[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 20, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H1255-H1264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               PROTECTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION ACT

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1121) to prohibit a moratorium on the use of 
hydraulic fracturing, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 1085, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1121

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting American Energy 
     Production Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     States should maintain primacy for the regulation of 
     hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas production on 
     State and private lands.
       (b) Prohibition on Declaration of a Moratorium on Hydraulic 
     Fracturing.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     President may not declare a moratorium on the use of 
     hydraulic fracturing unless such moratorium is authorized by 
     an Act of Congress.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).


                             General Leave

  Mr. STAUBER. 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. 1121.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1121, the Protecting 
American Energy Production Act.
  H.R. 1121, introduced by Congressman Duncan, would prevent any 
President from issuing a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing while also 
establishing a sense of Congress that States should regulate the 
practice on State and private land.
  Hydraulic fracturing has been around for almost 100 years. The 
practice, combined with recent technological improvements and the 
advent of horizontal drilling, has propelled the United States to 
global energy superpower status.
  This surge in supply has contributed to lower energy prices for 
consumers, stimulating economic growth, and improving the quality of 
life for all Americans.
  In truth, a ban on hydraulic fracturing would cripple the American 
economy while surrendering world energy leadership to Russia, Iran, and 
China.
  Federal efforts to regulate fracking, which is currently adequately 
regulated by the States, could have an equally devastating impact.

[[Page H1256]]

  The 2005 Energy Policy Act clarified that Congress never intended the 
Federal Government to regulate fracking under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  In the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management attempted 
to regulate the practice for Federal lands and minerals, but the courts 
threw out that effort.
  In the decision, the judge clearly stated, ``Congress has not 
delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate 
hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the fracking 
rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.''
  Currently, States regulate fracking, and each has comprehensive laws 
and regulations to provide for safe operations, to protect drinking 
water sources, and to have trained personnel effectively regulating oil 
and gas exploration and production.
  In addition to preventing the President from implementing a 
unilateral fracking ban, this bill would also express a sense of 
Congress that States should maintain regulatory authority over fracking 
on State and private lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 
1121, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I welcome everyone to the long-anticipated, endlessly 
rescheduled energy week.
  Over the next 2 days, with only a matter of days until a partial 
shutdown, rather than a transparent discussion on how to fund the 
government, this Chamber will debate and vote on a number of energy-
related bills, bills Republicans claim will boost so-called energy 
dominance.
  It is not hard to see through their talking points.
  The U.S. is producing more oil and gas than ever before, and what do 
we have to show for it? Everyday Americans still face volatile energy 
prices because oil and gas are global commodities and because we are 
exporting record amounts of fossil fuels.
  The communities nearest to this record-breaking production are 
overburdened with pollution, and their health and well-being are 
suffering. The climate crisis, because it is real, is getting more dire 
each year.
  The United States should be leading the way to a new, cleaner future, 
not drilling deeper into this catastrophe.
  Rather than addressing these issues head-on and building a just 
future that generations to come can be proud of, House Republicans are 
instead choosing to lead us toward more of the same--stuffing the 
pockets of Big Oil executives who are hoping to make another quick 
yacht off the backs of hardworking Americans just as they have done for 
years.
  We have seen these washed-up, has-been proposals before.
  Last year, Republicans passed H.R. 1, the polluters over people act 
which contains some of these repeat proposals. It is like a bad 
boyfriend coming back who just needs to be gone.
  This week is no different.
  We are going to see the same tired handouts to the richest and most 
polluting megacorporations, all while leaving our most vulnerable 
communities in the toxic dust. It is polluters over people 2.0.
  The first bill on the agenda is H.R. 1121, which would prevent the 
President from banning fracking unless authorized by Congress, even if 
there is a public health emergency, poisoned drinking water, or any 
other fracking crisis.
  For my colleagues across the aisle, maybe this is just a messaging 
bill, but for folks on the ground, it is extremely dangerous. It 
ignores the very real consequences of fracking for impacted 
communities.
  Fracking is a method of extracting oil and gas from deep underground. 
It involves blasting open rock at high pressure with a mixture of 
water, sand, and chemicals, many of which are undisclosed.
  In areas where fracking is concentrated, it has been linked to 
preterm births, high-risk pregnancies, asthma, migraines, fatigue, 
respiratory symptoms, skin disorders, and the list goes on.

  The fracking chemicals we do know about--things like benzene and 
ethylene glycol, are known to be hazardous to human health. Children 
living near fracking sites have lower birth weights and higher rates of 
cancer.
  Fracking chemicals end up in our soil and in our groundwater. 
Fracking is known to contaminate air and drinking water, but this 
Republican sweetheart legislation would stop the President from banning 
or even pausing fracking on public lands and in Federal waters, even if 
it poses a clear, known, and present danger to drinking water and 
public health.
  Here is something you are going to hear a lot from Democrats this 
week: Big Oil and Big Gas don't need any more favors right now. They 
don't need more tax breaks. They don't need more special loopholes. 
They don't need more handouts.
  The President should have the full range of tools to protect the 
American people, especially when it comes to our public lands and 
resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the legislation, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, one of the things my good friends and 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stated is that the Big 
Oil and Gas companies are making record profits, and these bills are 
essentially tax cuts for Big Oil. That couldn't be further from the 
truth.
  This President's anti-energy agenda has driven up energy prices for 
all Americans, which also has created greater revenues for Big Oil 
companies. If Democrats are really concerned about energy prices, the 
best thing they can do is mirror the energy dominance policies of the 
previous administration.
  Doing so would create abundance, driving down energy prices for all 
Americans. Producers with no more than $5 million in retail sales of 
oil and gas in a year account for 83 percent of America's oil 
production, 90 percent of its natural gas, and natural gas liquids 
production.
  These are small businesses, Mr. Speaker, often locally and 
independently owned with a handful of employees, but collectively they 
support 4.5 million American jobs.
  Our Republican energy bills help ensure small businesses can continue 
to operate on Federal lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look at the 
balance sheets of all of these Big Oil executives. No one is waiting in 
a food line. No one is trying to cash an unemployment check. They have 
the money, and they will be getting more because of these loopholes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Levin).

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1121.
  This extreme legislation would limit the President's ability to 
respond to public health, environmental, and climate risks. It is 
nothing more than a made-up solution in search of a problem.
  To be clear, the President has made no indication that he will ban 
fracking, and yet H.R. 1121 would prohibit the President from ever 
banning fracking for any reason ever, despite the risks that it poses. 
Many of my colleagues aren't even in favor of sensible oversight or 
regulation of fracking.
  It is my view that public lands managers ought to have access to a 
full range of tools to reduce harmful emissions, protect our 
environment, and safeguard public health. I am particularly concerned 
because we don't have adequate regulations and safeguards in place to 
ensure that if fracking is done, at the very least it is done in a way 
that reduces environmental and health risks.
  There is a growing body of evidence that illustrates that fracking 
creates vast amounts of wastewater, emits greenhouse gases such as 
methane, and releases toxic pollutants such as potent carcinogens into 
the air.
  Studies have also reported associations between residential proximity 
to fracking operations and increased adverse pregnancy outcomes, cancer 
incidence, hospitalizations, respiratory diseases, mental health 
problems, and more. Additionally, throughout the U.S., pregnant women, 
children, indigenous people, communities of color, and

[[Page H1257]]

