39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–261 

PROTECTING STATES’ RIGHTS TO PROMOTE AMERICAN 

ENERGY SECURITY ACT 

NOVEMBER 12, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2728] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2728) to recognize States’ authority to regulate oil and 

gas operations and promote American energy security, development, and job creation, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act’’. 

SEC. 2. 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 proVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:42 Nov 15, 2013 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR261.XXX HR261

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

duction 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. 3. 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. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2728 is to recognize States’ authority to regulate oil and gas operations and promote American energy security, 

development, and job creation. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The United States has some of the largest reserves of shale oil 

and shale gas in the world. Recent innovations combining horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing (HF) technology in coal 

beds, tight gas sands and unconventional gas shale formations 

have unlocked previously inaccessible, vast new supplies of natural 

gas. This technology is enabling the development of unconventional 

domestic oil resources, such as the Bakken Formation in North Dakota and Montana, which is thought to hold 4 billion barrels of oil 

(second only to Alaska) and has kept North Dakota’s unemployment rate the lowest in the nation. However, much of this production occurs on private and state land, as developers aim to avoid 

burdensome and time-consuming federal regulations. Currently, 

93% of shale wells are located on private land, with 7% located on 

federal land. 

While these technological advances in horizontal drilling have 

helped spawn the economic development of shale oil, it has primarily benefited and revolutionized domestic natural gas production by delivering vast amounts of cheap natural gas from U.S. underground shale-rock formations. Shale gas production is one of the 

most rapidly expanding trends in onshore domestic oil and gas exploration and production today. In some areas, this has included 

bringing exploration, production and energy to regions of the country that have seen little or no activity in the past. In 2000, shale 

gas provided 1% of our nation’s gas supplies; today it is 25%. Half 

of the natural gas consumed today is produces from wells drilled 

within the last 3.5 years. Prior to the shale breakthrough, U.S. natural gas reserves were in decline, prices exceeded $15 per million 

btu and investors were building ports to import liquid natural gas. 

Today proven reserves are the highest since 1971, and prices have 

fallen close to $4 per million btu. 

Currently, states are responsible for regulating oil and natural 

gas development stemming from the use of hydraulic fracturing. 

These state regulations have proven successful in overseeing hydraulic fracturing and stemming concerns related to the chemical 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

composition of fracturing fluid, as there have been no confirmed reports of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing. Administration officials such as former Environmental Protection 

Agency heds Lisa Jackson and Carol Browner have testified to this 

fact. 

Critics say environmental regulators and the industry have 

failed to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is safe and does not have 

adverse effects on water resources, particularly with respect to the 

fracturing fluid contaminating drinking water. Horizontal drilling 

or directional drilling enters the debate as it generally relies on the 

practice of hydraulic fracturing. However, federal, state, and local 

laws address every aspect of exploration and production operations. 

These include well design, location, water and waste management 

and disposal, air emissions, wildlife protection, surface impact and 

health and safety. In addition to government oversight, new industry standards advance operation and practices. The industry has 

created a number of guidance documents and other initiatives relating to hydraulic fracturing, including recommended practices for 

environmental protection for onshore oil and natural gas production and leases, well construction and well integrity, water use 

management, and surface environmental considerations. 

Additionally, oil and natural gas companies voluntarily comply 

with FracFocus and state regulations to publicly disclose chemicals 

used in the hydraulic fracturing process. 

While the states have demonstrated an ability to implement effective and efficient regulations for development on their own 

lands, nonetheless, the Obama Administration continues to pursue 

implementation of its own burdensome and duplicative regulations 

for hydraulic fracturing on federal land. The Administration claims 

these regulations will have minimal impacts on economic development, job creation, cost, and energy production, estimating the regulations will cost only $11,000 per well. However, state regulators 

strongly disagree. An economic analysis done by John Dunham & 

Associates estimates the proposed regulations will cost $253,800 

per well. 

States have repeatedly voiced their strong bipartisan opposition 

to the Administration’s hydraulic fracturing regulations, as these 

regulations could significantly hinder oil and natural gas development within their borders. Small, independent producers will likely 

bear the brunt of these regulations as they are less able to absorb 

the additional regulatory cost and depend largely on federal land 

for their production. Further, each state is unique in geography 

and energy production considerations. States have carefully crafted 

state-specific regulations for energy production taking into account 

the specific needs and characteristics of each state. A one size fits 

all approach to energy regulation will not work and would be difficult to implement across the country. 

