Tom Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REED. I reclaim my time. I thank my colleague for his comments, and he's absolutely right. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments that the economic potential that we see not only with Marcellus shale but with all of the shale formations. When it comes to natural gas and oil development, it's huge. Those are real jobs. I have had the opportunity to go to your great State and tour many of these rigs that we've seen in operation. You see the workers there. You see the people that are employed, that are being serviced by this industry that are putting food on their tables, putting money aside for their kids' college education. The prosperity. I went back on multiple trips and stopped and toured some of your downtown areas in the locations where this development is going on. And I talked with residents and heard the success stories of how the restaurants are filled and how the hotels have ``no vacancy'' signs on their doors. One thing that struck me was a family farmer who was talking about, until this came along, they were struggling with coming up with a plan to pass the family farm on to the next generation. And when I heard that story, I said, This is something, because it's continuing a way of life, a tradition of America when it comes to our farmers and, when it comes to people that we share in common in our districts, being able to pass that on because now they have the revenue from their lands that is going to allow them to preserve that way of life. So I'm proud to be here today. Before we get into some details as to exactly what we're talking about, one of those issues as we have indicated is getting the information out to the American public so that the American public can have the correct information based on science and data. And when our elected officials at the State level deal with the regulatory oversight that goes into this process, that we have the true science and data before them to make sure that those regulations are appropriate and they're getting the job done. Because we all agree on both sides of the aisle that we want this resource to be developed if it can be done so in a sound and environmentally safe fashion. So I will yield at this point in time to my colleague, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I reclaim my time. As both of my colleagues have articulated, this is a game-changer, but at the same time it's a game-changer, I think everybody in this Chamber and everyone across the Nation realizes that the development of this precious resource needs to be done in a safe and responsible manner. Nobody I've talked with in my travels on this issue has ever expressed a desire to just drill at any cost. What we have to do is have responsible, safe drilling. That's what we're all about, and that's what this caucus is all about. It's about bringing together both sides of the aisle. In Washington here, we get chastised quite often about being partisan, about dividing, and about not coming together to solve our Nation's problems. I see this as a game-changer for an additional reason in that we can come together on both sides of the aisle to promote this issue, to come up with a commonsense regulatory basis at the State level, to promote that at the State level, and to develop this precious resource domestically so that we can have energy that is projected to last over 90 years. There are 90 years of domestic supplies of energy coming from this natural gas formation that is located, not only in Marcellus shale, but across the Nation in various shale formations. What I'd like to do at this point in time is to just go through a little history of what we're talking about here when it comes to natural gas in America. Many people think that oil and natural gas in America is something that's relatively new. I'll tell you that, in the western portion of my district, I'm proud to have located there the first natural gas well that has ever been drilled. That well was located, I think it was, in the late 1800s, just outside the district in Fredonia; and then there is an oil well in the Pennsylvania area that, I believe, is located in my great colleague's district right across the Pennsylvania State border. It was located sometime in the late 1800s or in the early 1900s. Andrew Carnegie was able to generate a great amount of wealth in developing those oil fields that are right here in America. So natural gas and oil production in America is not something that's new. It has been around for many, many years. Actually, the first commercial frac job--or the job of developing a natural gas well with the technology and concept that we call ``hydraulic fracturing'' and which a lot of people have said in association with the Marcellus shale formation, which is a new technology and a new venture in natural gas development--has actually been around for quite some time. The first commercial frac job occurred in Velma, Oklahoma, on March 17, 1949. As my colleague from Pennsylvania had indicated, since that time, over 1 million wells have been fracked right here in America without an identified problem. That's over 60 years of success. What has happened with the Marcellus shale and the new shale formation development potential is that they've taken that hydraulic fracturing, and they've created an update to it. They've kind of come up with a new technology of using those existing technologies and combining them in order to come up with new techniques that combine the concepts of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing into one combined technology that makes the development of our North American shale/natural gas formations economically viable. That includes the Marcellus shale formation here in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, New York, and across the Northeast area. Now that we've heard about this issue, I see we are joined by another colleague from the great State of Pennsylvania. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments and I thank the gentleman for participating in this this evening. When I first came to Congress back in November of last year, after we took office after our special election, one of the issues, and a priority issue to our office, is the Marcellus shale natural gas development. One of the things that I noted back in my district back at home is that there is a lot of misinformation, as the gentleman identified in his comments. One thing that we sought to do is to establish the Marcellus Shale Caucus, a caucus of Members of Congress who represent districts that overlay the Marcellus shale formation, so that we could come together as a body, as a representative body, and bring the best scientists and bring the best data and bring the best information, not only to the floor of the House, but back to our districts. I am pleased to be joined tonight as cochair in that caucus as we have established in this Congress, my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz), who I believe has some comments that he would like to share on this issue before we get into the presentation of the facts in the development of the Marcellus shale.