low-income communities disproportionately bear the negative impacts of 
fracking.
  Our understanding of fracking's risks just continues to grow. We 
can't let this pollution of our air, water, climate, and health 
continue unabated, especially if we remove a tool from the President's 
toolbox, as H.R. 1121 would do.
  We need some regulations in place to protect the health of our 
environment and our communities, otherwise we risk unleashing the 
fossil fuel industry's unfettered pollution and damage to our 
environment and our health.
  For these reasons, at the appropriate time I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. 
My amendment would require the Bureau of Land Management to issue 
regulations around fracking that include baseline water testing and 
public disclosure of the chemicals that companies use in their fracking 
operations before the ban on fracking bans can go into place.
  At the end of the debate, I will insert into the Record the text of 
this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me for the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle say that this bill, H.R. 1121, is unnecessary, as the President 
has not proposed a hydraulic fracturing moratorium. They say it sets a 
dangerous precedent for limiting the authority of the President and the 
Secretary of the Interior to manage energy resources on Federal lands.
  The fact is, this President, on the campaign trail, said: ``No more, 
no new fracking.'' This was candidate Biden. We know from what he has 
done in his first 3-plus years in office, don't necessarily listen to 
his words, watch his actions. He has done it on mining. He said we were 
going to mine domestically for our critical minerals. Once he became 
President, he changed his tune. Now he wants memorandums of 
understanding with other countries that are adversarial to the United 
States.
  After years of disastrous energy policies by this President, we know 
we cannot take him for just his word, which is exactly why this bill is 
necessary. This is especially true, Mr. Speaker, given that the Obama 
administration's Bureau of Land Management tried to regulate fracking.
  The courts ultimately stopped this effort. In the decision, U.S. 
District Court Judge Skavdahl clearly stated: ``Congress has not 
delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate 
hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the Fracking 
Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, in 2015 the Obama administration 
published a rule regulating fracking on public lands, and I should 
mention that the rule was not a ban on fracking, but a commonsense 
requirement that companies disclose what chemicals they are using.
  It would also have required storage protocols for wastewater, 
barriers between wells and water zones, and the disclosure of the 
location of existing wells--additional commonsense protections for the 
public.
  The rule was challenged, and the District Court of Wyoming struck 
down an appeal. The District Court of Wyoming read the Safe Drinking 
Water Act's exclusion of fracking from that law's underground injection 
program to mean that no Federal agency can regulate fracking.
  This was a flimsy court case that has not been reviewed on appeal, 
and the Trump BLM rescinded the rule before the appeals court could 
rule on it. The case does not mean that the Federal Government should 
have no role in regulating fracking for oil and gas. This issue is too 
important for us to leave 100 percent to a patchwork of State laws. The 
President must have the full range of tools to protect our health, 
safety, and climate from the dangers of fracking.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, as one of the only few who doesn't take 
corporate PAC money in this institution, I am here to tell you the 
truth, per usual.
  H.R. 1121 is a danger to all of our communities. The President must 
have a full range of tools to protect our health, safety, and climate 
from dangers of fracking.
  We know this bill is nothing more than a waste of time. I would like 
to take a step back for a minute and remind people of the truth, why we 
are here in this situation right now, with fracking being practically 
unregulated at the Federal level.
  Nearly 20 years ago, Mr. Speaker, then-Vice President Dick Cheney, 
the former CEO of Halliburton, managed to insert a loophole into the 
Energy Act of 2005 specifically exempting fracking chemicals from EPA 
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Halliburton, of course, is one of the largest oil and gas companies 
in the world and also just happens to be behind most of the major 
fracking worldwide.
  For the last 20 years, we have been dealing with the Halliburton 
loophole, a terrible reminder of the revolving door of oil, money, and 
politics, and how Big Oil buys its way into the Halls of Congress.
  This bill is another step to enshrine fracking protections and 
polluter loopholes into law, and it is wrong. It says to people in our 
communities all across the country, the people who elected us--urban, 
rural communities--that corporate polluters' profits are more important 
than their health.
  The mere fact that fracking is linked to childhood cancer should be 
enough for us to act. I merely ask for us, please, don't frack with our 
health.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this legislation.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, my good friends and colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle make statements that fracking is mostly unregulated 
and the practice can consume millions of gallons of water. They say 
this is industry first and that the Republicans look to take away and 
protect public health and combat the climate crisis. That couldn't be 
further from the truth. Absolutely couldn't be further from the truth.
  According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, member 
States each have comprehensive laws and regulations to ensure safe 
operations and protect drinking water sources. They have trained 
personnel to effectively regulate oil and gas exploration and 
production.
  Mr. Speaker, even President Obama's own EPA found that fracking has 
no widespread systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the 
United States of America. No evidence has arisen that this practice is 
dangerous, and to say anything else is simply fear-mongering to the 
American people and pandering to the radical left that would rather 
have us rely on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela for our energy needs.
  Mr. Speaker, one last thing. This President took the sanctions off 
Iran. Iran is now making $90 billion because those sanctions were taken 
off. Who do you think is funding the war against Israel? Iran, the top 
sponsor of terrorism. He took the sanctions off.
  When we produce here in the United States of America, it is a win-
win, Mr. Speaker. It is the safest, and the cleanest. It employs 
American technology, American resources, provides American jobs. It 
helps American families, American communities. We do it better than 
anybody else.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in 
the Record Mr. Levin's amendment immediately prior to the vote on the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article 
from the Yale School of Public Health, published in ScienceDirect in 
response to the statements of my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle that fracking is safe and that it is safe for nearby communities.


[[Page H1258]]


  


         [From Science of the Total Environment, Aug. 16, 2016]

Unconventional Oil and Gas Development and Risk of Childhood Leukemia: 
                         Assessing the Evidence

  (By Elise G. Elliott, Pauline Trinh, Xiaomei Ma, Brian P. Leaderer, 
                    Mary H. Ward, Nicole C. Deziel)


                                ABSTRACT

       The widespread distribution of unconventional oil and gas 
     (UO&G) wells and other facilities in the United States 
     potentially exposes millions of people to air and water 
     pollutants, including known or suspected carcinogens. 
     Childhood leukemia is a particular concern because of the 
     disease severity, vulnerable population, and short disease 
     latency. A comprehensive review of carcinogens and 
     leukemogens associated with UO&G development is not available 
     and could inform future exposure monitoring studies and human 
     health assessments. The objective of this analysis was to 
     assess the evidence of carcinogenicity of water contaminants 
     and air pollutants related to UO&G development. We obtained a 
     list of 1177 chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids and 
     wastewater from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 
     constructed a list of 143 UO&G-related air pollutants through 
     a review of scientific papers published through 2015 using 
     PubMed and ProQuest databases. We assessed carcinogenicity 
     and evidence of increased risk for leukemia/lymphoma of these 
     chemicals using International Agency for Research on Cancer 
     (IARC) monographs. The majority of compounds (>80%) were not 
     evaluated by IARC and therefore could not be reviewed. Of the 
     111 potential water contaminants and 29 potential air 
     pollutants evaluated by IARC (119 unique compounds), 49 water 
     and 20 air pollutants were known, probable, or possible human 
     carcinogens (55 unique compounds). A total of 17 water and 11 
     air pollutants (20 unique compounds) had evidence of 
     increased risk for leukemia/lymphoma, including benzene, 1,3-
     butadiene, cadmium, diesel exhaust, and several polycyclic 
     aromatic hydrocarbons. Though information on the 
     carcinogenicity of compounds associated with UO&G development 
     was limited, our assessment identified 20 known or suspected 
     carcinogens that could be measured in future studies to 
     advance exposure and risk assessments of cancer-causing 
     agents. Our findings support the need for investigation into 
     the relationship between UO&G development and risk of cancer 
     in general and childhood leukemia in particular.


