Burdensome Regulations: Examining The Impact Of EPA Regulations On Main Street
Summary
The printed record of a February 14, 2024 House Committee on Small Business hearing on Environmental Protection Agency rules, published as Small Business Committee Document Number 118-040, with Chairman Roger Williams presiding. Williams's opening statement says the administration has issued 766 final rules costing over $450 billion and that the committee has sent five oversight letters to the EPA. Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez's statement says the Office of Advocacy and the National Ombudsman gave the EPA an A for Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance and that air pollution dropped by 78 percent after the Clean Air Act. Witnesses represented the National Association of Manufacturers, Cooper Oil and Gas, PAVmed, Inc. and the American Sustainable Business Network. The appendix adds prepared statements and material from groups including the American Chemistry Council.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING THE
IMPACT OF EPA REGULATIONS ON MAIN STREET
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 14, 2024
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 118-040
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF EPA
REGULATIONS ON MAIN STREET
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING THE
IMPACT OF EPA REGULATIONS ON MAIN STREET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 14, 2024
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small Business Committee Document Number 118-040
Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-743 WASHINGTON : 2024
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
TRACEY MANN, Kansas
JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
MARC MOLINARO, New York
MARK ALFORD, Missouri
ELI CRANE, Arizona
AARON BEAN, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
NICK LALOTA, New York
CELESTE MALOY, Utah
NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ, Washington
SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
HILLARY SCHOLTEN, Michigan
JUDY CHU, California
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
Ben Johnson, Majority Staff Director
Melissa Jung, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Roger Williams.............................................. 1
Hon. Nydia Velazquez............................................. 2
WITNESSES
Mr. Brandon Farris, Vice President, Domestic Economic Policy,
National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC,
testifying on behalf of National Association of Manufacturers.. 5
Ms. Cye Cooper Wagner, Executive Vice President, Exploration,
Cooper Oil and Gas, Fort Worth, TX, testifying on behalf of
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers............................. 6
Dr. Lishan Aklog, MD, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, PAVmed,
Inc., New York, NY............................................. 8
Mr. Michael Green, Director of Climate and Energy Policy,
American Sustainable Business Network, Woodstock, VT........... 10
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Mr. Brandon Farris, Vice President, Domestic Economic Policy,
National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, DC,
testifying on behalf of National Association of
Manufacturers.............................................. 33
Ms. Cye Cooper Wagner, Executive Vice President, Exploration,
Cooper Oil and Gas, Fort Worth, TX, testifying on behalf of
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers......................... 41
Dr. Lishan Aklog, MD, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
PAVmed, Inc., New York, NY................................. 48
Mr. Michael Green, Director of Climate and Energy Policy,
American Sustainable Business Network, Woodstock, VT....... 54
Questions for the Record:
None.
Answers for the Record:
None.
Additional Material for the Record:
American Sustainable Business Network submitted by Michael
Green...................................................... 63
American Chemistry Council (ACC)............................. 641
Comments from Texas Legislature.............................. 657
2011 CRS Report on Crain and Crain Study..................... 661
2016 CRS Report on Crain and Crain Study..................... 695
July 2014 Report GAO Report on Office of Advocacy, Crain and
Crain...................................................... 727
Job Creators Network (JCN)................................... 778
Lemir Teron, PhD, Associate Professor, Howard University,
Department of Earth, Environment & Equity.................. 781
Letters signed by 40 Members................................. 784
National Mining Association (NMA)............................ 794
Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica)................ 797
U.S. Chamber of Commerce..................................... 799
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS: EXAMINING
THE IMPACT OF EPA REGULATIONS ON
MAIN STREET
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2024
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Roger Williams
[chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Williams, Luetkemeyer, Stauber,
Meuser, Van Duyne, Salazar, Mann, Ellzey, Molinaro, Alford,
Crane, Bean, Hunt, LaLota, Maloy, Velazquez, Golden, McGarvey,
Gluesenkamp Perez, Scholten, Thanedar, and Davids.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The Committee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess
of the Committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for my opening statement.