Furthermore, state regulations have proven sufficient and effective in managing hydraulic fracturing on their lands. The Lieutenant Governor of Utah, Greg Bell, has testified before the House 

Committee on Natural Resources that there have been no reports 

of environmental contamination due to hydraulic fracturing in 

Utah. In addition, at a 2012 Natural Resources Committee hearing 

in Denver, Colorado, acting Director of the Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, Tom Kerr, testified that of over 2,000 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

samples of water wells, there has been no statistically significant 

increase in chemical concentrations. Many state officials have also 

testified regarding their concerns that federal hydraulic fracturing 

regulations will slow and greatly reduce energy development, job 

creation and economic development in their states. 

H.R. 2728 would prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from 

enforcing federal regulations on federal lands in states that already 

have state hydraulic regulations in place. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2728 was introduced on July 18, 2013, by Congressman Bill 

Flores (R–TX). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. On July 25, 2013, the Subcommittee 

held a hearing on the bill. On July 31, 2013, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources was discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D–CA) offered an amendment 

designated l011 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by 

a bipartisan roll call vote of 13 to 22, as follows: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 6 HR261.001

Date: July 31. 2013 

Committee on Natnral Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

113th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: I 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 2728 - LO\VENTHAL.01I, Not agreed to by a vote of 13 yeas and 22 nays 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes No Pres 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duncan of SC X 

Mr. Defazio. OR. Ranking X Mr. Cardenas. CA 

Mr. Young, AK Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Faleomavaega. AS Mr. Horsford. NV 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Pal/one. NJ X I Mr. Huffman. CA X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID X 

M",. Napolitano. CA X Mr. Ruiz. CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Southerlaud, FL X 

Mr. Holt. NJ Ms. Shea-Porter. NH X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. ~'Iorcs, TX X 

Mr. Grijalva. AZ X Mr. Lowenthal. CA X 

Mr. Broun, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ X 

Ms. Bordalla. GU X Mr. Garcia. FL X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Mr. Costa. CA X Mr. Cartwright. PA X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK X 

Mr. Sablan. CNMI Mr. Stewart, UT 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Tsongas. MA X Mr. Cramer, ND 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. Pieriuisi. PR Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Benishek, MI X 

I'v/s. Hanabusa. HI X 

TOTALS 13 22 
6 

Congressman Markwayne Mullin (R–OK) offered an amendment 

designated l001 to the bill; the amendment was adopted by a bipartisan roll call vote of 23 to 14, as follows: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 8 hr261.002

Date: July 3 I, 2013 

Committee on Natural Resources 

u.s. House of Representatives 

I I 3th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 2 

Meeting on / Amendment on: H.R. 2728 - MULLIN_001, Agreed to by a vote of23 yeas and 14 nays 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duncan ofSC X 

Mr. Defazio, OR, Ranking X Mr. Cardenas, CA 

Mr. Young,AK Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Faleomavaer<a, AS Mr. Horsford, NV 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Pallone, NJ X Mr. Huffman. CA 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr, Labrador, ID X 

Mrs. Napolitano. CA X Mr. Ruiz, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Southerland, FL X 

Mr. Holt,NJ Ms. Shea-Porter, NH 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ X Mr. Lowenthal. CA 

Mr, Broun, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ 

M,. Bordallo, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Mr. Costa. CA X Mr. Cartwright, PA 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr,Mullin,OK X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. l:wngas, MA X Mr. Cramer, ND 

Ms. Lnmmis, WY X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. PierlL/isi, PR X Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Benishek, MI X 

Ms. Hanahusa, III X 

TOTALS 23 

No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

14 
8 

Congressman Matt Cartwright (D–PA) offered an amendment 

designated l035 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by 

a roll call vote of 14 to 22, as follows: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 10 hr261.003

Date: July 31, 2013 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

I 13 th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 3 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 2728 CARTWRIGHT_035, Not agreed to by a vote of 14 yeas and 22 nays 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes~ Mr. Hastings, WA, Chairman X Mr. Duncan ofSC X 