                              Introduction

       Unconventional oil and gas (UO&G) development is a complex, 
     multi-phase process of extracting oil and natural gas from 
     low-permeable rock formations that were inaccessible prior to 
     recent technological advances in hydraulic fracturing and 
     directional drilling. It has expanded rapidly in the past 
     decade and now occurs in as many as 30 states within the 
     United States, with millions of people living within 1 mile 
     of a hydraulically fractured well (US EPA, 2015). Concerns 
     have been raised about the potential exposures to water and 
     air pollutants and related health impacts (Adgate et al., 
     2014). Chemicals involved in or produced by UO&G development 
     may include reproductive/developmental toxicants (Elliott et 
     al., 2016; Kahrilas et al., 2015; Wattenberg et al., 2015), 
     endocrine disruptors (Kassotis et al., 2014), or known or 
     suspected carcinogenic agents (McKenzie et al., 2012). The 
     limited epidemiologic studies of UO&G development have 
     observed an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes (Casey et 
     al., 2016: McKenzie et al., 2014; Stacy et al., 2015), asthma 
     exacerbations (Rasmussen et al., 2016), dermal irritation 
     (Rabinowitz et al., 2015), hospitalization rates Jemielita et 
     al., 2015), and nasal, headache, and fatigue symptoms (Tustin 
     et al., 2016).
       Childhood leukemia in particular is a public health concern 
     related to UO&G development, and it may be an early indicator 
     of exposure to environmental carcinogens due to the 
     relatively short disease latency and vulnerability of the 
     exposed population (Rothwell et al., 1991; Shy et al., 1994). 
     The age-adjusted incidence rate of leukemia in the United 
     States for children under the age of 15 was 5.3 per 100,000 
     persons in 2011, the highest among all types of childhood 
     cancer, and the peak age of incidence is 2-5 years (CDC. 
     2015). The U.S. incidence rates for acute lymphocytic 
     leukemia, the most common subtype of childhood leukemia, 
     increased annually by 1.4% from 2000 to 2010 (Gittleman et 
     al., 2015). Environmental exposures, such as ionizing 
     radiation, benzene, traffic exhaust, tobacco smoke, and 
     pesticides, have been linked to childhood acute lymphoblastic 
     leukemia, though evidence is generally limited or 
     inconsistent (Bailey et al., 2015a; Bailey et al., 2015b; 
     Tong et al., 2012: Ward et al., 2014; Wiemels, 2012; Zachek 
     et al., 2015). A comprehensive review of the carcinogens and 
     leukemogens associated with UO&G development is not available 
     and could inform future environmental and biological 
     monitoring and human health studies. In this analysis, we 
     aimed to systematically assess the evidence for a possible 
     carcinogenic/leukemogenic role of (1) water and (2) air 
     pollutants associated with UO&G development.
     1.1. Unconventional oil and gas development description of 
         the process
       In oil and gas extraction, a well pad must first be 
     constructed. This involves the use of construction vehicles, 
     heavy equipment, and diesel generators in continuous 
     operation to create roads, clear and set up a well site, and 
     transport materials to the site (Moore et al., 2014). After 
     well pad construction is complete, drilling rigs drill 
     vertically past the deepest freshwater aquifer down to the 
     level of the source formation, such as shale rock, turn and 
     drill horizontally for distances up to 3000 m (Laurenzi and 
     Jersey, 2013). After drilling, the well is hydraulically 
     fractured. In this step, large volumes of fracturing fluids 
     consisting of water, chemicals, and proppants (sand or 
     ceramic beads) are forced into wells under high pressure, 
     creating fissures or fractures in the rock along the 
     horizontal section of the wellbore to release oil or gas. 
     Typically, about 15-100 million l of fluid are used for each 
     well, of which approximately 1-2% are chemical additives, 
     representing a substantial volume of chemicals used per well 
     (estimated as upwards of 114,000 l) (US DOE, 2013; US EPA, 
     2012). Chemical additives in fracturing fluids include 
     biocides, surfactants. and anti-corrosive agents (US EPA, 
     2015). After fracturing, wastewater flows up the wells. 
     Within 1-4 weeks about 30% of injected fracturing fluids 
     rapidly return to the surface through the well as 
     ``flowback'' water; subsequently, ``produced'' water returns 
     up the well more slowly. The produced water includes the 
     injected fluids along with mobilized, naturally-occurring 
     compounds (e.g., heavy metals, bromides, radionuclides) 
     (Ferrar et al., 2013; Vidic et al., 2013). Flowback and 
     produced wastewater are stored in large open pits or storage 
     tanks until they can be treated, reused, or disposed of 
     offsite, such as in injection wells. Oil, gas, and produced 
     water flow up the well for years or decades during the 
     production phase of the well (Barbot et al., 2013; Nicol et 
     al., 2014). During production, diesel-power trucks may be 
     used to maintain the wells or transport oil or gas off the 
     well pad. This stage also includes the processing and 
     distribution of the produced oil and gas at other facilities 
     (NYS DEC, 2011).
     1.2. Possible pathways of environmental exposure to 
         carcinogenic agents
       Possible pathways of water contamination during fracturing 
     and production include faulty or deteriorating well casings, 
     equipment failure, surface spills of fracturing fluids or 
     wastewater on-site or from tanker trucks transporting these 
     liquids, migration of chemicals from fractures to shallow 
     aquifers, leakage from wastewater pits, and unauthorized 
     discharge and release of inadequately treated wastewater into 
     the environment (Adgate et al., 2014; Brantley et al., 2014; 
     Ferrar et al., 2013; Gross et al., 2013; Jackson et al., 
     2013b; Osborn et al., 2011; Rozell and Reaven, 2012: Shonkoff 
     et al., 2014: US EPA, 2015: Vengosh et al., 2014; Vengosh et 
     al., 2013; Warner et al., 2012). Surface activities may pose 
     the greater potential threat in the near-term (Drollette et 
     al., 2015), with sub-surface activities potentially 
     presenting a hazard over a longer period of time. Several 
     water quality studies have measured total dissolved solids, 
     isotopes, and other chemicals to characterize a geochemical 
     fingerprint of UO&G development (Jackson et al., 2013a; 
     Vengosh et al., 2013; Warner et al., 2013; Warner et al., 
     2012) ; these studies are not necessarily focused on 
     compounds with evidence of toxicity to humans. Studies 
     measuring concentrations of health-relevant chemicals in 
     drinking water sources are emerging (Harkness et al., 2015; 
     Hildenbrand et al., 2015; Llewellyn et al., 2015), but data 
     are limited.
       UO&G development activities that could generate air 
     pollution include operation of diesel-powered equipment, use 
     of vehicles to transport materials and waste to and from the 
     site, addition of sand (silica) to the fracturing fluid 
     mixture, volatilization of compounds from wastewater, and 
     processing and distribution of the oil and gas (Moore et al., 
     2014). Air pollutants, such as diesel exhaust, fine and 
     coarse air particulates, crystalline silica, and polycyclic 
     aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), are a few examples commonly 
     cited as being generated as part of the various phases of 
     UO&G development (Burnham et al., 2012; McCawley, 2015: Moore 
     et al., 2014). To our knowledge, no comprehensive list of air 
     pollutants potentially related to UO&G development is 
     available in the published literature or government reports.
     1.3. Epidemiologtc studies of unconventional oil and gas 
         development
       Knowledge of the the health risks of UO&C development is 
     sparse though epidemiologic studies on this topic are 
     emerging, Studies using proximity-based metrics observed 
     associations between UO&G development and congenital heart 
     defects in children (McKenzie et al., 2014), self-reported 
     dermal irritation (Rabinowitz et al., 2015), decreased 
     birth weight and increased incidence of small for 
     gestational age (Stacy et al., 2015), increased preterm 
     birth (Casey et al., 2016), increased in mild, moderate, 
     and severe asthma exacerbations (Rasmussen et al., 2016), 
     and increased chronic rhinosinusitis, migraine headache, 
     and fatigue symptoms (Tustin et al., 2016). The number of 
     wells per ZIP code was associated with increased 
     hospitalization rates, particularly in the areas of 
     dermatology, neurology, oncology, and urology (Jemielita 
     et al., 2015).
       The only epidemiologic analysis of the association between 
     UO&C development and risk of cancer published in the 
     scientific literature reported similar county-level 
     standardized incidence ratios for childhood leukemia before 
     and after drilling of any oil and gas wells in any 
     Pennsylvania counties during 1990-2009 (Fryzek et al., 2013). 
     Also in this

[[Page H1259]]

     analysis, standardized incidence ratios were similar before 
     and after drilling started in counties with unconventional 
     wells, specifically. However, several important shortcomings 
     of this study have been noted. For example, this ecologic 
     study did not account for a latency period between exposure 
     and cancer incidence. In addition, though the study objective 
     was to examine risk associated with hydraulic fracturing, 98% 
     of the wells included in the study were ``non-horizontal'' 
     wells that likely did not involve the practice of hydraulic 
     fracturing (Goldstein and Malone, 2013). Case-control studies 
     of proximity to other petroleum-based sources provide some 
     evidence of an association with childhood leukemia risk. Two 
     case-control studies in France reported increased odds of 
     childhood leukemia among those living in proximity to the 
     petroleum-based sources of petrol stations and automotive 
     repair garages (Brosselin et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 
     2004). Another case-control study reported elevated odds of 
     childhood leukemia with proximity to petrol stations, but the 
     relationship was not statistically significant, possibly due 
     to small sample size (Harrison et al., 1999). Another study 
     observed an association with proximity to petro-chemical 
     plants and increased odds of leukemia in young adults (20-29 
     years), but not children ages 0-15 (Yu et al., 2006). 
     Additionally, a human health risk assessment found an 
     increased risk of cancer for residents living 0.5 versus 
     >0.5 mile from a well, attributable primarily to benzene, a 
     known human carcinogen associated with leukemia risk 
     (McKenzie et al., 2012). Taken together, these findings 
     support the plausibility of an increased risk of childhood 
     leukemia related to oil and gas development. The current 
     analysis investigates whether there is additional evidence 
     for the plausibility of a carcinogenic risk from air or water 
     contaminants and provides information to improve the 
     specificity of exposure assessments and human health research 
     of the potential adverse effects of UO&G development.


