raised questions, with one member stating:

       There is no quantitative risk assessment included in EPA's 
     research effort.

  Despite, Mr. Chairman, no cases of hydraulic fracturing impacting 
drinking water resources, title II of this bill does not prevent the 
EPA from conducting such studies but ensures any such study done is 
held to the highest standards of review and risk assessment. I urge 
passage so that the Federal Government cannot impose its mediocrity on 
States' success.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon, I voted no on H.R. 1965, the 
Federal Lands, Jobs, and Energy Security Act. I appreciate that my 
colleagues brought this legislation to the floor, and, in fact, have 
supported many of the titles contained in the measure--and continue to 
do so. I have a long record of supporting efforts to increase 
development of our domestic energy resources. However, I could not 
support the bill today given that two troubling amendments, 
specifically the Marino and Hanabusa amendments, which were adopted to 
the bill with little debate and Members were not given the opportunity 
to vote on these additional provisions.
  I was particularly concerned with the Marino amendment. It calls for 
plans to allow the construction of new power lines ``across federal 
lands to ensure that that energy produced can be distrusted to areas of 
need.'' Some may consider this to be non-controversial, but I have 
fought the impact of similar language for a number of years. I am 
privileged to represent Virginia's hallowed grounds, and I simply 
cannot support efforts to construct new power lines through our area--
particularly power lines that would ship energy to other parts of the 
country. That's why I opposed PATH, and why I opposed TrAIL. Cedar 
Creek and Bell Grove National Historic Park and Manassas National 
Battlefield Park are just a few areas in our region that could be 
impacted by this amendment.
  I also could not support the inclusion of the Hanabusa amendment, 
which I am concerned is a continued effort to classify native Hawaiians 
as a Native American tribe, and, as such, have lands taken into trust. 
That would allow for the expansion of Indian gambling in Hawaii. I will 
continue to fight efforts to expand gambling in America, whether it is 
on-reservation, off-reservation or over the Internet.
  This evening, I voted for H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to 
Promote American Energy Security Act. I support the development of our 
nation's natural gas resources, which will help our economy and 
strengthen our national security. Advances in technology have unlocked 
significant domestic reserves that were historically inaccessible, 
which has resulted in lower heating costs and lower prices at the pump. 
At the same time, I understand and recognize the real concerns 
expressed by those concerned that horizontal drilling and hydraulic 
fracturing in Virginia, particularly within the George Washington 
National Forest, could negatively impact our region's water quality, 
water supply and recreational resources. To be clear--environmental 
protections should be increased in Virginia before any potential 
activity of this kind is allowed within the George Washington National 
Forest. I fully support efforts to enact strong laws to protect 
Virginia's national resources and respect the wishes of local 
jurisdictions in making any decisions about energy exploration on state 
or federal lands in the Commonwealth.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2728, 
which would prevent the federal government from ever implementing a 
uniform baseline level of safety and environmental protection in 
hydraulic fracturing operations across the country.
  Today's bill would preempt a rulemaking process that is not yet 
completed and require the federal government to defer to state 
regulations of fracking on public lands, no matter what those 
regulations may be. Moreover, because the bill forbids the Department 
of the Interior from exercising oversight over ``any component of' the 
fracking process, it could prevent application of basic protections 
under a variety of existing environmental laws.
  States vary widely in their efforts to manage the expanded use of 
hydraulic fracturing and the federal government has a responsibility to 
provide a minimum baseline of oversight to protect our public lands, 
public safety, and public health. H.R. 2728 would block any proposed 
standards and impede existing law, and I urge a no vote.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-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 as the original bill for 
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered as read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

[[Page 17610]]



                               H.R. 2728

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

      TITLE I--STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING REGULATION

     SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Protecting States' Rights 
     to Promote American Energy Security Act''.

     SEC. 102. STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 
                   REGULATION.

       The Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended 
     by redesignating section 44 as section 45, and by inserting 
     after section 43 the following:

     ``SEC. 44. STATE AUTHORITY FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 
                   REGULATION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Department of the Interior shall not 
     enforce any Federal regulation, guidance, or permit 
     requirement regarding hydraulic fracturing, or any component 
     of that process, relating to oil, gas, or geothermal 
     production activities on or under any land in any State that 
     has regulations, guidance, or permit requirements for that 
     activity.
       ``(b) State Authority.--The Department of the Interior 
     shall recognize and defer to State regulations, permitting, 
     and guidance, for all activities related to hydraulic 
     fracturing, or any component of that process, relating to 
     oil, gas, or geothermal production activities on Federal land 
     regardless of whether those rules are duplicative, more or 
     less restrictive, shall have different requirements, or do 
     not meet Federal guidelines.
       ``(c) Hydraulic Fracturing Defined.--In this section the 
     term `hydraulic fracturing' means the process by which 
     fracturing fluids (or a fracturing fluid system) are pumped 
     into an underground geologic formation at a calculated, 
     predetermined rate and pressure to generate fractures or 
     cracks in the target formation and thereby increase the 
     permeability of the rock near the wellbore and improve 
     production of natural gas or oil.''.

     SEC. 103. TRIBAL AUTHORITY ON TRUST LAND.

       The Department of the Interior shall not enforce any 
     Federal regulation, guidance, or permit requirement regarding 
     the underground injection of fluids or propping agents as 
     part of the hydraulic fracturing process, or any component of 
     that process, relating to oil, gas, or geothermal production 
     activities on any land held in trust or restricted status for 
     the benefit of Indians except with the express consent of the 
     beneficiary on whose behalf such land is held in trust or 
     restricted status.

              TITLE II--EPA HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RESEARCH

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``EPA Hydraulic Fracturing 
     Study Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 202. EPA HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RESEARCH.

       In conducting its study of the potential impacts of 
     hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, with 
     respect to which a request for information was issued under 
     Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 218, the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall adhere to the following 
     requirements:
       (1) Peer review and information quality.--Prior to issuance 
     and dissemination of any final report or any interim report 
     summarizing the Environmental Protection Agency's research on 
     the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking 
     water, the Administrator shall--
       (A) consider such reports to be Highly Influential 
     Scientific Assessments and require peer review of such 
     reports in accordance with guidelines governing such 
     assessments, as described in--
       (i) the Environmental Protection Agency's Peer Review 
     Handbook 3rd Edition;
       (ii) the Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific 
     Integrity Policy, as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (iii) the Office of Management and Budget's Peer Review 
     Bulletin, as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (B) require such reports to meet the standards and 
     procedures for the dissemination of influential scientific, 
     financial, or statistical information set forth in the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for Ensuring and 
     Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity 
     of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, developed in response to guidelines issued by the 
     Office of Management and Budget under section 515(a) of the 
     Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554).
       (2) Probability, uncertainty, and consequence.--In order to 
     maximize the quality and utility of information developed 
     through the study, the Administrator shall ensure that 
     identification of the possible impacts of hydraulic 
     fracturing on drinking water resources included in such 
     reports be accompanied by objective estimates of the 
     probability, uncertainty, and consequence of each identified 
     impact, taking into account the risk management practices of 
     States and industry. Estimates or descriptions of 
     probability, uncertainty, and consequence shall be as 
     quantitative as possible given the validity, accuracy, 
     precision, and other quality attributes of the underlying 
     data and analyses, but no more quantitative than the data and 
     analyses can support.
       (3) Release of final report.--The final report shall be 
     publicly released by September 30, 2016.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 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 read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject 
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 113-271.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 14, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), the''.
       Page 2, line 4, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), the''.
       Page 2, after line 11, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent quoted subsection accordingly):
       ``(c) Methane Emissions.--Nothing in this section limits 
     the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue 
     regulations to require the minimization of venting and 
     flaring of methane from oil and gas drilling operations on 
     public lands, and to issue regulations designed to reduce 
     fugitive methane emissions.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise in support of the amendment that I am introducing, along with 
Mr. Peters and Mr. Polis, to allow the Secretary of the Interior to 
regulate methane.
  Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas emitted in the 
United States, and the oil and gas industry is responsible for about 30 
percent of all methane emissions into the atmosphere.
  Methane is a super pollutant more 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 is what we see here 
with the ignited tap water. This so-called fugitive methane also 
contributes to air pollution as tropospheric ozone, or smog, which 
threatens public health by triggering asthma attacks and aggravating 
the conditions of people with bronchitis and emphysema.
  In fact, methane leaks have contributed to the Upper Green River 
basin in Wyoming having some of the worst air quality in the country, 
at times rivaling the worst air quality days in Los Angeles.
  Although discussed as a cleaner burning and more climate friendly 
energy source, natural gas, which is mostly methane, leaks at every 
stage of production, not just into the groundwater, and hence into 
drinking water wells. It does leak, and it does affect the Earth's 
climate. It is true that burning methane releases less carbon dioxide 
greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than does burning an equivalent amount 
of coal, but the methane itself is a greenhouse gas. Fugitive methane 
emissions in excess of only a few percent remove the relative 
advantages of natural gas compared to other fossil energy sources.
  Aside from 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 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. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Holt-Peters-Polis 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before the 
House today is designed to eliminate duplicative regulations and allow 
for

[[Page 17611]]

increased energy production. That is the intent of the legislation. Yet 
here we are with an amendment that creates a loophole in the bill to 
allow the government to impose back-door regulations to restrict and 
block American energy production, which, of course, we know would 
result in lost job opportunities.
  H.R. 2728 aims to give the States primacy in regulating hydraulic 
fracturing operations within their borders. I want to mention that 
again. This bill aims to give the States primacy in regulating 
hydraulic fracturing within their borders. So if a State regulatory 
body wants to implement emissions regulations, which this 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 
emissions at the end of the regulations in place.
  Further, the Secretary has the authority to manage methane emissions 
for production on Federal lands and, working collaboratively, we have 
seen significant reductions in the last 2 years because of that effort. 
However, attempting to cloak these regulations as fracturing 
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 make just one other point. I will probably repeat this again. 
There is nothing in this bill that prevents a State from regulating 
emissions within their State, which, of course, would take effect and 
what the gentleman is trying to do.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. HOLT. 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 regulations 
don't count.
  All this amendment would do is say on the important issue of what is 
called fugitive methane, leaked methane, methane that gets 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 I would think that 
everyone would be eager to make sure that none of this fugitive methane 
gets into the atmosphere or into the drinking water.
  We know methane can and sometimes does leak from fracked wells. We 
should want the Secretary to be able to regulate that, because under 
the underlying bill, the Secretary could not.
  This amendment is necessary, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  My good friend, the author of this amendment, opened his second 
remarks by saying, This legislation makes it impossible to regulate--
fill in the blanks. No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case.
  This bill says that primacy of regulation of hydraulic fracturing, 
which has been going on for some 60 years, if a State has it in place, 
that State's laws shall be the ones that we should follow. Those States 
that don't have it, then, of course, this legislation would allow the 
Department of the Interior's regulations to be there until they changed 
their regulations.
  I want to make a point. This amendment is about the emissions from 
the process of hydraulic fracturing. Nothing in this bill, as I said 
before, prevents a State from doing what they can do. After all, keep 
in mind, Mr. Chairman, those States that have hydraulic fracturing 
rules maybe in all likelihood have some regulations dealing with the 
emissions that come from that. Nothing in this bill prevents that from 
happening.
  What the amendment does do, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is 
a back-door way to regulate hydraulic fracturing when, as I said just a 
moment ago, it has been done successfully for over 60 years in the 
States.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, the Holt-Peters-Polis amendment would allow 
the Secretary of Interior to minimize fugitive methane emissions on 
public lands.
  Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that commonly leaks during the 
drilling and transportation of oil and gas. If you look at the entire 
production process, excess methane emissions can make natural gas 
energy just as dirty as coal energy. Moreover, methane and Volatile 
Organic Compounds emitted from oil and gas wells interact with sunlight 
to create ozone, another greenhouse gas.
  Although national methane emissions fell between 2011 to 2012, 
emissions in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and other energy producing states 
have risen due to oil and gas operations. Colorado has approximately 
50,000 wells which contribute to the state's current non-attainment 
status for the EPA's 2008 national ambient air quality standard for 
ozone. In addition, rural areas in the Upper Green River Basin in 
Wyoming have recorded dangerously high levels of smog that rival the 
worst pollution days in Los Angeles due to drilling. This is concerning 
since ground level ozone or ``smog'' can trigger asthma attacks and 
aggravate conditions of people with bronchitis and emphysema.
  Earlier this year I introduced the BREATHE Act, H.R. 1154 because oil 
and gas wells and their associated infrastructure contribute to air 
pollution. Despite the overwhelming evidence that oil and gas 
production causes air pollution, oil and gas operators are still exempt 
from the basic federal protections afforded by the Clean Air Act. The 
BREATHE Act would close the loopholes in the Clean Air Act carved out 
for the oil and gas industry.
  Energy companies can easily and cheaply curb methane emissions by 
simply fixing the leaks in oil and gas equipment. Also, methane control 
technology is inexpensive and readily available. Industry also stands 
to benefit from capturing emissions because they can sell the captured 
methane and other valuable hydrocarbons for a profit instead of leaking 
them into the air.
  Reducing methane leaks will in turn reduce ground level ozone 
pollution and protect the quality of life for our communities and our 
families. Please support the Holt-Peter-Polis amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flores

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 113-271.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, beginning at line 9, strike ``regardless'' and all 
     that follows through line 11 and insert a period.
       Page 2, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(c) Transparency of State Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall submit to the Bureau of 
     Land Management a copy of its regulations that apply to 
     hydraulic fracturing operations on Federal land.
       ``(2) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make available to the public State regulations submitted 
     under this subsection.
       ``(d) Transparency of State Disclosure Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State shall submit to the Bureau of 
     Land Management a copy of any regulations of the State that 
     require disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing 
     operations on Federal land.
       ``(2) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make available to the public State regulations submitted 
     under this subsection.
       Page 2, beginning at line 23, strike ``the'' and all that 
     follows through ``process'' and insert ``the process of 
     hydraulic fracturing (as that term is defined in section 44 
     of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended by section 102 of this 
     Act)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentleman

[[Page 17612]]

from Texas (Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple amendment today 
that makes technical and clarifying corrections to H.R. 2728. My 
amendment also calls on State regulators to provide their hydraulic 
fracturing and chemical disclosure requirement regulations to BLM for 
public disclosure.
  States have the expertise in carefully crafting hydraulic fracturing 
regulations that meet the unique geologic and hydrologic needs of their 
States. This bottom-up regulatory relationship between the States and 
the Federal Government is one of the reasons that we are able to enjoy 
the vast economic benefits of the shale energy boom.
  These changes will ensure that the cooperative and transparent State-
driven regulatory approach to energy activity will continue. The energy 
shale boom is driving our economic recovery, and we need to keep the 
Federal Government from slowing down energy production on taxpayer 
owned Federal lands with duplicative regulations and unnecessary red 
tape.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLORES. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment goes right to the 
heart of what those who are opposed to this process are concerned with 
by disclosing the chemicals which is embodied in this amendment. This 
amendment does exactly what seems to be the opposition on the other 
side. I think it is a good amendment, and we are prepared to accept it.
  Mr. FLORES. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Renacci).
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague.
  I rise today in support of the Flores amendment, which would make 
public States that have established efficient and regulatory programs 
that both encourage domestic development of our resources and protect 
the environment and health of our citizens.
  My home State of Ohio has some of the most transparent and robust oil 
and gas regulations in the Nation, which in many cases far surpass 
Federal regulations. In fact, since 1953, over 80,000 wells have been 
hydraulically fractured in Ohio without a single case of groundwater 
contamination. At the same time, we are experiencing an energy 
renaissance that is estimated to bring more than 65,000 jobs and 
contribute nearly $5 billion to Ohio's economy by 2014. Ohio now has 
the potential to be a leader in domestic energy production and would 
bring much needed high-paying jobs and economic growth to northeast 
Ohio.
  It is clear that prudent and responsible development of our resources 
that creates jobs, enhances our national security and energy 
independence, and impacts long-term economic growth should not be a 
partisan issue.
  I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment and the underlying bill.
  Mr. FLORES. I thank Mr. Renacci for his comments.
  Again, this is a simple amendment in response to feedback I received 
during the past few weeks.
  Again, the American energy shale revolution is completely dependent 
on hydraulic fracturing. Without this evolving technology, job 
creation, growth in manufacturing, lower energy prices, and lower 
greenhouse gas emissions would all stop. All the benefits our Nation is 
experiencing today would stop.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment and ``yes'' on 
the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, 
although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose this amendment because by 
itself it does not change anything, but it does underscore the problems 
with the bill itself. So I would like to speak on that for a moment.
  I don't think there is anything wrong with making Interior a one-stop 
shopping place for State drilling regulations, although I don't know if 
there are any States that want to keep their regulations secret. So I 
don't know if that provision actually has any real impact.
  Let me read a provision of the bill that this amendment strikes so 
that everyone understands what the amendment is trying to do. 
Subsection (b) of the bill says Interior shall defer to all State 
regulations for all activities related to any component of the 
hydraulic fracturing process. It then goes on to say ``regardless of 
whether those rules are duplicative, more or less restrictive, shall 
have different requirements, or do not meet Federal guidances.''
  Apparently the majority, as well as the author of this amendment, 
recognize that the last sentence was a little excessive and now this 
amendment proposes to strike that. But it doesn't make any difference 
because in subsection (a), the bill reads that Interior cannot enforce 
any of its regulations or guidance for any component of the hydraulic 
fracturing process.
  Subsection (a) strips Interior of their authority to enforce. This 
certainly has the same effect as the language in subsection (b) 
directing them to defer with respect to any regulations or 
requirements.
  Even after this amendment is adopted--and we are prepared to accept 
it--the language in the bill will still require that Interior defer to 
the States, regardless of whether State rules are less restrictive or 
adequate or are inadequate or if they don't meet Federal guidelines. 
That is the problem with the bill. The bill remains the same.
  This amendment is really superfluous. I will not oppose the 
amendment, but it does underscore the fundamental problem with the 
legislation that we are considering here today. It strips Interior of 
any authority to protect public health, public safety from drilling and 
fracking operations on public lands.
  Although I will also accept the amendment, I will continue to oppose 
the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Reed

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report 113-271.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the 
rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 10, insert the following:

     SEC. __. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study examining the economic benefits of 
     domestic shale oil and gas production resulting from the 
     process of hydraulic fracturing. This study will include 
     identification of--
       (1) State and Federal revenue generated as a result of 
     shale gas production;
       (2) jobs created both directly and indirectly as a result 
     of shale oil and gas production; and
       (3) an estimate of potential energy prices without domestic 
     shale oil and gas production.
       (b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit a report 
     on the findings of such study to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives within 30 days 
     after completion of the study.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reed) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


          Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Reed

  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 3 
printed in part B of House Report

[[Page 17613]]

113-271 be modified by the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike ``Page 4, after line 10'' and insert ``Page 2, after 
     line 19''.

  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have a straightforward amendment to H.R. 
2728, which I am offering on a bipartisan basis with my colleague from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Our amendment will direct the Government Accountability Office to 
conduct a study on the number of jobs created from shale development in 
America. In addition, the study will look at the impact that shale 
production has had on energy prices and State and Federal revenues.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward, simple amendment to quantify 
and document the economic benefits from shale development in America.
  As I serve on the Natural Gas Caucus, as well as the Manufacturing 
Caucus, I can tell you that the development of natural gas in America 
has put us on a course to have a manufacturing rebirth and renaissance 
here in the United States. It is consistent with my philosophy that we 
need to build it here and sell it there, and this amendment will 
quantify on the Federal level the economic benefits that are associated 
with the development of this resource not only from the direct jobs of 
producing the resource, but the indirect and secondary jobs in the 
United States manufacturing sector, as well as all the other jobs that 
would support the development of this resource that we have been 
blessed with here in America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think this amendment will probably no doubt prove what we have been 
saying, that producing American energy will produce American jobs.
  I think the gentleman's amendment adds to this legislation, and I am 
willing to accept that.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman for that acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa), my cosponsor on this amendment.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from New York and fellow cochair of the Natural Gas Caucus, Mr. Reed, 
for the time.
  Places like the San Joaquin Valley, which I represent, are still 
struggling to create jobs in the wake of our Great Recession.
  Energy production is a game changer not only in California, but 
around the country. These are exciting times with the findings in the 
Marcellus, the Barnett, the Bakkan, and the Monterey in California, 
which is estimated to be as large, if not larger, than the others that 
I mentioned.
  Those who doubt the ability of States to regulate the oil and gas 
industry, I urge you to look at my home State of California which has 
put forth a long-term plan for responsible production of natural gas 
that the Governor signed into law last month.

                              {time}  1615

  Many other States are taking their lead because we know one size 
doesn't fit all and, therefore, I think that is a preferred approach.
  As all of us in the House are looking to determine what our next 
generation economy will look like, efforts like the amendment that we 
are proposing here, I believe, are critically important. The United 
States is on track to become the largest oil and gas producer in the 
world in the next few years. These are exciting times. The potential of 
the United States, Canada, and Mexico will far surpass the Middle East 
in the production of fossil fuels.
  We should take advantage, therefore, of this opportunity, this 
dividend that will benefit our economy and also benefit the geopolitics 
of the world that we live in that is so dangerous. This shift from 
being importers of our energy to an international exporter will yield 
significant dividends for both our economy and global security. Our 
amendment will show that the economic opportunity cost of blocking or 
continuing to delay responsible--responsible--development of natural 
gas simply should not be the case.
  The fact is that this study is more about the numbers and the dollars 
and how we do it safely and telling this side of the story, the human 
side of the story.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, at this point in time, I would just like to 
note, in this Chamber you have a gentleman from California and a 
gentleman from New York standing together to highlight the game-
changing economic impact of the development of this natural resource. I 
believe this amendment will clearly articulate how this goes to create 
a manufacturing rebirth, a job renaissance here in America. I join with 
him in this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to support the 
Reed-Costa amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Reed).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in part B of House Report 113-271.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:
                   TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. _01. REQUIREMENT TO OFFER FOR SALE ONLY IN THE UNITED 
                   STATES.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall require that all gas 
     produced under a lease issued pursuant to authorities granted 
     by this Act shall be offered for sale only in the United 
     States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I think will 
help deliver on some of the promises being made here today. This would 
say that natural gas produced on Federal lands, on Federal lands only, 
would not be allowed to be exported from the United States.
  Now, the principal argument we are hearing on the Republican side is 
that, by adopting their standard, which they say is the states' rights 
standards--I have already raised concerns about that on fracking--that 
it will encourage yet more development on Federal lands, increase our 
domestic energy supply, and free us from the OPEC cartel. Okay. But 
that won't work if we produce energy on Federal lands and then we 
export it to other countries like China or Japan or elsewhere.
  The Energy Information Administration has done a study. They say 
there will be a tipping point in the export of liquefied natural gas 
where we will create a world market; we will be subject to the world 
price. That means that there would be a dramatic increase in gas prices 
here in the United States both for residential, factory use, and as an 
input for manufacturing fertilizer or other sorts of manufacturing.
  So, suddenly, we would see an advantage which we have only very, very 
recently developed. We have manufacturing companies bringing production 
back to the U.S. because of our plentiful natural gas and saying it is 
to our advantage, our energy is cheaper here, our feed stocks are 
cheaper here. This is a tremendous advantage for us, and they are 
producing here and exporting finished goods.
  If we begin to export in great volume the raw material, the feed 
stock, the natural gas through a liquefied process, then suddenly it 
will be we are in the international market. It means a dramatic run-up 
in natural gas prices. We

[[Page 17614]]

lose our competitive advantage for domestic manufacturing, and we are 
back where we are with oil, despite the idea that if we produce more 
oil we will somehow become free of OPEC or other countries around the 
world.
  The fact is that oil is traded as an international commodity, and no 
matter how much we produce here, it is going to be priced 
internationally at the highest price being paid in the international 
market. That is not so today for natural gas. But if we export enough 
of it and create enough capacity to export it, that will become the 
case.
  So this would have no impact on gas produced on State lands, Indian 
lands, private lands. It just simply says that that approximately 15 
percent of the natural gas being produced on Federal lands could not be 
exported, must be used domestically to keep prices down here at home to 
advantage manufacturers here at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, a similar amendment like this has been offered multiple 
times in our committee markups and they have always failed on a 
bipartisan vote, and similar amendments like this have also failed on 
the floor. This is nothing more than an effort to make production on 
Federal lands more challenging and less valuable.
  The vast majority of the natural gas that is produced in the United 
States stays in North America, but that that is exported, 98 percent 
goes to Canada and Mexico. We ought to keep those customers.
  Additionally, since 2009, the U.S. has been the largest producer of 
natural gas in the world, which, I guess, goes to my friend from 
Oregon's argument. But energy is going to be globally decided in the 
marketplace. Many companies operating in the United States are 
international companies with businesses all over the world. 
Undercutting the basic premise of the free market and restricting the 
use of the resource always has real economic consequences in the 
future.
  Now, there is one other point about this amendment, too. The 
amendment makes it unclear what is considered natural gas. The question 
arises, are products derived from natural gas also only to be sold in 
the United States because they are made from natural gas? It is unclear 
the way the amendment is drafted. But if that were to be the case, Mr. 
Chairman, there would be vast spin-off industries that would be 
affected, namely, the plastic industries.
  So I tend to be one that believes that the American consumer, in 
fact, consumers everywhere, are benefited if we have free trade in the 
world. That should apply to everything, including a big resource that 
we are becoming a leader in, and this amendment, I think, is contrary 
to that approach.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. To the gentleman's point, it is absolutely clear. It 
says ``gas.'' It does not say products derived from gas, fertilizer, or 
manufactured plastic or anything else. It just says the gas must be 
sold here in the United States.
  He admits and says that it will make it less valuable. That means he 
is looking at increasing the price of natural gas here to accommodate 
exports overseas to put us in a world market. Then we are, yet again, 
screwed, just like we have been with oil for years. We are back to the 
point where we are competing in an international market. We lose 
international competitiveness. We lose more manufacturing.
  This is pretty transparent here. I mean, the industry is pressuring, 
I am sure, on their side of the aisle, saying, Oh, my God, don't do 
that. Don't say that that 15 percent of the gas produced on Federal 
lands, belonging to the taxpayers of United States, has to be used here 
to help keep down our prices for our homes, for our manufacturing, to 
give us a competitive world advantage. Let's do it like all our other 
free trade, which is bankrupting the country and exported millions of 
manufacturing jobs over the last few years.
  He talked about it again. Globally decided free market. He used those 
words. If we go to a globally decided free market in the export of 
natural gas, we lose the advantage, and their basic premise that this 
will lower prices for Americans is stood on its head.
  If you don't adopt this amendment, if you vote against it, you are 
voting to increase the price of natural gas, according to the Energy 
Information Administration, for all consumers and manufacturers and the 
downstream products from those in the United States of America. So, if 
you really want to lower the price to consumers, vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the DeFazio amendment is ill-conceived. 
Creating jobs in the energy sector is creating American jobs, and this 
amendment would, in fact, inhibit our ability to reduce our trade 
deficit and also affects an issue of providing natural gas to our 
strategic allies.
  As a result of increased natural gas production, the price of natural 
gas has fallen over the last few years, making it competitive in the 
global marketplace. This presents an opportunity to export U.S. natural 
gas.
  Many of our allies rely heavily upon a single source or unstable 
regions for natural gas. For example, Russia has used its European 
market dominance to influence other countries, cutting off natural gas 
supplies over various disputes. Poland is so eager to wean itself off 
Russia for natural gas that it plans to buy LNG from Qatar at a price 
estimated to be 40 to 50 percent higher than the rate charged by 
Gazprom, Russia's state-owned monopoly, just to be able to have some 
independence.
  Increasing natural gas exports would provide our allies with an 
alternative and reliable source of energy, helping to strengthen our 
economic and geopolitical partnerships.
  It should be noted that the boom in natural gas production has 
already made an impact. Supplies previously destined for our shores but 
no longer needed as a result of increased production have been diverted 
elsewhere. This increase in global supply has helped several European 
countries successfully renegotiate their long-term contracts with 
Gazprom, Russia's state-owned monopoly.
  Mr. Chair, in general, when it comes to trade, we often talk about 
barriers that other countries have to U.S. producers, ones that we must 
overcome in order to export. In this case, these are regulatory burdens 
we are placing upon ourselves that are preventing our ability to create 
jobs and preventing our ability to lower our overall trade deficits. 
Restraining U.S. natural gas exports would only hurt our abilities to 
bolster strategic partnerships and create jobs right here at home.
  The DeFazio amendment does nothing to decrease the cost currently of 
natural gas. This is an important ability to create jobs and lower our 
trade deficit.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  I would just simply say and correct my good friend from Oregon, I did 
not say that because natural gas would enter the international market 
it would become less available. I simply said that it would become part 
of the global market.
  I dare say that, when oil was discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania, 
nobody thought that that oil would become part of the world market, but 
it has. But unfortunately, because we in the United States have not 
utilized our resources like we should with crude oil and not competed 
as we should with past decisions, there was a cartel that was formed 
internationally called OPEC. They control the oil market.

[[Page 17615]]

  The best way to beat cartels is to outsupply them. If we are going to 
be a leader in natural gas in the world, we ought to take advantage of 
that and lead when we can, but recognize that a free market gives the 
best services to people and recipients of that, not only in the United 
States, but in the world.
  With that, I urge rejection of the DeFazio amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1630


               Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 113-271.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Add at the end the following:

                   TITLE __--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. _. REVIEW OF STATE ACTIVITIES.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall annually review and 
     report to Congress on all State activities relating to 
     hydraulic fracturing.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, in just a second, I will yield to the 
distinguished chairman.
  Just in a sentence, the Jackson Lee amendment is simple and will 
provide for an annual review of any and all hydraulic fracturing 
activity, as well as a report to be submitted to Congress.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Washington, Chairman Hastings, for 
the purpose of entertaining a question.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment 
and for yielding to me for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Texas, the text of the 
gentlelady's amendment requires the Secretary of the Interior to 
conduct an annual review of all State hydraulic fracturing activity. My 
concern is that this provision appears to be very broad.
  I would be delighted to work with the gentlelady, as this bill works 
its way through the legislative process, to consider some additional 
conditions to ensure that the broad review is targeted at those areas 
subject to the jurisdiction of the committee and results in a report to 
Congress that is meaningful and productive.
  To that end, would the gentlelady be willing to work with me to 
clarify that her amendment is intended to apply to State permitting of 
hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for working 
with me on this matter. I appreciate his willingness to work with me.
  I want to achieve what the ultimate intent was, and that is, to have 
this amendment pertain to Federal lands. My response is that I do not 
object to a modification of the amendment to make clear that the review 
and report required of the Secretary should be limited to State 
permitting of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, which will, in 
fact, provide this Congress with the necessary information on these 
processes.
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With the clarification that the 
gentlelady will work with me, that this is subject to Federal lands, 
with the clarification that the review and report required of the 
Secretary should be limited to State permitting of hydraulic fracturing 
on Federal lands, I am willing to accept the gentlelady's amendment. I 
thank her for her work on that.
  I yield back to the gentlelady.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chair, I just wanted to indicate that we have the opportunity to 
do a number of things: create jobs, energy independence, preserve and 
create a strong economy, and protect our environment.
  I am interested in seeing the opportunity for low-income families to 
be able to be helped in the cold of the winter and the heat of the 
summer, to be able to find relief from the energy costs that we have 
talked about so often, and I would hope that as we move forward with 
the legislation that we will be able to work together.
  I believe that the 2.1 million jobs that will be created, the 
increase of consumers' household dollars, and the amount of money that 
will be going into the government Treasury really should bring us 
together. My amendment, as clarified by the chairman in our discussion 
in the colloquy, is to give Congress that oversight pertaining to those 
Federal lands.
  I thank the chairman for his clarification. I am looking forward to 
working with him and maintaining the language in the bill, however, 
with the understanding that we will get that review for Federal lands 
and that that will come from the Secretary of the Interior to the 
United States Congress.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-271 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 230, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 601]

                               AYES--190

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney

[[Page 17616]]


     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hurt
     Lummis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Noem
     Radel
     Rush
     Shuster
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1702

  Mr. WHITFIELD changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HURT. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 601, 
on the amendment offered by Rep. Holt to H.R. 2728, Protecting States' 
Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


 Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Members of Armed Forces and Their 
                                Families

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Heck of Nevada). The Chair would ask all 
present to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence.
  The Chair asks that the Committee now observe a moment of silence in 
remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who have given their 
lives in the service of our country in Iraq and Afghanistan and their 
families, and of all who serve in our Armed Forces and their families.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered 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 redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 276, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 602]

                               AYES--142

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--276

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardenas
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon

[[Page 17617]]


     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Aderholt
     Campbell
     Chaffetz
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Noem
     Radel
     Rush
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1711

  Mr. HECK of Nevada and Ms. DUCKWORTH changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, the Committee 
rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Heck of Nevada, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2728) to recognize States' authority to regulate oil and gas operations 
and promote American energy security, development, and job creation, 
and, pursuant to House Resolution 419, he reported the bill, as amended 
by that resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lowenthal moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2728 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 1, line 14, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), the''.
       Page 2, line 4, strike ``The'' and insert ``Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), the''.
       Page 2, after line 11, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent quoted subsection accordingly):
       (c) Public Disclosure.--Nothing in this section limits the 
     authority of the Department of Interior or any State from 
     requiring the public disclosure of chemicals in hydraulic 
     fracturing fluids, the source and type of base fluid used in 
     hydraulic fracturing, the disposition of hydraulic fracturing 
     flowback fluids, and any other details of how and where 
     hydraulic fracturing operations occur, for use by the public 
     to study and analyze for the benefit of public health and 
     safety.

  Mr. FLORES (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, 
the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, transparency and public disclosure are critical 
ingredients to successful public policy and, I would dare say so, to 
successful democracy. My amendment would provide just that--
transparency and public disclosure of the hydraulic fracturing 
operations that are now prolific in so many States.
  Right now, our communities do not have access to reliable or complete 
information about fracking operations. Colleagues, our communities have 
a right to know.
  If the public has a right to know what ingredients are in their food, 
don't our communities have a right to know what chemicals the oil and 
gas industry is going to pump past their drinking water?
  If the public has a right to know where Superfund pollution sites 
are, don't our communities have a right to know where the oil and gas 
industry is going to store these millions of gallons of unknown 
chemicals and contaminated slurry?
  If the public has a right to know about major land-use changes, don't 
our communities have a right to know when the oil and gas industry is 
going to start a fracking operation next-door--with its accompanying 
air emissions? its truck traffic? its noise? and its derricks?
  I would hope that encouraging transparency and public disclosure 
would be a bipartisan issue. I certainly hear about transparency from 
the majority when this Chamber is talking about other Federal programs. 
We should be consistent and make sure the people in our communities 
also have a right to know about fracking chemicals injected below their 
backyards, their schools, their farms, and their parks.
  And to those who would resist providing the community a right to know 
about fracking operations, I would warn that you prevent transparency 
at the oil and gas industry's own peril.
  To develop our resources responsibly and to harness the benefits of 
the shale gas boom, we need the public's trust, and industry will not 
earn it if they hide the facts. When the oil and gas industry refuses 
to disclose the facts, it is natural for the public to ask then: Why 
won't industry tell us what chemicals they are using? What are they 
hiding?
  When the oil and gas industry hides the facts, it erodes the public's 
trust and breeds suspicion.

                              {time}  1715

  Hiding the facts prevents first responders and health workers from 
understanding how to appropriately treat exposed individuals after a 
fracking accident.
  Hiding the facts prevents emergency officials from understanding how 
to properly contain and clean up a chemical spill after a fracking 
accident.
  Hiding the facts prevents the public from knowing which chemicals to 
test for in their drinking water before, during, and after fracking.
  Hiding the facts prevents researchers who conduct chemical transport 
studies from understanding the prevalence, the movement, and the 
longevity of fracking chemicals in the subsurface environment.
  Hiding the facts prevents the public from verifying the oil and gas 
industry's assertion that hydraulic fracturing is safe.
  Don't hide the facts. Our communities have a right to know. Vote 
``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page 17618]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Speaker, this should be pretty easy.
  In my earlier amendment that was approved by voice vote today, we 
addressed the concerns raised by the gentleman from California, so 
let's move on down the road and vote for American jobs and American 
energy.
  A vote today for H.R. 2728 is a vote to regain our Nation's position 
as the world's leading energy producer, a product of the shale energy 
boom.
  Thanks to shale energy, middle class manufacturing jobs are returning 
to the U.S. after generations of decline. Thanks to shale energy, our 
Nation's production is a huge blow to unstable and unfriendly areas 
like Russia and the Middle East, who previously dictated the world 
supply of energy.
  Just last year, shale energy supported 2.1 million jobs. Turning our 
backs on the shale energy boom now would cause the Federal Government 
to lose up to $1.6 trillion in revenues over the next decade and a 
half.
  I would repeat: the issue that was raised in the motion to recommit 
was already in my amendment that was passed by voice vote earlier 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, lower energy costs for American families, a cleaner 
environment, an increase in American manufacturing jobs, and domestic 
energy security would all be lost without the underlying bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and to support 
abundant, safe, and clean energy through the Protecting States' Rights 
to Promote American Energy Security Act. Vote ``yes'' for American 
jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 232, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 603]

                               AYES--188

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Campbell
     Chaffetz
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Noem
     Radel
     Rush
     Shuster
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman

                              {time}  1728

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 187, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 604]

                               AYES--235

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent

[[Page 17619]]


     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--187

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Campbell
     Chaffetz
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Noem
     Radel
     Rush
     Shuster
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1739

  Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________