Mr. Defazio, OR, Ranking X Mr. Cardenas, CA 

Mr. Young, AK Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Faleomavaega, AS Mr. lIorsford, NV 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Pallone, NJ X Mr. Huffman, CA X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Ruiz, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Southerland, FL X 

Mr,Hoit,NJ Ms. Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ X Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Broun, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ X 

M,. Bordallo, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Tsongas, MA Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. Pier/nisi, PR X Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Beuishek, MI X 

Ms. Hanabusa, HI X 

TOTALS 14 22 
10 

Congressman Cartwright offered an amendment designated l036 to the bill; the amendment was not adopted by a bipartisan 

roll call vote of 13 to 24, as follows: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 12 hr261.004

Date: July 31,2013 

Committee on Natnral Resources 

U.S. House of Represenlatives 

ll3th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 4 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 2728 - CARTWRIGHT _036, Not agreed to by a vote of 13 yeas and 24 nays 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes No Pres 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duncan ofSC X 

Mr. Defazio, OR, Ranking X Mr. Cardenas. CA 

Mr. Young, AK Mr, Tipton, CO X 

Mr. Faieomavaq{a, AS Mr. llorsford, NV 

Mr. Gohmert, TX Mr, Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Pallone, NJ X Mr. Huffman, C~1 X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr, Labrador, ID X 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Ruiz, CA X 

Mr, Lamborn, CO X Mr, Southe"land, FL X 

Mr. Holt, NJ Ms. Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr, Wittman, VA X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ X Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Broun, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ X 

Ms. Bordallo, GU X Mr. Garcia. FL X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mulliu, OK X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Thompson, P A X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms. Tsongas. MA Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr. Pierillisi. PR X Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Bcnishek, MI X 

Ms. Hanabllsa, HI X 

TOTALS 13 24 
12 

No further amendments were offered, and the bill, as amended, 

was then adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of 

Representatives by a bipartisan roll call vote of 23 to 15, as follows: 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert graphic folio 14 hr261.005

Date: July 31, 2013 

Committee on Natnral Resources 

u.s, House of Representatives 

113th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 5 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R, 2728 - To adopt and favorably report the bill to the House, as amended, by a 

vote of23 yeas and 15 nays 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes No Pres 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duncan ofSC X 

Mr, Dejilzio, OR, Ranking X Mr, Cardenas, CA X 

Mr. Youug, AK Mr. Tipton, CO X 

lvIr, Faleomavae"a, AS Mr, HorsfiJrd, NV 

Mr. Gohmer!, TX Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr, Pallone, NJ X Mr. Huffinan, CA X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Ruiz. CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Southerland, FL X 

Mr. Holt, NJ ,\4s. Shea-Parler, NH X 

Mr. \Vittman, VA X ,TX X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ X Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Broun, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ X 

Ms. Bordallo, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Amodei, NV 

Mr. Cosio, CA X Mr. Carlwright, PA rx X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Mullin, OK 

Mr. Sahlan, CNMI Mr. Stewart, UT X 

Mr. Thompson, P A X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Ms, Tsongas, MA Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms. Lummis, WY X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Mr, Pieriuisi, PR X Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Benishek, MI X 

lVis. Hanabusa, HI X 

TOTALS 23 15 
14 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 2728—Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy 

Security Act 

H.R. 2728 would prevent the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

from enforcing regulations related to hydraulic fracturing in any 

state where those activities are governed by state regulations. Hydraulic fracturing involves pumping liquids into the ground to generate cracks within geologic formations to increase access to liquids 

and gases trapped within those formations. 

Because there are currently no federal regulations directly related to hydraulic fracturing, CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 2728 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. 

The Department of the Interior has proposed regulations concerning hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands. If those, 

or similar regulations, were to go into force in the future, H.R. 

2728 could limit the implementation of those regulations, possibly 

reducing federal costs. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do 

not apply. 

H.R. 2728 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2728 

would have no significant impact on the federal budget. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to recognize States’ authority to regulate oil and gas 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

operations and promote American energy security, development, 

and job creation. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5 

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

MINERAL LEASING ACT 

* * * * * * * 

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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

(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. ø44.¿ 45. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mineral Leasing Act’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(17) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We oppose H.R. 2728 because it is bad policy, a bad precedent, 

and based on a poor understanding of how oil and gas regulation 

actually operates in this country. 