                               2. METHODS

     2.1 Identification of potential water contaminants
       We compiled a list of all chemicals used in hydraulic 
     fracturing fluids, detected in hydraulic fracturing 
     wastewater, or both from the U.S. Environmental Protection 
     Agency (US EPA) Appendices A of the progress report ``Study 
     of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking 
     Water Resources'' and draft report ``Assessment of the 
     Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on 
     Drinking Water Resources'' (US EPA, 2012; US EPA, 2015). We 
     eliminated duplicate entries and combined the entries for 
     xylene isomers. This yielded a total of 1177 distinct 
     compounds or groups of compounds (1043 in fracturing fluids 
     only, 98 in wastewater only, 36 in both). The U.S. EPA 
     developed these chemical lists from federal and state 
     databases of well permits and construction records, industry 
     disclosures and monitoring reports, trade journals, the 
     scientific literature, and governmental and non-governmental 
     reports. The fracturing fluid list contains a greater number 
     of substances because it reflects reported usage and includes 
     disclosed substances used across varying companies, 
     locations, and geological formations. The list of wastewater 
     constituents is shorter because it is based on the limited 
     wastewater measurement data available from industry, 
     government reports, or the published literature.
     2.2 Classification of carcinogenicity of potential water 
         contaminants
       We searched the International Agency for Research on Cancer 
     (IARC) monographs for evidence of carcinogenicity of the 
     potential water contaminants. IARC is an internationally 
     recognized authority on carcinogenicity of chemicals and 
     other agents (Pearce et al., 2015). The monographs are 
     written by working groups of international experts convened 
     by IARC, and they provide detailed evaluations of the quality 
     and strength of evidence of carcinogenicity of agents. The 
     agents are selected for evaluation based on exposure 
     prevalence and suggestive evidence of likelihood to pose a 
     cancer hazard to humans (Tomatis, 1976). Other organizations 
     evaluate environmental agents for carcinogenicity, such as 
     the U.S. EPA through their Integrated Risk Information System 
     (IRIS) or the National Institutes of Health through their 
     National Toxicology Program (NTP). Their lists of agents 
     evaluated for their carcinogenicity contain much overlap with 
     IARC and are less comprehensive; IARC, IRIS, and NTP have 
     evaluated 1050, 264, and 243 compounds, respectively (IARC, 
     2016; IRIS, 2016; NTP, 2014).
       Chemicals were designated as ``no information available'' 
     if they were not evaluated in an IARC monograph. For 
     chemicals that were evaluated, we indicated their IARC 
     carcinogenicity classification: carcinogenic to humans (Group 
     1), probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), possibly 
     carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), not classifiable as to 
     their carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3), and probably not 
     carcinogenic to humans (Group 4). We calculated frequencies 
     and percentages of the potential water contaminants in each 
     carcinogenicity classification. For chemicals in Groups 1, 
     2A, or 2B, we assessed whether these chemicals had evidence 
     linked to leukemia and/or lymphoma specifically, based on the 
     available information on human and animal study data provided 
     in the monograph summary or synthesis.
     2.3. Identification of potential air pollutants
       We constructed a list of potential air pollutants 
     associated with UO&G development by conducting a 
     comprehensive review of the scientific literature. First, we 
     systematically searched the biomedical and health-oriented 
     PubMed database for papers published through December 31, 
     2015 using the terms ``fracking air'', ``hydraulic fracturing 
     air'', ``unconventional gas air'', ``shale gas air,'' 
     ``unconventional oil air,'' and ``shale oil air.'' which 
     yielded 136 unique publications. Next, we searched the 
     ProQuest Environmental Science Collection database for papers 
     published in environmental science-oriented journals through 
     December 31, 2015 using the terms ``fracking'', ``hydraulic 
     fracturing'', ``unconventional gas'', ``shale gas'', 
     ``unconventional oil'', and ``shale oil'' with the term ``air 
     pollution.'' This search yielded 42 publications (31 
     additional, unique publications and 11 previously identified 
     through PubMed). We included three types of studies in this 
     analysis: (1) studies that collected primary air pollutant 
     measurements or presented air pollutant measurements from 
     secondary data sources, such as a state or county dataset 
     (``measurement'' studies), (2) studies that modeled air 
     pollutant concentrations using inputs from primary or 
     secondary measurements, emission rates from equipment or UO&G 
     activities, and/or meteorological data (``modeling'' 
     studies), and (3) studies with qualitative assessments of 
     potential or expected air pollutants based on review of the 
     scientific literature, government or non-governmental 
     reports, and/or expert judgement about the types of 
     pollutants likely to be generated from UO&G activities 
     (``descriptive'' studies). We excluded papers not directly 
     related to environmental air pollution associated with UO&G 
     development (n = 86), papers describing generic chemical 
     classes (e.g., volatile organic compounds (VOCs)) but not 
     specific chemical names (e.g., benzene) (n = 25), 
     publications that were not peer-reviewed original research or 
     review papers or were corrected and updated after 2015 (n = 
     4), and papers written in foreign languages (n = 3). From the 
     49 publications meeting our criteria, we abstracted chemical 
     names of air pollutants from tables, text, and figures, if 
     explicitly reported as present or predicted to be present at 
     UO&G sites. For example, we abstracted names of target 
     analytes from tables and figures presenting measured or 
     estimated concentrations of pollutants near UO&G sites. This 
     approach is consistent with the U.S. EPA water list 
     construction, which included any compounds reportedly used in 
     hydraulic fracturing fluids or detected in wastewater. We 
     combined individual chemicals into one category if these 
     agents were evaluated as a group by IARC (e.g. xylenes, 
     particulate matter).
     2.4. Classification of carcinogenicity of potential air 
         contaminants
       We searched the IARC monographs for evidence of 
     carcinogenicity using chemical names of the potential air 
     pollutants. Following the same procedure as for potential 
     water contaminants (Section 2.2), chemicals were designated 
     as ``no information available'' if they were not present in 
     the IARC monographs; or else were reported as Groups 1, 2A, 
     2B, 3, or 4. For the compounds in Groups 1, 2A, and 2B, we 
     determined whether the monograph summary or synthesis 
     indicated that there was sufficient evidence of increased 
     risk of leukemia and/or lymphoma specifically, based on human 
     or animal data.


                               3. RESULTS

     3.1 Carcinogenicity of potential water contaminants
       Of the 1177 potential water contaminants assessed, 1066 
     compounds (91%) had not been evaluated for carcinogenicity by 
     IARC. The 111 potential water contaminants evaluated included 
     14 (13%) known human carcinogens (Group 1), 6 (5%) probable 
     human carcinogens (Group 2A), and 29 (26%) possible human 
     carcinogens (Group 2B), and 62 (56%) compounds were not 
     classified with respect to their carcinogenicity (Group 3) 
     (Fig. 1). None were designated as probably not carcinogenic 
     to humans, though only one compound has ever been assigned 
     this classification. The distribution of compounds among the 
     carcinogenicity classifications was similar between the 
     fracturing fluid compounds and wastewater compounds (Fig. 1). 
     Of the 49 potential water contaminants classified as known, 
     probable, or possible human carcinogens (Groups 1, 2A. 2B), 
     17 had evidence of an increased risk of leukemia and/or 
     lymphoma (Table 1). This included 7 known human carcinogens 
     (1,3-butadiene, benzene, cadmium, ethanol, ethylene oxide, 
     formaldehyde, and quartz), 3 probable carcinogens 
     (dibenz[a,h]anthracene, dichloromethane, 
     tetrachloroethylene), and 7 possible carcinogens (1,2-
     propylene oxide, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, 
     heptachlor, hydrazine, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, styrene). This 
     list reflects petroleum-related volatile organic compounds 
     (e.g., benzene), metals (e.g., cadmium), solvents (e.g., 
     dichloromethane, tetrachloroethylene), and PAHs 
     (benzo[b]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, 
     benzo[k]fluoranthene).
     3.2 Identification of potential air pollutants
       Our literature review yielded 143 distinct potential air 
     pollutants or groups of pollutants related to UO&G 
     development from 49 studies (Supplemental Table S1, Table 1). 
     Of the 143 compounds, 97 had also been identified in water 
     and 46 were unique to air. A

[[Page H1260]]

     total of 27 studies included measurements, 19 used modeling, 
     and 15 were descriptive in nature; some studies incorporated 
     a combination of these approaches (Table 2). There were 31 
     studies of gas development, 1 of oil development, and 17 of 
     both. Studies reporting primary measurements or modeled 
     estimates of air pollutants were conducted mainly in 
     Colorado, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming. Frequently 
     reported air pollutants (reported in 5 studies) included 
     benzene, ethylbenzene, hydrogen sulfide, methane, nitrogen 
     oxides, ozone, particulate matter, toluene, and styrene 
     (Supplemental Table S1). Sampling locations included 
     perimeters of UO&G well sites, mobile monitoring stations, 
     and fixed community sites. Sampling durations varied, such as 
     one-time grab samples of 2 to 3 min (Macey et al., 2014) and 
     weekly 24-hour integrated samples collected over a period of 
     two years (McKenzie et al., 2012).
     3.3. Carcinogenicity of potential air pollutants
       Of the 143 potential air pollutants, 114 compounds (80%) 
     had not been evaluated for carcinogenicity by IARC. Of the 29 
     potential air pollutants evaluated, 7 (24%) were considered 
     carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), 2 (7%) were considered 
     probably carcinogenic to humansons varied, such as one-time 
     grab samples of 2 to 3 min (Macey et al., 2014) and weekly 
     24-hour integrated samples collected over a period of two 
     years (McKenzie et al., 2012). (Group 2A), and 11 (38%) were 
     considered possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) 
     (Fig. 1). A total of 9 (31%) compounds were not 
     classifiable with respect to their carcinogenicity (Group 
     3) (Fig. 1). None were designated as probably not 
     carcinogenic to humans (Group 4).
       Of the 20 known, probable, or possible carcinogens (Groups 
     1, 2A, 2B), 11 had evidence of an increased risk of leukemia 
     and/or lymphoma (Table 3). This included 5 known human 
     carcinogens (1,3-butadiene, benzene, ethanol, formaldehyde, 
     diesel engine exhaust), 2 probable human carcinogens 
     (dibenz[a,h]anthracene, tetrachloroethylene), and 4 possible 
     human carcinogens (carbon tetrachloroethylene, chrysene, 
     indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, styrene). This list includes 
     constituents of oil and gas resources (e.g., benzene) and 
     diesel exhaust (e.g., formaldehyde, PAHs, 1,3-butadiene).