Welcome to today's hearing, which will focus on examining
the impact of burdensome EPA regulations on main street. I
would like to start off by thanking our witnesses for joining
us today. You all have traveled a long way to be with us this
morning, and we appreciate your attendance and appreciate your
input.
When I travel around and speak to small businesses, I hear
all the time how the cost of everything is so high. From the
price of utilities to their labor costs, businesses feel like
they are struggling to get ahead. Unfortunately, there is
another new aspect that has made their operations even more
challenging over the last 3 years, and that is the increased
cost of complying with regulations.
Most small businesses do not have a team of lawyers or a
compliance department to look through all the new mandates
coming out of Washington, D.C. Figuring out what needs to be
done in order to comply takes time away from the employees or
owner that could be better spent looking for growth
opportunities or doing other revenue-generating activities.
Now, while there are laws on the books that are supposed to
protect small businesses from the worst of these regulations,
they seem to be failing. Since President Biden was sworn into
office, his administration has issued 766 final rules costing
over $450 billion to Main Street America. This type of
overregulation has real world consequences on American small
businesses.
Of all the agencies creating the increased burden on Main
Street America, it is the EPA and has been one of the worst
offenders. This agency has taken a radical approach of
environmental extremism over practical policies to promote the
environment. Some of the EPA's rules, which we will examine in
more detail today, would have drastic impacts in a variety of
different industries throughout our country. In some of the
most extreme examples, entire industries would be regulated out
of existence. This Agency takes a heavy-handed government
approach to force change, rather than letting free markets and
businesses make their own decisions.
And additional unintended consequence of these overbearing
EPA regulations is that not only do they harm America's
businesses, but they also put us at a competitive disadvantage
with our adversaries, like China. For example, the EPA is
determined to force a transition to clean alternatives by
regulating coal, oil, and gas companies into oblivion, thus
making their product more expensive and less competitive in the
market. Meanwhile, China's focused on building whatever types
of power plants are needed to satisfy their demand.
And outside of being the voice for main street and
Congress, this Committee's top priority is to hold agencies
accountable for impacts of rules and regulations on Main Street
America. We have sent five oversight letters to the EPA
sounding the alarm on the negative impacts of their rules. And
unfortunately, many of their responses are untimely and all of
them are lacking in sufficient detail.
So, to ensure main street can thrive, our agencies need to
listen to small businesses during the rulemaking process. After
all, the government should be in the business of working for
the people, not against the people. And entrepreneurs have all
endured significant challenges over the past few years, and I
hope this hearing spotlights where the EPA has gone wrong and
more importantly, what can we do to fix it?
So lastly, I ask unanimous consent to submit documents for
the record for the American Chemistry Council and the National
Sandstone and Gravel Association. Without objection, so
ordered.
So thank you again for all of the witnesses being here
today. I am very much looking forward to our conversation.
And with that, I yield to our distinguished Ranking Member,
Ms. Velazquez, from the great State of New York.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all the witnesses for being here today.
The hearing we are holding today will focus on the impact
of EPA's rules on small businesses. It is the third hearing in
a series on regulation. While we have heard that complying with
federal, state, and local rules can be onerous for small
business owners, we also heard that smart, well-crafted
regulations can level the playing field and help small
businesses compete against larger corporations.
Most importantly, small businesses want their voices to be
heard during the rulemaking process, and they need compliance
assistance. That is why Congress enacted the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and established the Office of Advocacy and the
National Ombudsman. The role of advocacy is to monitor the
rule-writing process and ensure agencies listens to the
concerns of small businesses. The role of the National
Ombudsman is to assist with excessive regulatory issues.
They also make sure that agencies offer small businesses
timely compliance assistance materials. It is important to note
that both of these offices gave the Environmental Protection
Agency an A for their compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We can all agree that regulations are vital to Americans
and small businesses. EPA's rules safeguard our nation's air,
lands, and waters, and they yield more benefits for Americans
than any other agency. In fact, the benefits outweighed the
cost by a ratio of 13-to-1.
However, we may hear claims today that EPA is running amok
and the regulations stifle the growth of small businesses. I
disagree.
First and foremost, the agency is carrying out our laws,
the laws that Congress passed. The EPA has to operate within
the statutory guidelines, involve public participation, respond
to comments, ensure the benefits, justify the costs, and follow
the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures
Act and RFA. Put simply, there is no overreach. The EPA is
doing what Congress asked them to do.
Secondly, between the passage of the Clean Air Act and
2022, air pollution dropped by 78 percent and the economy grew.
Smart, well-crafted regulation can spur innovation and the
development of new clean technologies.
New opportunities abound for entrepreneurs to produce
materials in cleaner ways. We cannot get stuck on the message
that regulations hinder the growth of small businesses. We must
look to the future and understand that regulations can drive
innovation and grow the economy and protect public health and
our environment at the same time.
I would like to enter into the record testimony from Dr.
Lemir Teron. Dr. Teron aptly points out the consequences of
environmental pollution and their contribution to a long
history of environmental racism and inequality. Research has
shown that large polluting facilities expose frontline
communities made up of African American and other socially and
economically disadvantaged groups to their dangerous levels of
pollution. This aspect cannot be overlooked in our discussion
today, particularly for small businesses in this community.
With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
today about EPA's rule and hearing more about their experiences
with the agency, the Office of Advocacy, and the National
Ombudsman Office. It is important to know what we can do better
to help you succeed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The Ranking Member yields back. I now
will introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness here with us today is Mr. Brandon Farris.
Mr. Farris is the vice president of domestic economic policy
for the National Association of Manufacturers, also known as
NAM, located here in Washington D.C. Prior to joining NAM, Mr.
Farris was the head of federal government regulations for The
Chemours Company, where he played an integral role in the
passage of the AIM Act.
After serving in the Marine Corps Reserves, thank you for
that, he began his career in Washington as Bryce Harlow
Foundation Fellow at the George Washington University School of
Law, while working on the U.S. House Agricultural Committee.
Mr. Farris attended the Virginia Military Institute where
he earned his bachelor of arts in history and philosophy before
attending the Johns Hopkins University where he received his
master of arts in government. He also holds a JD from the
George Washington University Law School.
I want to thank you for joining us today and look forward
to conversing.
Our next witness here with us today is Ms. Cye Cooper
Wagner. Ms. Wagner is the vice president of exploration, Cooper
Oil and Gas, located in the great city of Fort Worth, Texas.
And Ms. Wagner has been with the Cooper Oil and Gas since 2009,
where she serves in an executive management role over
exploration regulatory departments, among others.
She has over 10 years of regulatory management working with
the Texas Railroad Commission, Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Ms. Wagner
recently completed a 2-year term as Chairman of the Board of
Directors for the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, becoming
the first female and youngest serving Chairman of the Board in
his 92-year history.
Ms. Wagner attended Texas A&M University, where she earned
her bachelor of science in petroleum engineering.
It is great to have you in Washington, and thank you and we
look forward to our hearing together.
Our next witness here with us today is Dr. Lashan Aklog.
Dr. Aklog is the Chairman and CEO of PAVmed Inc., located in
New York City. PAVmed Inc. is a commercial stage medical
technology company cofounded by Dr. Aklog. He previously co
founded a medtech holding company, which founded four medical
device companies and led one of its portfolio companies, which
commercialized one of his lifesaving inventions.
Prior to entering the life sciences industry as an
entrepreneur and executive, Dr. Aklog had a career in cardiac
surgery, serving on the faculty of academic medical centers,
including Harvard Medical School. He was recognized as
America's top doctor for over a decade. So it is really good to
have you here today. All right.
So Dr. Aklog received his undergraduate degree in physics
from Harvard University and his M.D. from Harvard Medical
School.
Thank you for joining us today, Doctor. We look forward to
the conversation that we have ahead of us.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member from New York, Ms.
Velazquez, to briefly introduce our last witness appearing
before us today.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. It is my pleasure to introduce
Mr. Michael Green, who leads American Sustainable Business
Network Climate and Energy Working Group. Mike is passionate
about environmental change and new innovative opportunities for
small businesses. His passion shines through his work.
President Obama recognized this commitment and presented Mike
with the Champion of Change Award for his contribution to
climate change.