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about an issue that I believe is a game changer when it comes to America's future. As we deal with the issue of dependency on foreign energy supplies and we come up with--hopefully in this Congress--a national energy policy that once and for all will put us on a path that will lead to our independence from our dependency on foreign energy supplies across America, one issue I would like to talk about tonight in particular is the exploration and development of our natural gas supplies right here on our domestic lands. As I come and hail from the great State of New York, we have located under our great State a formation known as the Marcellus shale natural gas formation. That natural gas formation has been identified by many experts across the field as to contain one of the world's largest supplies of natural gas. That supply of natural gas is located within our continent, within our borders, and will take off the table those risks to our future that are demonstrated by the upheavals that we see in the Middle East that supply our energy supplies on a constant basis. So I am proud to be joined tonight with colleagues from the great State of Pennsylvania on both sides of the aisle to talk about the issue of Marcellus shale natural gas. At this point in time, I would like to recognize my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) to offer some comments in regards to this issue.

Mr. REED. I think that articulates a great potential that we see with the Marcellus shale formation in particular. Its location in the northeast area of our great Nation opens it up to development to that densely populated area around New York City, up and down the northeast coast, the manufacturing hub of yesteryear that is there. The opportunity that this energy supply that has this infrastructure in existence and also the potential to invest in that infrastructure to deliver this energy supply to a vast number of people and to a vast number of small businesses is going to put people back to work. I think that further articulates the game-changing nature of this find in northeast America. I yield back.

Mr. REED. My understanding of the processing, correct me if I am wrong, is we are essentially dealing with a two-step process, if you would, in developing the well site. You have the surface up here; you have got the initial, where there is a drilling operation that goes through the--I forget the actual technical name--but the upper end of the well that we are tapping into. And that's the area in the first 1,000 feet, plus or minus, that's going through the aquifer. I think we have highlighted kind of a cross- section and kind of highlighted that area because it is a legitimate concern, in my opinion. I know the regulatory agencies have identified this as a legitimate concern, and this is a critical portion of the well development that I think we need to spend a little bit more time on. As we punch through the aquifer, what we are talking about is there are casings, there are steel casings, it's my understanding, that are pushed down the well site after it's been drilled, that are pushed down the bore, the well bore, and then going through that aquifer. And then what is happening once you get to that point that has been identified as the break-off point, or I forget the term that's in the industry, but what happens is they pump it up with a cement, with a material, that provides a barrier between the casing, the aquifer and the other formations and essentially fills in the area, if you would, between the casings and the aquifer and the other area that's kind of primarily going through that first 1,000 feet of well development. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. REED. That's exactly what I saw in your district, in your great district as I came down and toured one of those sites. You got a real sense of the difference of having the multiple vertical locations that would talk about clearing trees and clearing the area and building roads to get access to those areas. You would then essentially take six of those vertical sites and put them in one location where they could horizontally tap into this reserve from one location rather than six locations. I think that's a great point to put that education and that information out to people, because I think that people think this is just a one-hole operation. It's a multi-hole operation. That's also what makes it economically viable, because this is not cheap. I know these are millions of dollars of investment in order to tap into this resource, and that has to be recognized and respected.