The bill is an attempt to halt a deliberative, public rule-making 

process before it is even completed. The Department of the Interior 

first proposed fracking regulations in May 2012, and proposed a revised set of regulations in May 2013. Out of 1.3 million comments 

on the latest proposal, nearly 1.2 million people called for increased 

federal oversight of the widespread and highly controversial practice of fracking. Despite this overwhelming ground swell of support 

for strong federal fracking regulations, H.R. 2728 would move in 

precisely the opposite direction, and preclude the federal government from having any oversight, inspection, or enforcement responsibility for fracking whatsoever. 

Natural gas reserves have become more accessible through the 

use of hydraulic fracturing techniques, and America is producing 

more natural gas today than ever before. We support expanded development of domestic energy resources, including natural gas, but 

we must develop this resource in a way that protects public health, 

safety and the environment. 

Many states with fracking activity have enacted their own regulations to oversee this practice, but those requirements vary widely, 

and do not provide assurance to the Federal government or the 

American people that a common-sense baseline of protection exists 

on over 750 million acres of land containing federal minerals. 

This bill, as written, does not even require a state to have reasonably stringent regulations for fracking—or any regulations at 

all. The bill states that federal regulations are forbidden ‘‘in any 

State that has regulations, guidance, or permit requirements’’ for 

fracking. This means that a state with one page, or even one sentence, of guidance for fracking is therefore exempt from federal 

oversight of federal resources. 

Furthermore, the federal government is required to defer to the 

states on an overly broad suite of issues: ‘‘all activities related to 

hydraulic fracturing.’’ That could be read to encompass everything 

from site preparation, to water sourcing and disposal, to air emissions, and more, as long as it is considered related to fracking. 

Given that roughly 90% of the wells in this country are fracked, 

this would effectively eliminate federal regulations on 90% of the 

drilling activity in the United States. With one short paragraph, 

this bill would destroy the foundation of environmental oversight 

and enforcement which has been built cooperatively over decades 

by the federal government, the states, and the public. 

The fundamental premise of this bill—that states with strong 

fracking regulations should be allowed to regulate the activity 

themselves—is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

how oil and gas regulation actually works. Those states with 

fracking regulations more stringent than the proposed federal 

fracking rule would see virtually no impact from this rule whatsoever. 

Oil and gas drillers abide by the laws of the state in which they 

operate, and if they are drilling into federal minerals, they also 

must meet any additional federal regulations. The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) routinely includes language into leases and 

permits expressly requiring drillers to adhere to all state and local 

laws. If a state already has regulations that exceed the BLM’s requirements, drillers do nothing differently on federal land. Nothing. 

There is no need for a variance, or additional analysis, or anything 

else for that matter. A federal fracking rule would place no new requirements on states with good regulations in place; it would only 

provide a necessary floor in states without good regulations on the 

books. 

This is not just how it would work for fracking. This is how it 

works for every federal oil and gas regulation on the books. Oil and 

gas companies have operated under this situation of federal and 

state regulation for decades, and they have driven federal onshore 

oil production up 16% in the past four years. 

During consideration of H.R. 2728 by the Committee, Representative Lowenthal’s (D–CA) amendment to allow public disclosure of 

fracking chemicals, and Representative Cartwright’s (D–PA) 

amendments to allow federal regulation of well safety and to protect National Parks, wilderness areas, and endangered species 

were defeated on nearly party line votes. 

Instead of ham-handed legislative attempts to kick the federal 

government out of the management of federal resources, the states 

and the federal government should be working together to improve 

the safety of oil and gas operations. The BLM has memoranda of 

understanding with multiple states, and in the preamble of the 

fracking rule they encourage creating new memoranda where they 

don’t exist, and updating those that do. 

There is nothing to be gained from eliminating the ability of the 

federal government to regulate fracking, and much to be lost. We 

strongly oppose H.R. 2728. 

PETER DEFAZIO. 

RUSH HOLT. 

JARED HUFFMAN. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. 

NIKI TSONGAS. 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER. 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT. 

ALAN LOWENTHAL. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS