My career as a political scientist. And this has been amongst if not the most satisfying intellectually to work with john and work with all the authors who are all crs analysts and experts who in addition to their regular duties i want to emphasize that in addition to answering the requests that come in from members of congress and their staffs, in addition to that sat down and found the time oftentimes outside of regular work hours on the weekends and in the evenings to write these very insightful chapters. And i think its im very proud to be part of the institution of the Congressional Research service at the library of congress, also a terrific institution. And were very happy every day coming to work to help serve members of congress and with the goal of an informed national legislature. So as long as were we continue to be funded, as long as Congress Wants us to be there and help them, well keep showing up for work. And producing hopefully more documents like the one we produced for the evolving congress. Great. Well, thank you all. And thank you to the audience for being here. [ applause ] today marks the 70th anniversary of the formal surrender of japan on the uss missouri ending world war ii in the pacific theater. Well show an institute for the study of strategy and politics conference on the end of the pacific war. Starting at 8 00 p. M. American strategy in the asia pacific end game with james perry, historian and aerospace analyst. At 9 00 p. M. Stalins strategy for ending the pacific war with david glance, former Army War College professor. And at 10 00 u. S. , soviet and japanese plans for the invasion and defense of northern japan with u. S. Army command and general staff college. The cspan cities tour visits literary and Historic Sites across the nation to hear from local historians, authors and civic leaders. You can hear them every other weekend on cspan2s book tv and on American History tv on cspan3. And this month with congress on its summer recess the cities tour is on cspan every day at 6 00 p. M. Eastern. Today we head to wheeling, West Virginia to travel the national road, the first major highway built by the federal government. Well take a look at civil war battle flags and recount senator Joe Mccarthys red baiting enemies within reach speech. Next, a hearing on the benefits of and concerns about hydraulic fracturing or fracking, the process of injecting water, sand and chemicals into rock deposits deep underground to release natural gas. The House Science Committee held the hearing in april. The committee on science base and technology will come to order. Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. Welcome to todays hearing on the Science Behind hydraulic fracturing. Ill recognize myself and then Ranking Member. The combination called fracking is arguably one of the most significant Technological Advancements in the history of the oil and gas industry. This technological breakthrough has helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs, been the catalyst for a surging Manufacturing Sector and enabled our nation to become more energy independent. But as with any type of Technological Progress from oil and Gas Development, any risk must be evaluated carefully by the use of verifiable science. Unfortunately, opponents of hydraulic fracturing make claims based on the the Environmental Protection agency has used this agendadriven approach to wrongly assert a connection between hydraulic fracturing and ground water contamination. For example, in parker county, texas, the epa issued an unprecedented order that halted Natural Gas Development only to have the Texas Railroad commission investigate and find the epa was wrong. In wyoming the epa released a draft report that claimed hydraulic fracturing caused water contamination, however it was later discovered that the report had several glaring weaknesses. Among them the report failed to take into account naturally occurring natural gas. It was not Peer Reviewed. It involved poor sampling and lacked data transparency. The epa was forced to abandon its investigation. Then in pennsylvania the epa reinitiated an investigation into groundwater contamination after it had first agreed there was no contamination. Seven months later the epa indicated that oil and Gas Development was not the cause of the contamination. It appears that the decision to reinitiate the investigation was based on political pressure from activists who oppose hydraulic fracturing. It is incredible given their track record that the epa is now working on another large study to suggest a causal connection between high drydraulic fracturd groundwater contamination. Their refusal to accept good science knows no bounds. Their political aswren da drives their science agenda. Perhaps most troubling is that epa study of fracking does not include a Risk Assessment in their analysis. This means the study will be focused on possible problems with hydraulic fracturing rather than what is likely or probable. The mere possibility that something may occur will do little to help regulators evaluate the overall process. The science overwhelmingly shows that hydraulic fracturing can be done in environmentally safe manner. Even the administration agrees and has repeatedly said that potential risk can be avoided through modern technologies based on sound science. President obama has stated that, quote, we should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer, end quote. And that the natural gas boom made possible by hydraulic fracturing has led to, quote, Greater Energy independence and we need to encourage that, end quote. In fact, even the Current Administration of the epa said, quote, theres nothing inhere inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices cant establish, end quote. Then why does the epa repeatedly and publicly begin with the premise that hydraulic fracturing causing water contamination only to be forced to retract after claims are subjected to scientific scrutiny . Meanwhile the allegations make headlines, the retractions are footnotes. The epas bias against fracking is the opposite of the accepted scientific method. Hydraulic fracturing is a Proven Safe Technology that has made america an energy leader. Yet theres still those that believe regardless of the science the process should be banned. Activists have spread misinformation about the science in an attempt to convince americans that theres no way fracking can be done safely. The administration relies on questionable studies and reports theyre paid for, Peer Reviewed by and disseminated by a network of environmentalists with an ideological agenda. Using scare tactics to impede the development of oil and gas will cost our communities jobs, our states revenue and will force us to increase our dependence on foreign oil. Safe domestic natural Gas Production has benefitted the environment, the economy and the hard working families who now enjoy reduced energy costs. That concludes my Opening Statement. And the Ranking Member the gentlewoman from texas miss johnson is recognized for her Opening Statement. Thank you very much. Let me thank our witnesses for being present. I am from texas. And i served with your father, i believe, in the texas house. He was there when i got there and i think hes still there. And i got there in 73. I am pleased that the oil and gas industry has done so well, and most especially during the Obama Administrations tenure. I am also a nurse by training, and im sensitive to the need to protect Public Health and environment even as we develop new fossil fuels resources. This hearing is advertised as being about the science of fracking, but the majoritys witness consistent of state economic regulation and Development Officials representative of a firm that was set up to run Public Relations for the fracking industry and a scientist paid by one of the largest fracking firms in the country. That does not sound like a promising panel to examine the scientific questions. Looking at the majoritys hearing materials and testimony it is clear that this is a hearing designed to give a platform for the fracking industry to attack those who question the safety of practices within the industry. In particular there is a focus on undermining local communities that are considering or perhaps have adopted limits or bans on fracking. More than 500 local communities including some in my home state of texas have raised concerns about the practice of fracking and have considered our past bans to restrict fracking activities. These are our constituents dealing with real issues, real environmental and Public Health implications. We should not belittle or diminish their concerns or simply dismiss them as unsophisticated. Instead, im going to suggest that the answer to calming the fears of local communities is not to be found in attacking their motives or information but through more transparency by the industry and more effective regulation by states and the federal government. People have concerns about the fracking industry because they can see it is largely unchecked. For example, in the state of colorado with over 52,000 active fracking wells the state has only 40 inspectors. West virginia has 56,000 active wells and as of 2011 just 20 inspectors. Pollution of Drinking Water whether from fracking or flawed construction of the well are from surface waste from the site moving into aqua fers has occurred at least 248 times between 2008 and 2014 in pennsylvania. We actually do not know how many incidences in total there have been because the state did not start collecting statistics on incidences until 2014. If we had more transparency, more accountability and more oversight, local communities would be able to make wellinformed choices. However, building an oversight hearing around Public Relations campaigns to dismiss those concerns of local communities not only does a disservice to members of this committee, it also does nothing to increase the trust of the fracking industry and those communities. In closing, i would argue that it is not some hypocritical Smear Campaign by the federal government, but rather repeated attacks against epa and campaigns of doubt waged by opaque industry that have stoked mistrust among the american people. This hearing is likely to have the unintended consequence of further stoking mistrust among the american people. Justice louis brandise said sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant. I cant agree more. It is time that our local communities are provided with transparent information from industry to better understand the environmental and Public Health risk proposed by hydraulic fracturing activities. Mr. Chairman, i think the problem is not that local communities given Bad Information from activists. It is that local communities cannot get Accurate Information about the environmental and Health Impacts resulting from oil and Natural Gas Development using high volume fracking techniques. Now, before i yield back, i want to attach to my statement two studies. Excuse me. The malone and other study and the nrdc issue paper on fracking spills. And i ask unanimous consent to attach those. Without objection so ordered. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you, miss johnson. Let me introduce our witnesses today. Our first witness miss christi craddick. Since she began her role in 2012 she has pushed to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the industry helping to drive the States Economic success. Prior to her tenure at the Texas Railroad commission miss craddick had a career as an attorney specializing in gas, regulation and environmental policy. She earned both bachelor degree and doctorate of jurisprudence from austin. The department of Earth Sciences at Syracuse University. Dr. Siegel kushtly teaches ground Water Movement and fate of contaminants in groundwater. Prior to joining Syracuse University dr. Seeger woiegel w the minnesota district. Among many other accomplishments dr. Siegel has served as a member on numerous panels as National Academy of science and chair of the National Research council and water board. Received his bachelor degree in geology from the university of rhode island, master in geology from Pennsylvania State university and doctorate in hydrogeology from the university of minnesota. Our third witness, mr. Simon lomax is the western director of energy and depth research, education and Public Outreach program of the independent Petroleum Association of america. Before working at energy in depth mr. Lomax spent 15 years working in journalism as the editorial director of the energy now tv show and energy and environmental reporter at Bloomberg News and a Senior Editor at argis media inc. Holds a bachelor from the queens in brisbane, australia. Our final witness mr. L. G. Hosting is a strategic planner. Prior to joining the Environmental Defense fund he was a Senior Adviser to the obama president ial campaign on energy and environmental policy matters and codirector of the department of Energy President ial transition team. Among many other roles mr. Holstein has held position of assistant secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and chief of staff of the u. S. Department of energy. We appreciate all of you being here today and look forward to your testimony. And well begin with miss craddick. Good morning. Chairman smith, Ranking Member johnson, members of the committee, my name is Chris Christi craddick. This is an important issue with the direct impact on texas today as well as other states throughout the u. S. Affecting thousands of jobs across the country and our nations economy. Since hydraulic fracturing has become a widely used practice, it has been surrounded by misinformation propagated by groups more interested in prohibiting the technique than understanding the complex science of safe and responsible minerals extraction. Setting the hyperbole aside reveals a simple truth, there are no confirmed instances of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing in texas with proper oversight hydraulic fracturing is safe. The thriving Energy Sector in texas is due in large part to the diligence of the Railroad Commission which is responsible for ensuring the safety of oil and Gas Production statewide through a rigorous process of permitting, monitoring and inspecting operations. For 90 years the commission has served as the states primary regulator of the oil and gas industry and has recognized as a regulatory leader throughout the world. Commission rules and actions grounded in science and fact and combined with almost a century of oil and gas regulatory experience allow us to protect the public and our Natural Resources well. The difference in texas is found in the commissions mission statement, to serve texas by our stew wardship of Natural Resources and the environment, our concern for personal and Community Safety and support of enhanced development and Economic Vitality for the benefit of all texans. Sensible businessminded regulation with a High Standard for environmental safety allows the oil and gas industry to flourish. Every aspect of oil and Gas Development is highly regulated. As industry adheres to regulation at the local, state and federal levels, while it is in everyones best interest the Energy Industry is successful, that is only the case if it operates responsibly and in full compliance with our laws or the commission will not hesitate to revoke the ability to do business in texas. Included in the Railroad Commissions regulatory responsibility is the well completion technique known as hydraulic fracturing. For more than 60 years hydraulic fract