Mr. REED. On the chart that we have here this evening, what we are talking about is that hydraulic fluid is pumped into the horizontal area. Primarily that water is hitting that area, and it is then coming back up the well bore to a certain extent. If you could continue as to what happens to the water that remains down there.

Mr. REED. I hope we can have this conversation many more times as we go forth and bring forth science and data on these issues. The operation, when it originally comes in and the development of the well site does require some industrial-type activity. I do recognize that, and I think my colleague would recognize that. But, again, I believe you said 90 days is the estimated period of time for that development to occur. I hear the Speaker giving us the sign that our time is up. I do thank my colleagues for joining me tonight, and I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to be here tonight.

Mr. REED. I believe the chart identifies what we're talking about here. We're talking the aquifer up here within 1,000 feet of the surface. Mostly, in our area, I know the water table is at about 500 feet, maybe 200 feet, people are putting their wells into those aquifers. And we're talking 6,000 feet, 8,000 feet. I think this chart demonstrates it fairly accurately that we've got a ton of material, literally material, that is protecting this formation and that area down there from our aquifer. And I think that that concern is a legitimate concern, but because of the oversight and the ability of our local agencies to do their job, in my opinion, I think they can handle it appropriately and that Mother Nature will protect that aquifer from the development of this. I think the standards of how these wells go in need to be enforced, and that means that the type of cement, both the steel that's used and even, as importantly, the cement casing that's utilized to make sure that it's of a high quality and to make sure that it's put in a way and tested so that there are no air pockets, there are no quick pathways somehow for migration to occur through the casing, and that is all done in a very high quality way with a lot of quality controls. That's where the oversight is important. In Pennsylvania, again, I come back and put a lot of trust in the Department of Environmental Protection. There's a lot of folks on the other side that would be opposed to this. And I don't like to really promote anything, especially this, but there was a film series called ``GASLAND.'' Let me just share with you some thoughts from John Hanger. Who is John Hanger? John Hanger used to be the head of an environmental group, and he became the secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection in Pennsylvania. And Secretary Hanger did a great job. He was concerned about the environment. He had an environmental record that was tough. He said that ``GASLAND'' is ``fundamentally dishonest'' and ``deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect.'' He called the producer of that a propagandist because of the way the information was presented. Again, it comes back to how we started this. This is an important thing to have a debate on. But make the debate on fact and science, not on myth and emotion. And there were pictures of fire-spewing faucets that have been repeatedly found to be the result, frankly, of naturally occurring methane migration. People that drill their shallow wells for water, unfortunately, where they tend to drill, they sometimes drill them into methane pockets, naturally existing ones. I saw a picture yesterday of a gentleman farmer from Colorado, and it was a pretty cool picture because it showed a large flame in the middle of a river, but it was from a naturally occurring methane pocket. It had nothing to do with mining. It had nothing to do with drilling. But it was, again, naturally occurring. It had nothing to do with fracking. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission reviewed the specific location of the film numerous times and remarked ``dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic''--that is, naturally occurring in origin--"and there are no indications of oil and gas impacts to the well water.'' The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has confirmed that there have been no confirmed cases of threatened animal health in Pennsylvania, because, obviously, a lot of this occurs on our farms. I would tell you that the Marcellus gas has saved more dairy farms in my district than probably anything else in the past couple years when dairy farmers were losing an average of $100 per cow per month, based on the fact that the Federal Government prices milk, and it is such a flawed system that this really has been a blessing for our farmers. I have a few farmers running around on new John Deeres, or whatever their choice of tractors are, for the first time in their lives, actually. And so it's been a really good thing so that we don't lose our farms. We are losing our agriculture acreage at an alarming rate even on a daily basis across this country, but in Pennsylvania, there has been a blessing that has helped to keep that land in production. There's a little bit of a disturbance, a small site for drilling, but once the rigs all go away and you have just that wellhead that you look at in the insert on the poster board there, you can farm around that.