                             4. discussion

       We evaluated the evidence that potential exposures from 
     UO&G development are risk factors for cancer in general and 
     leukemia in particular. Our analysis of 1177 chemicals in 
     hydraulic fracturing fluids or wastewater and 143 potential 
     air pollutants identified 55 possible, probable, and known 
     carcinogens related to UO&G development activities. However, 
     the vast majority of chemicals (91% of potential water 
     contaminants, 80% of potential air pollutants) were not 
     evaluated for their carcinogenicity by IARC. Of the 55 known, 
     probable, or possible human carcinogens, 20 had some evidence 
     for increased risk of leukemia and/or lymphoma: 1,2-propylene 
     oxide, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, 
     benzo(k)fluoranthene, cadmium, carbon tetrachloroethylene, 
     chrysene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, dichloromethane, engine 
     exhaust (diesel), ethanol, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, 
     heptachlor, hydrazine, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, quartz, 
     styrene, and tetrachloroethylene. These findings support the 
     hypothesis that exposure to UO&G development could increase 
     the risk of leukemia.
       Our findings demonstrate the presence of known and 
     suspected carcinogens surrounding UO&G facilities, but 
     drawing conclusions about cancer or leukemia risk is 
     challenging, due to the varied and limited water and air 
     measurement data. With respect to water, for example, 
     Fontenot et al. (2013) measured metals in private drinking 
     water wells in a community proximate to UO&G activity and 
     observed concentrations of the known carcinogen arsenic in 
     exceedance of U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels, although 
     possible sources included mobilization of natural 
     constituents and hydrogeochemial changes in addition to UO&G 
     activities. Drollette et al. (2015) detected trace levels of 
     organic compounds, such as the known leukomogen benzene and 
     possible carcinogen ethylbenzene, in private drinking water 
     wells in areas with UO&G development in Pennsylvania, with 
     highest observed concentrations within 1 km of active UO&G 
     operations. Although the observed concentrations were below 
     U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels, cancer risk is generally 
     assumed not to have a threshold below which there is a safe 
     level of exposure.
       With respect to air, our literature review identified six 
     studies measuring hazardous air pollutants associated with 
     childhood leukemia (e.g., benzene, polycyclic aromatic 
     hydrocarbons) near UO&G facilities (Bunch et al., 2014; Macey 
     et al., 2014; McKenzie et al., 2012; Pekney et al., 2014; 
     Rich and Crosby, 2013; Rutter et al., 2015). Differences in 
     location, sampling duration, target agents, and sampling 
     methodology in the air pollution literature hindered our 
     ability to synthesize the air data and place it into context 
     of human health risk. However, some individual studies used 
     the air monitoring data to estimate cancer or health risk. 
     Macey et al. (2014) identified concentrations of benzene, 
     1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde in exceedance of EPA IRIS 
     cancer risk levels; however, these were based on grab samples 
     that represented high-exposure scenarios (e.g. 20 m of UO&G 
     separator, compressor station, discharge canal, and well 
     pad). McKenzie et al. (2012) estimated risk to communities 
     based on Colorado measurement data collected over nearly 
     three years from a fixed monitoring station in a rural 
     community. They observed an excess risk of cancer for 
     residents living <0.5 mile from the nearest well, mainly 
     attributable to benzene and 1,3-butadiene. Bunch et al. 
     (2014) used VOC measurements collected over ten years by the 
     Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from seven fixed-
     site monitors in the Dallas/Fort Worth area to conduct 
     deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments and found 
     that all but one of the cancer risk estimates were within the 
     acceptable cancer risk range. Pekney et al. (2014) collected 
     mobile measurements of ambient concentrations of pollutants 
     in Pennsylvania and found no exceedances of National Ambient 
     Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants. These studies 
     indicate that water and air pollution related to UO&G 
     activities may pose a public health and potential cancer 
     risk. More environmental measurements of health-relevant 
     chemicals associated with UO&G development, particularly at 
     residences in close proximity to these facilities, are 
     needed to better characterize human exposures and 
     determine whether confirmed or suspected carcinogens and 
     toxicants are present and at what levels. In particular, 
     studies with longer sampling durations or integrated over 
     longer periods of time would be more relevant to chronic 
     outcomes like cancer.
       To our knowledge, our analysis represents the most 
     expansive review of carcinogenicity of hydraulic fracturing-
     related chemicals in the published literature. Previous 
     studies have examined the carcinogenicity of more selective 
     lists of chemicals. For example, Kahrilas et al. (2015) 
     reviewed the toxicological properties of biocide constituents 
     of fracturing fluids and their degradation and reaction 
     products and found that few had been evaluated by IARC. 
     Compounds identified by Kahrilas et al. included formaldehyde 
     (a known carcinogen associated with an increased risk of 
     leukemia and lymphoma, identified in our analysis), 
     dibromoacetonitrile (a possible carcinogen, identified in our 
     analysis), nitrosamines (includes probable carcinogens, not 
     identified in our analysis), and trihalomethanes (includes 
     possible and probable carcinogens, four identified in our 
     analysis: bromodichloromethane, chloroform, 
     chlorodibromomethane, and bromoform). Stringfellow et al. 
     (2014) assessed 81 common hydraulic fracturing fluid 
     additives and identified five confirmed or suspected 
     carcinogens using the U.S. NTP carcinogenicity evaluations 
     (Stringfellow et al., 2014). Our analysis also identified 
     four of these five chemicals: ethanol (known carcinogen 
     associated with an increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma), 
     acetaldehyde (possible carcinogen), diethanolamine (possible 
     carcinogen), and naphthalene (possible carcinogen). The fifth 
     compound, thiourea, was included in our analysis, but was 
     considered not classifiable with respect to human 
     carcinogenicity by IARC. Colborn et al., (2011) abstracted a 
     list of chemical additives of hydraulic fracturing fluids 
     using information on Material Safety Data Sheets provided by 
     government and natural gas industry sources (Colborn et al., 
     2011). They found that 25% of the 353 chemicals evaluated 
     could cause cancer and mutations. However, the inclusion 
     criteria for this carcinogenicity evaluation were not 
     provided to make a direct comparison with our findings.
       An experimental study on the carcinogenicity of hydraulic 
     fracturing wastewater observed that immortalized human 
     bronchial epithelial cells exposed to flowback water 
     collected from unconventional natural gas drilling of the 
     Marcellus Shale underwent malignant transformation and 
     exhibited altered morphology compared to parental cells (Yao 
     et al., 2015). The flowback water sample contained relatively 
     high concentrations of barium and strontium. However, these 
     metals were not evaluated for carcinogenicity to humans by 
     IARC and therefore were not included in our evaluation. 
     Strontium was not evaluated by the NTP or U.S. EPA IRIS 
     programs; barium was not evaluated by NTP, and it was deemed 
     not classifiable with respect to carcinogenicity by the U.S. 
     EPA.
       Looking broadly at UO&G development and cancer risk, other 
     risk factors should also be considered. For example, UO&G 
     development could pose a risk for childhood leukemia through 
     a phenomenon known as population mixing (Belson et al., 2007; 
     Kinlen, 2012). This refers to the migration of new 
     populations into previously contained rural areas, 
     introducing new infectious agents. This could give rise to 
     increasing underlying infections, for which childhood 
     leukemia is a possible complication (Kinlen, 1988; Kinlen, 
     2012). An alternative hypothesis is that a delayed exposure 
     to infectious agents among individueals who experienced an 
     absence of exposure in very early life could increase the 
     risk of an inapproriate immune response and lead to leukemia 
     (Greaves, 2006; Greaves, 1997). UO&G development is a rapidly 
     expanding industry that creates an influx of specialized, 
     external workers into less populated areas to fill industry 
     jobs (Brasier et al., 2011; Filteau, 2015b; Jacquet, 2014). 
     Additionally, previous examples of resource extraction or 
     energy development have reported population increases of up 
     to 80% and worker influx-related impacts on public health and 
     local communities (Ennis and Finlayson, 2015; Filteau, 2015a; 
     Keough, 2015). More research would be needed to demonstrate 
     risk to newly introduced infectious agents. Another possible 
     risk factor for childhood leukemia is parental occupational 
     exposures to agents such as benzene or PAHs from work in the

[[Page H1261]]

     oil and gas industry during the pregnancy period, a critical 
     window of vulnerability for childhood leukemia (Fusion et 
     al., 2001). In addition, parents employed by oil and gas 
     companies could introduce contaminants into the home 
     environment through clothing, shoes, and skin (Newman et al., 
     2015; Sahmel et al., 2014). Also, the introduction of bromide 
     constituents from hydraulic fracturing wastewater into 
     drinking water sources could increase the subsequent, 
     downstream formation of carcinogenic disinfection byproducts 
     and increase the risk of cancer, such as bladder cancer 
     (Regli et al., 2015). Further, agents released from other 
     components of oil and gas infrastructure, such as petroleum 
     storage tanks (Zusman et al., 2012), petrochemical plants (Yu 
     et al., 2006), and petrol stations (Brosselin et al., 2009; 
     Harrison et al., 1999; Steffen et al., 2004) could pose a 
     leukemia risk.
       This analysis has several limitations. The list of 
     potential water contaminants from fracturing fluids is 
     limited to non-proprietary chemicals that were reported to 
     the U.S. EPA by oil and gas companies and included in the 
     U.S. EPA reports on hydraulic fracturing (US EPA, 2012; US 
     EPA, 2015). Our identification of potential air pollutants 
     was based on information available in the PubMed and ProQuest 
     Environmental Science databases and may not include all 
     potential air pollutants associated with UO&G development. 
     The published literature may be more likely to report air 
     pollutants for which health data are available, which could 
     explain why a greater percentage of chemicals in air were 
     evaluated by IARC compared to chemicals that were potential 
     water pollutants. Additionally, IARC only evaluates chemicals 
     with suspected carcinogenicity. Therefore, the proportion of 
     known, probable, and possible carcinogens among those 
     compounds evaluated may not be representative of the 
     proportion of carcinogens among those not evaluated. Although 
     the IARC monographs are the most comprehensive, systematic 
     carcinogenicity evaluations, a comprehensive literature 
     review of all 1177 water contaminants and 143 air pollutants 
     could identify additional compounds that pose an increased 
     risk of cancer.
       Conducting a well-designed sampling campaign for UO&G 
     development is challenging, given the wide variety of 
     potential target pollutants and the limited information 
     available to identify which pollutants have the highest 
     probability of exposure or health impact. Our list of 143 air 
     pollutants associated with UO&G development (Supplemental 
     Table S1) may serve as a useful resource for researchers 
     designing future studies. Furthermore, our list of known, 
     probable, and possible carcinogens linked to UO&G development 
     can be used as a target analyte list for environmental or 
     biological measurements in future exposure and health 
     studies. Measurements of these compounds in air or water in 
     residences proximate to this activity would provide insights 
     into whether exposures are occuring and at what levels. 
     Additionally, air pollution measurements corresponding to the 
     different phases of UO&G development would provide critical 
     information about the relative contribution of exposures from 
     various aspects of the development activities and priorities 
     for exposure mitigation. Furthermore, geographical and 
     seasonal variations could influence release, concentration, 
     and dispersion of potential air pollutants. Therefore, 
     additional water and air measurement studies are urgently 
     needed to investigate the potential for spatial and temporal 
     variations in exposures.
       This analysis could also inform design of exposure metrics 
     for epidemiologic studies. Epidemiologic studies have 
     generally used individual-level, geographic information 
     systems-based inverse-distance weighted metrics to estimate 
     exposure to UO&G development, which characterize UO&G 
     development as a collective process. More specific metrics or 
     measurements could offer improvements to the exposure 
     assessment and potential insights into etiologic agents. 
     Future studies could incorporate environmental and/or 
     biological monitoring of health-relevant chemicals, such as 
     the 55 known, probable, and possible carcinogens in water or 
     air, and examine the relationshiop between chemical 
     concentrations and proximity and density-based metrics, to 
     determine the extent to which proximity is associated with 
     exposure. Though more measurement data is needed to better 
     understand whether exposures are occurring and at what 
     concentrations, release of any carinogens from UO&G 
     development shoudl be minimized.


                             5. conclusions

       There is a need to better understand the potential risks of 
     UO&G development with carefully designed exposure and 
     epidemiologic studies. We identified 55 known, probable, and 
     possible carcinogens (20 compounds associated with leukemia 
     and/or lymphoma specifically) that are potential water 
     contaminants and/or air pollutants related to UO&G 
     development. Our study provides some support for the 
     hypothesis that exposure to UO&G development could increase 
     the risk of leukemia. Because children are a vulnerable 
     population, research efforts should first be directed toward 
     investigating whether exposure to UO&G development is 
     associated with an increased risk in childhood leukemia. 
     Environmental and biological measurements of the compounds 
     identified in this analysis in communities proximate to UO&G 
     development would be critical for future research on the 
     potential public health impact.
       Supplementary data to this article can be found online at 
     http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.072.

  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, this article shows that living within 
a mile of a fracked well directly increases the risks of children 
developing leukemia. They are not children from the radical left. They 
are children from across the country. The study warns that millions of 
people living within a mile of fracked wells may have been exposed to 
these cancer-causing chemicals.
  In response to this study, several physicians are quoted as saying: 
``This is like smoking in the 1950s. There was a lot of suggestive 
evidence, but the conclusive stuff came later. I think we're going to 
get it, maybe in 5 or 10 years, but it is a question of how much damage 
is going to be done in the meantime.''
  ``Too often, we look at the political environment before we look at 
the evidence, and I don't think that's serving our future.''
  This is just one study looking at a couple dozen pollutants. There is 
ample evidence out there to be concerned with fracking's impact on 
public health, but there is still too much to learn. Yet, H.R. 1121 
would ban restrictions on fracking before we know the full realm of 
impacts on public health. This is unacceptable. The bill is rooted in 
many falsehoods as it relates to public health.
  I am so excited to hear my colleague talk about the fact that we 
should be hiring American workers, that we should be ensuring that we 
have great union jobs, that we should be invested in green energy 
infrastructure. I hope that is why my colleagues across the aisle 
woulda, shoulda, coulda supported the bipartisan infrastructure law--I 
know a couple of them did--as well as the Chips and Science Act, and 
also the Inflation Reduction Act. All of those bills are actually 
really focused on making sure that we are investing in our country, 
working on creating more clean, green energy that does not include 
fracking.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, $9,600, that is how much the average American household 
is paying today in the higher cost of living in the United States as a 
direct result of policies of the Biden administration, $9,600.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, compare that to what President Biden said on the 
campaign trail. He said, I will not raise costs, raise taxes on any 
American who earns less than $400,000. That is the average, $9,600. In 
fact, for some people it is more. Mr. Speaker, the cause of these 
higher costs is the regulatory agenda of this administration.
  That is exactly what we are debating today. We are talking about 
energy prices. We are talking about energy policies of this 
administration that are having an adverse effect on Americans. We are 
watching right now as this administration, as this bill tries to fix, 
bans fracking.
  You can go back, and you can look historically at the United States. 
We have led the world in reducing emissions. How have we done it? Do 
you know what the secret is? One of the most important tools that we 
have used to reduce emissions is actually natural gas. Natural gas, one 
of the biggest targets, the biggest victims of this fracking ban.
  Let's take a look. Is this fracking ban legal? Well, there was a 
judge in Wyoming who actually looked at this under the Obama 
administration and said: ``Congress has not delegated to the Department 
of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The 
BLM's effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its 
statutory authority and contrary to law.''
  What does this administration do? The same exact thing.

                              {time}  1445

  It is not just a fracking ban, though. It is also banning the export 
of liquefied natural gas.
  As my friend from Minnesota just said, what happens is that you don't 
have a decrease in demand for energy. It is simply that other countries 
provide it.

[[Page H1262]]

  Countries like Iran that are profiting tens of billions of dollars 
love these policies. Russia loves these policies. This administration 
actually increased the importation of energy from Russia when they came 
in.
  This is baffling energy policy. You are failing to address America's 
energy security. You are failing the affordability test.
  Mr. Speaker, let's think about emissions. On the emissions side, are 
these policies resulting in lower emissions? Let's look at facts. The 
facts show that between 2005 and 2021, the United States has actually 
reduced emissions more than any other country in the world--not just 
more than any other country, more than the six next emissions-reducing 
countries combined.
  How have we done it? It is by using natural gas. What happens? Other 
countries fill the void, countries like Russia.
  Let's do a comparison there. When you take 1 year of liquefied 
natural gas supplied to the European Union from Russia, and if you were 
to supplant it with liquefied natural gas coming from the United 
States, it would reduce emissions by 218 million tons, but my friends 
across the aisle and at the White House have taken that off the table.
  Let's go back and review. We have higher prices that Americans are 
paying--higher prices for utilities and higher prices for gasoline. We 
have more dependence upon countries like Iran, China, Venezuela, and 
Russia for energy. We are more dependent upon them, the globe is, and 
emissions are going up.
  Which one of these is important? I mean, this is baffling to me. 
Higher prices, less energy security, and higher emissions are what this 
administration's energy policies have achieved. It makes no sense.
  Let's talk about where these dollars are going. My friend talked 
about the tens of billions going to Iran. These dollars are being 
directly provided to Iranian terrorist proxies that have attacked and 
killed American troops in Syria and Iraq. These policies are funding 
this.
  Coming back to us, we are now funding Ukraine, which is battling 
Russia, paid for with U.S. bad energy policy. We are funding Israel. 
That is paid for by bad energy policy that Iran is profiting from. This 
makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense.
  This bill, however, does make sense because it reverses the policies 
of this administration. It brings back common sense. It follows 
evidence, science, and math that show that we can actually reduce 
emissions, increase energy security, and have affordable energy in the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the aisle is right: This makes 
no sense.
  If my colleagues across the aisle actually want to push back against 
Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, then pass the supplemental because that 
funding will do more to help support democracies around the world and 
help countries most in need than whatever is in H.R. 1121.
  Listening to some of the arguments we have heard from Republicans 
over the last week and even now today, I have to say, I am confused.
  Is oil and gas production higher than ever, or is there a war on 
energy? Are gas prices high because of Bidenomics, or are prices so low 
that we should continue exporting LNG? Should the government stop 
picking winners and losers through energy subsidies, or should we 
continue giving handouts to oil and gas and even expand those giveaways 
with the bills up today?
  I suspect Republican messaging is so confusing because continuing to 
rig the system for Big Oil just doesn't make sense.
  The U.S. is producing record amounts of oil and gas and is exporting 
more than ever before. I will say it again: The U.S. is producing 
record amounts of oil and gas and is exporting more than ever before.
  Yet, the American people aren't seeing the benefits. Prices for 
consumers are still high while Big Oil and other big corporations rake 
in massive profits.
  Reporting from the Groundwork Collaborative found that over half of 
recent U.S. inflation was caused by corporate price gouging, even as 
input costs decreased.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Groundwork Collaborative 
report.

             [From Groundwork Collaborative, Jan. 18, 2024]

Inflation Revelation: How Outsized Corporate Profits Drive Rising Costs

   (By Liz Pancotti, Strategic Advisor, and Lindsay Owens, Executive 
                               Director)

       As their cost of doing business comes down, corporations 
     pad their bottom lines on the back of consumers.
       Inflation has come down significantly from its peak over 
     the past year, yet prices remain high for American consumers. 
     From housing and groceries to car insurance and electric 
     bills, families are still feeling the squeeze. In the wake of 
     the pandemic, virtually every company in every industry faced 
     rising costs to make products and stock shelves. Labor costs 
     rose sharply, the cost of transporting goods across the 
     country hit record highs, and raw materials became costly or 
     impossible to get. Corporations were quick to pass rising 
     costs--and a little extra--on to consumers, fueling rapid 
     inflation. As supply chain snarls have receded and the 
     economy has stabilized, businesses continue to pad their 
     bottom lines, rather than passing these savings on to 
     consumers.


       corporate profits are driving more than half of inflation

       Some economists and pundits have sought to discredit the 
     link between inflation and corporate profiteering. A 
     Washington Post columnist recently claimed that blaming 
     inflation on corporate profiteering is like saying ``it's 
     raining because water is falling from the sky.'' But this 
     isn't true. Prices are simply the sum of costs and corporate 
     profits. While rising costs or inputs can drive up Americans 
     pay at the gas pump or the grocery store, corporate profits 
     can just as easily.
       As corporations have lamented supply chain woes and high 
     labor costs over the past two years, their profits have 
     skyrocketed, fueling inflation and exacerbating a 
     longstanding affordability crisis.
       Some economists suggested that markup growth in 2021 was 
     primarily driven by corporations raising prices in 
     anticipation of future costs increases. However, corporate 
     profit margins have remained high--and even grown--as labor 
     costs have stabilized, nonlabor input costs have come down, 
     and supply chains snarls have eased.
       While labor and nonlabor input costs have played a role in 
     price increases, corporate profits drove 53 percent of 
     inflation during the second and third quarters of 2023 and 
     more than one-third since the start of the pandemic. 
     Comparatively, over the 40 years prior to the pandemic, they 
     drove just 11 percent of growth.
       Corporate profits as a share of national income has 
     skyrocketed by 29 percent since the start of the pandemic. 
     While our economy has returned to or surpassed its pre-
     pandemic levels on many indicators, workers' share of 
     corporate income has still not recovered.
       As White House National Economic Council Director Lael 
     Brainard has noted, ``Overall, the labor share of income has 
     declined over the past two years and appears to be at or 
     below pre-pandemic levels. While corporate profits as a share 
     of GDP remain near postwar highs.''
        Economist Isabella Weber has pointed out that corporations 
     are keeping prices high even as post-pandemic and Ukraine War 
     supply chain pressures ease and wage growth slows. Why? 
     Because they can.
       Weber argues that supply shocks allowed corporations to 
     tacitly collude, hike prices, and rake in record profits. 
     This type of inflation, where corporations raise prices to 
     protect--and even increase--their profit margins, allows 
     prices to rise faster than the costs to make goods or provide 
     services. When corporations pursued this opportunistic 
     pricing strategy, they found a lot of space to increase 
     prices, drive up profits, and see very little dropoff in 
     demand.
       Though inflation has eased, prices remain tremendously 
     elevated from their pre-pandemic levels. Housing costs, for 
     example, are up 21 percent, grocery costs have risen by 25 
     percent.


 consumer prices are rising much faster than corporations' input costs

       While prices for consumers have risen by 3.4 percent over 
     the past year, input costs for producers have risen by just 1 
     percent. For many commodities and services, producers' prices 
     have actually decreased.
       Input costs for key goods and services have sharply 
     decreased over the past year. For example, nearly 60 percent 
     of the drop in input goods prices was driven by large 
     declines in energy costs, such as jet fuel and diesel fuel. 
     Transportation and warehousing costs, which many corporations 
     have cited as a main driver of price increases, have come 
     down by nearly 4 percent since peaking in June 2022.
       These input costs are critically important for 
     corporations' balance sheets. As costs go down but revenue 
     stays high because of higher sticker prices, corporate profit 
     margins expand on the backs of American consumers.
       One prime example of this is the diaper industry, which is 
     highly concentrated--Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G) and Kimberly-
     Clark Corp. control 70 percent of the domestic market. Diaper 
     prices have increased by more

[[Page H1263]]

     than 30 percent since 2019 from, on average, $16.50 to nearly 
     $22. Wood pulp is a major input in diapers and other paper 
     products, like toilet paper and paper towels. Wholesale wood 
     pulp prices soared by 87 percent between January 2021 and 
     January 2023. Yet between January and December 2023, prices 
     declined by 25 percent.
       Using their pricing power, P&G and Kimberly-Clark have kept 
     diaper prices high for American families, allowing their 
     profit margins to expand considerably. In P&G's October 2023 
     earnings call, its CFO, Andre Schulten, said that high prices 
     were a big driver of profit margin expansion and 33 percent 
     of their profits in the previous quarter were driven by lower 
     input costs. During P&G's July 2023 earnings call, the 
     company predicted $800 million in windfall profits because of 
     declining input costs. In Kimberly-Clark's October 2023 
     earnings call, CEO Mike Hsu said the company ``finally saw 
     inflation in the cost environment'' and admitted that he 
     believes the company has ``a lot of opportunity to [expand 
     margins over time] between what [they're] doing on the 
     revenue side and also on the cost side.'' Despite these large 
     input cost declines, Hsu said he thinks the company has 
     ``priced appropriately'' and did not anticipate any price 
     deflation.
       The diaper industry is just one example of corporations 
     exploiting their pricing power to expand margins as input 
     costs normalize. The same is true for many consumer goods, 
     including new and used cars, groceries, and housing.


