[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.
____________________