Mr. REED. I would echo my colleague's comments about the State agencies being the appropriate agencies to oversee this development. In New York State, right now we are under a moratorium at the local level that has stopped any development of the Marcellus shale until our local DEC, Department of Environmental Conservation, issues its environmental impact statement to come up with the regulations that can deal with this issue in a responsible and safe manner. And to be perfectly upfront with my colleague from Pennsylvania, we've learned a great deal from what happened in your district and my other colleague's district in the State of Pennsylvania as to how to deal with these issues and make sure they are done safely and responsibly. And I think the DEC has done a good job in New York State of taking the time out and studying the issue. It's going on 3 years. I'm ready to move forward, in my opinion, to come up with regulations to unleash this game-changing opportunity for our Nation and for our areas. I do also agree with my colleague that leaving it up to Washington to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution, to me, is just not the appropriate policy. Let our State agencies, the ones that live and breathe in our communities, the people that work in those agencies, that know our State best, let me deal with these issues and come up with the regulations that are reasonable to protect our environment and yet at the same time recognize the potential and opportunity that is located in our Marcellus shale formation. And I think that is best served in order to allow the State agencies to do that. One thing I did want to stress as we're going through this chart, I've heard some concerns of people that, well, the fluid that remains down in the well site in the formation--because these are millions of gallons, there are millions of gallons of water that are pumped down the hole to create the pressures and to access this natural gas formation. There has been concern raised to me, and I would be interested to know what my colleague's thoughts are as to that water or that hydraulic, that slick water, that brine, as you had indicated, as it sits into the well site and into the formation, the potential risk of going back up through essentially a mile of sedimentation, of limestone, of different formations. Have you heard the same concern?

Mr. REED. I think that's a point that needs to be stressed is the redundancy of how the initial 1,000 feet, plus or minus, whatever the regulatory agencies say we have to have for that break-off point and that multiple protection to make sure that that aquifer is protected. Then my understanding is the second stage of the process is where they continue to drill down deeper to reach the actual formation, which again is 6,000 to 8,000 feet below, because it's not a fluid level location throughout the Northeast, as many of us know from geology from our high school days. There are elevation changes in that formation. That's the amazing part of the technology in my understanding is that as that formation goes up and down, and you go from the 5,000 foot, the 6,000 foot to the deep at the 9,000 foot, the technology can actually trace into that formation. I hit those marks where the engineers have identified that this gas is located. Essentially what they do in that second phase is they continue to drill down to the formation. As they turn the drill bit to do that horizontal drilling technique, that actually goes through that shale rock--and it is rock, I literally held it the other day, as I indicated earlier. It really feels like granite, but that gas is trapped within that rock and drills through and then reaches out thousands of feet from the well site up on the surface. I think that's a point I would also like to articulate right now and stress that one of the things that I saw as a benefit--because I have seen vertical wells, I have seen horizontal wells. Vertical wells is one hole essentially going to the formation, and they take a shot at getting to the sweet spot, so to speak. Then if they miss--and the general rule I believe in the industry is one out of three of those are not successful in the Northeast--and we are dealing with the Trenton rock and the Black River formation, which is a higher level formation, is my understanding. They would then have to move the well site, and they would have to disturb the surface, the area that they would have to clear in order to put the rig and the development facilities on the surface. Now, what they are doing with this whole horizontal drilling technique is that they have six different well sites from the one platform. Is that understanding correct?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran poses an unacceptable risk to the United States and our close ally Israel. It is clear that Iran is not pursuing a purely civilian nuclear program, but rather one that is designed to further their ability to access and utilize nuclear weapons. This is supported by our country's military and intelligence leaders. Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen said he doesn't believe ``for a second'' that Iran's nuclear program is for civilian use. While Director of Intelligence James Clapper testified to Congress that Iran is developing ``various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons.'' Yet, Iran's nuclear program continues unabated. With enough low-enriched nuclear material to produce three nuclear bombs, Iran could be at most two or three years away from a nuclear weapon. They are also developing the capacity to stockpile highly enriched nuclear material. Quite simply, United States policy must remain focused on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I believe that sanctions remain the best tool at our disposal to peacefully persuade Iran to abandon its reckless defiance of international law. While existing sanctions from the U.S. and the international community had achieved a crippling effect on the Iranian economy, I believe that our sanctions should be tougher to keep pressure on the Iranian leadership. This includes sanctioning foreign banks and energy companies. The choice is ours: we must continue to engage the international community and do everything in our power to protect our vital ally Israel.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak out against the atrocious record of human rights in Iran. Across the Middle East, we have seen a growing pressure for change, with individuals standing up for their right to live free. Yet, Iran remains a theocratic and violently repressive dictatorship. Iran's opposition Green Movement--reinvigorated by recent protests in the Middle East--has faced brutal suppression, including beatings and arrests. A recent response by the Iranian leadership to a weekly Tuesday protest calling for reforms included a brutal assault on demonstrators. More disturbing, there has been a spike in executions-- with the International Campaign for Human Rights estimating more than 90 individuals including political prisoners have been executed over the past two months. Clearly, any facade of Presidential and Parliamentary elections is exposed through this record of appalling religious and military control and abuse of the Iranian people. In Iran, there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of religion--with life imprisonment or death meted out as punishments for these ``crimes.'' As Americans, we--along with our international allies--must speak out against these abuses. The United Nations Human Rights Council should appoint a special expert to monitor and document the deterioration of human rights in Iran and I urge this Congress and our Administration to continue to impose and broaden strict U.S. sanctions, including on the companies that provide the technology that enables government monitoring and suppression of dissent. As a nation, we must support the desire of any people to live free and stand strong against abusive regimes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011. The expanded reporting requirements to the Internal Revenue Service are mandated by the health care reform act of 2010 on any purchase made $600 or more. This provision would directly impede economic growth in the 29th District of New York. At a time of great uncertainty, the economic recovery in the 29th District continues to lag behind the rest of the nation. This burdensome mandate must be eliminated and I proudly support the repeal for the sake of our small businesses and farmers. Further, we must act to ensure that ``red-tape'' measures and over- reaching regulations do not continue. If we are going to reduce government spending, it starts with repealing unnecessary requirements, such as the 1099 requirement. This provision of the health care reform law contributes to the bloating of the Federal Government and must be repealed. As we move forward towards returning fiscal prosperity to our nation, I will remain committed to the interests of small businesses and farmers, protecting them from burdens which restrict their growth. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of repealing the expanded 1099 requirement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that addresses pay for foreign service officers. It will ensure that the expected 24 percent pay raise does not go into effect in fiscal year 2011. It is my understanding that we have an agreement between the majority and minority on this issue. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REED. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REED. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REED. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment seeking to rescind $15 million of funds out of this continuing resolution. As I've listened to the debate here this evening and yesterday and over the last few days, as a freshman Member of Congress, I've come to a realization that part of the problem is that many Members of this esteemed body look at our spending in terms of it's a relatively small amount of money; it's a small sum. But we're talking about millions of dollars. We're talking about $15 million in this situation. Now, I proposed this amendment without any disrespect to any Member of this House. But I proposed it in a time when we face a national crisis that goes to our very existence for generations to come, a nation that won't be here for our children and our grandchildren. And when I look at the Presidio Trust fund and I look at the park-- and it's a great park. I concede that point. But the plan for the park was to be self-sufficient. And upon researching, going through page by page of this budget and doing the hard work, my staff and I have uncovered that this park is at the point where it can be self- sufficient on its own. They receive grants of $80,000 from the Cowell Foundation for three projects. They have a $15 million gift from the private sector from Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. LucasArts video games and Industrial Light & Magic are leasing portions of the park, and it's a private revenue stream. This is a success story. And at this point it's time for us to put all our cards on the table and say, Now that you are standing on your own two feet, when we face this fiscal crisis, this government now has to make a responsible decision. And to me, that responsible decision is to allow the park to stand on its own two feet--it has shown plenty of ability to do that--and save the children and grandchildren so that we can have a nation that they can be proud of and can have a nation that they can live in, because that's the point that we are in our Nation's history. So I stand today and ask your support for this amendment. I think it is the responsible action to do. And I applaud this process, because this process is being conducted in the open and through a vigorous debate, and that's what the American people have called upon us to do. No line of our spending shall be left under stones. We shall uncover each stone. I urge all my fellow Members to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment. But before I talk about that, I want to say that I am proud to be a part of this process. Last night, I heard one of my colleagues say that what we should do is, because the President threatened to veto this process at the end of the day, we should pack it up, go in the back room and try to resolve our differences there. To me, this is what the process was all about, to have this debate on the floor of the House so that we can have an open and vigorous debate about these spending issues because, ladies and gentlemen, today we face a national crisis, and that national crisis is a national debt that is going to destroy us as a nation and destroy it for our children and our grandchildren. So I am proud today to stand up and say that we need to shine the light on every aspect of every dollar that is spent in our Federal budget. And today I rise to ask that we rescind and amend the continuing resolution to remove $10 million of spending on a sewer project in Tijuana, Mexico. When we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar on the backs of our children and our grandchildren, I ask the question: Why are we spending $10 million so that a sewer could be constructed in Tijuana, Mexico? Now, I understand and I empathize with my friends from San Diego and that area where waste apparently washes on the shore from Tijuana because they're not acting responsibly with their matters. But I say this: today it is to hold the country of Mexico accountable for the situation in Tijuana. And rather than use our dollars, our borrowed dollars that are being absorbed by our children and grandchildren, we hold them accountable. And I think this is exactly what we should be doing and standing and calling out this kind of wasteful spending, in my opinion. And I am proud and ask that my colleagues join me in approving this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you very much. I stand today to join my colleague and applaud my colleague for coming to the floor of the House to articulate what are truly our founding and our core principles. We should be going back to our Constitution on a regular basis and always recognize that what our Founding Fathers envisioned for America was a limited Federal Government; not an America that guarantees everyone success in life, but, rather, a government that guarantees that every American, every man, woman, and child in America has the opportunity to succeed. We do not at the Federal Government level pick winners and losers. What we should do is always guarantee that the opportunity in America is there for our young men, women, and children of the generations of today and the generations of tomorrow to have the opportunity to succeed and control their own destiny. I see an America right now, my good friend from Pennsylvania who is articulating here today, the concerns that the Nation of America truly is fighting for its existence. We see a national debt that is at $14 trillion in publicly held debt. You talk to people about the unfunded liability of putting that national debt at $200 trillion, plus or minus. That's $242,000 for each man, woman, and child in America. That is not sustainable. That will not protect this Nation for generations of today and of tomorrow and for generations that are not even contemplated as we sit here tonight. We have an obligation to stand for this wonderful Nation, and I am proud to join my colleague from Pennsylvania and come here tonight and cry out for America to say we need to stand once again. We need to fight for our very existence, because that existence is threatened from that financial insecurity that is brought on by this national debt. And I am so confident that when we stand together, when we come into this Chamber and we have the open and vigorous debate that we are going to have and that we will have, America will prosper. We will make the hard decisions, and we will stand proudly as one Nation for many generations to come that will be the beacon and the light to the world for so many who so need us and who so want us to succeed, and we are committed to that effort.