     corporations have bragged about their ability to raise prices

       Over the past two years, corporations have been explicit 
     about how they've exploited their pricing power, and how they 
     have and will continue to do so even as inflation comes down.
        General Mills attributed their 16.5 percent increase in 
     profits in FY 2022 to ``getting smart about how [they] look 
     at pricing.''
       PepsiCo raised its prices across snacks and beverages by 
     roughly 15 percent during each of 2022Q4 and 2023Q1 as it 
     increased its margin. CFO Hugh Johnson said they ``may, in 
     fact, increase margins during the course of the year'' as 
     costs decreases and prices remain elevated.
       The CEO of Holcim, a construction materials manufacturer, 
     said on recent earnings call, ``We are in that inflationary 
     environment already for almost two years now...We have done 
     the pricing in a very proactive way so that our results 
     aren't suffering. On the contrary, they are improving the 
     margins.''
       Profit margins for AutoNation's finance and insurance 
     segment have increased by 7 percent as they continue to hike 
     margins with new fees and increased prices for consumers, 
     even while products don't improve.
       Carvana notes that it deceased its non-vehicle retail costs 
     by nearly $1,000 per car, driving huge margin increases (30 
     percent) even as used car costs remain elevated. Used car 
     prices remain elevated and are up nearly 40 percent.


                               conclusion

       In the wake of the pandemic, consumer demand rebounded and 
     supply chains struggled to keep up as a result of decades of 
     disinvestment and offshoring. Goods became more expensive to 
     make and transport, and tighter labor markets delivered long-
     overdue wage increases for workers. As businesses' costs went 
     up, they jumped on the opportunity to pass on rising costs to 
     consumers and have continued squeezing American's pocketbooks 
     for more. Now that their costs have stailized--or, in many 
     cases, come down significantly--it's time for companies to 
     stop gouging consumers.
       The Biden administration is taking steps to strengthen 
     global supply chains and onshore manufacturing, crack down on 
     corporate concentration that has enabled corporations to put 
     consumers through the wringer, and eliminate junk fees. 
     President Biden said last month, ``To any corporation that 
     has not brought their prices back down--even as inflation has 
     come down, even [as] supply chains have been rebuilt--it's 
     time to stop the price gouging.'' The Consumer Financial 
     Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the 
     Department of Justice continue to dust off authorities not 
     touched in decades to rein in corporate profiteering and 
     concentration.
       As Congress turns to expiring provisions from the 2017 
     Trump tax cuts over the next year, they must take a hard look 
     at the corporate tax rate. Our tax code should support a 
     robust and equitable economy, not incentivize profiteering.
       The fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is 
     whether we want an economy where corporations can exploit 
     pandemics, supply chain crises, and wars at the expense of 
     American workers and families, or an economy where 
     corporations are put in check, allowing everyone to thrive?

  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, communities living closest to oil and 
gas production, mostly low-income and people of color, are left paying 
the costs of constant pollution and public health crises. We are all 
paying for the record number of billion-dollar climate disasters in 
2023, driven by the fossil fuel climate crisis.
  These bills we are debating today would walk back important 
protections for taxpayers and local communities to keep funneling money 
into the pockets of Big Oil.
  It does not make sense to keep doubling down on a bad deal. Big Oil 
does not need more favors right now. They don't need more tax breaks. 
They don't need more handouts--I am going to keep saying it--and they 
don't need more special loopholes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
continuously said that oil production on Federal lands is at an all-
time high. The fact of the matter is that the production is occurring 
on lands leased by the Trump administration and previous 
administrations.
  I guess my colleagues now support the policies of the Trump 
administration as best they are trying to take credit for them.
  My good friend, Ranking Member McGovern, made this point in the Rules 
Committee just yesterday. After mentioning that America is a top energy 
producer, he said: ``Let me be very clear. I am not highlighting these 
facts because I like them. I find it very troubling that we are 
producing so much oil. . . . ''
  How very sad it is to hear that from my colleagues. Why are they so 
ashamed that we produce energy here in America? Would they rather us be 
dependent on Russia, Iran, or Venezuela for oil and natural gas in the 
same way Democratic policies have made us dependent on China for 
critical minerals?
  We should celebrate American energy independence where, again, we do 
it cleaner and safer than anybody else in the world with the best labor 
standards.
  Mr. Speaker, let's celebrate the opportunity. Let's be happy the good 
Lord blessed the United States with these rich minerals and this 
opportunity to become energy independent and critical mineral dominant.
  My friends and neighbors, I want the technology here in the United 
States. I do not want this country to depend on foreign adversarial 
nations for our livelihood.
  We have learned so much during COVID, Mr. Speaker. We cannot rely on 
adversarial nations for our energy any longer, nor should our allies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I often hear my Republican colleagues say that more oil 
and gas production in the U.S. benefits consumers and that fracking has 
helped that production along. We should celebrate.
  Then I did have to think about seeing this recent movie, ``Killers of 
the Flower Moon,'' and how that is probably not a really good thing to 
celebrate, but I digress. I don't want to do that.
  The U.S. is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the 
world. We are exporting record amounts of fossil fuel across the globe. 
Yet, our communities are still not seeing the benefits.
  That is because the benefits are going straight to Big Oil, which is 
seeing profits soar yet again. We cannot rely on the decades-old 
Republican agenda of ``drill, baby, drill,'' to lower prices for 
Americans.
  This bill proposes to give yet another handout to oil and gas, 
supposedly in the hope that these corporations will be so thankful that 
they will lower their prices just to be nice. I mean, does anyone still 
believe this trickle-down nonsense?
  Look, if we want better energy prices, then we need energy 
independence, which means a transition to clean energy, which is 
cheaper, safer, and generated entirely here at home instead of being at 
the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas.
  I am also so grateful to hear my colleagues talk about the things 
that we should have learned from COVID. I hope that means that at some 
point they will be willing to discuss universal healthcare and making 
sure we all have access to affordable, high-quality healthcare. I hope 
that means that they are going to admit that COVID is a real thing and 
that vaccinations and access to that kind of healthcare and information 
is important.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1264]]

  

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I reiterate my good friend and colleague did reserve.
  Listen, one of the things that we hear from my colleagues is that Big 
Oil is price gouging, which is why energy prices are higher. The fact 
is, this President's anti-energy agenda has created uncertainty for 
domestic energy producers and has driven up energy prices for all 
Americans.
  Repeated in-depth investigations by the FTC have shown that changes 
in gasoline prices are based on market factors and are not due to any 
illegal behavior.
  The price gouging argument is simply a red herring meant to distract 
the American public from the Biden administration's disastrous energy 
policies.
  The fact of the matter is, when my friends and colleagues talk about 
transition, wind and solar, they don't want to produce those minerals 
for those solar panels or windmills here in the United States, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Minnesota has the most mineral wealth of any State in the Nation with 
the exception of Alaska. Minnesota has the biggest untapped copper and 
nickel mine in the world, and this administration pulled the leases.
  This administration, with support from the Secretary of the Interior, 
banned 225,000 acres of mining in northeastern Minnesota. Can you 
believe that? Yet, they will get the minerals from Congo, which uses 
child slave labor for their energy addiction.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that we have the opportunity today and now. I 
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us to let the 
American worker succeed and energy dominance, critical mineral 
dominance in this country, be made here in America. We need it, this 
country needs it, and our allies are asking for it.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another shameless giveaway to Big Oil, 
even though Big Oil is still making earth-shattering, mineral-
shattering profits by taking billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies, 
price gouging families, and leaving Americans with climate, health, 
safety, and financial consequences. This bill would enshrine Big Oil's 
exploitation of American taxpayers for the foreseeable future.
  Big Oil does not need any favors right now. I know I sound like a 
broken record, but sometimes you have to say it more than once so 
people can hear it. They don't need more special loopholes. They don't 
need more handouts. They don't need more tax breaks.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1121, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a 2019 study by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce's Global Energy Institute. Their research shows a ban on 
fracking would eliminate 19 million jobs between 2021 and 2025 while 
simultaneously reducing the U.S. gross domestic product by $7.1 
trillion over that same period.
  The Global Energy Institute's research also shows that over the same 
2021 through 2025 timeframe, energy prices would skyrocket, with 
natural gas prices rising by 324 percent, causing household energy 
bills for the average American to quadruple and the cost of living to 
increase by $5,600. Additionally, the price of gasoline would double, 
and government revenues would plummet by almost $2 trillion.
  With these sobering facts in mind, I urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in support of H.R. 1121 to prevent the worst case scenario from 
becoming our reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1085, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 1121 is postponed.

                          ____________________