Welcome. I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. And again, thanks for all of
you being here today. We appreciate it.
Now, before I recognize the witnesses, I want to remind
them that their oral testimony is restricted to 5 minutes in
length. That is a big deal here, 5 minutes. Okay? And if you
see the light turn red in front of you, it means that your 5
minutes has concluded and you should wrap up your testimony.
Now, if you hear this, you are going over and you need to
stop and listen to the gavel. Okay? The gavel is important.
I now recognize Mr. Farris for your 5-minute opening
remarks.
STATEMENTS OF MR. BRANDON FARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, DO-
MESTIC ECONOMIC POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MANUFACTURERS; MS. CYE COOPER WAGNER, EXECUTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT, EXPLORATION, COOPER OIL AND GAS; DR.
LISHAN AKLOG, MD, CHAIRMAN & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFI-
CER, PAVMED, INC.; AND MR. MICHAEL GREEN, DIRECTOR
OF CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY, AMERICAN SUSTAIN-
ABLE BUSINESS NETWORK
STATEMENT OF BRANDON FARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT, DOMES-
TIC ECONOMIC POLICY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANU-
FACTURERS
Mr. FARRIS. Good morning. Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velazquez, Members of the Committee, thank you for the chance
to speak with you on behalf of the 13 million people who make
things in America to convey the urgency of halting the
regulatory onslaught.
Small businesses are essential for our economy. They
account for 44 percent of U.S. economic activity. In the
manufacturing sector, the majority of firms are small and
function as the backbone of the manufacturing supply chain. Yet
manufacturing is facing significant headwinds in the form of
the cost, complexity, and uncertainty associated with a new
wave of overreaching and burdensome federal regulations.
The NAM commissioned a study which found that the total
cost of federal regulations is over $3 trillion, an amount
equal to 12 percent of our GDP. The average U.S. company pays
approximately $13,000 per employee per year to comply with
federal regulations, yet the burden is substantially higher for
manufacturers, especially small ones. U.S. manufacturers with
fewer than 50 employees incur regulatory compliance costs of an
estimated $50,000 per employee per year. This is more than
three times the cost borne by the average U.S. company, money
that would be much better spent investing in new machinery,
hiring more workers, or developing new and innovative products.
The NAM analysis only reflects regulations in place as of
2022, but new proposed regulations have been especially
disruptive and will further chill manufacturing growth. For
example, the EPA recently finalized an early reconsideration of
the particulate matter air quality standards. These revised
standards will create permitting gridlock throughout the
country as permit applicants will have to model the new
standard within 60 days. It leaves little room for industrial
activity, as EPA itself concedes that as much as 70 percent of
particulate matter comes from non manufacturing sources.
Ultimately, states are going to have to ration which new
investments should be allowed to break ground to avoid falling
into nonattainment. Needless to say, this regulation will cut
manufacturing investment directly and potentially drive
cutting-edge factories to other nations with less onerous
standards.
This is just one example of an Agency action that will have
far reaching effects across the manufacturing economy. Many
other proposals are moving forward towards finalization.
The EPA has just proposed a burdensome reporting
requirements and actions that will restrict or create de facto
bans on PFAS production or use. The issue is that for many of
the current uses, semiconductors, EV batteries, medical
devices, items for national defense, there are no existing
replacements for PFAS. These proposed restrictions would force
manufacturers to abandon domestic production of critical items
and instead rely on foreign production.
Another proposed EPA regulation would impose new
requirements on natural gas and coal power plants, which
account for more than 60 percent of our total power generation.
Noncompliant facilities will be shut down.
In another instance, the EPA has proposed regulations at
levels so low it would create a de facto ban on the production
and use of ethylene oxide, which is used to sterilize medical
devices, including PPE used by doctors and hospitals.
The EPA has also proposed additional barriers to its review
under the TSCA program, which is critical to innovation. Under
TSCA, the EPA is mandated to review new chemical applications
within 90 days. However, the vast majority of these take much
longer, and the new requirements may further extend that
approval period, delaying deployment of new, efficient
products.
Small businesses are vital to our economy and our lives. If
we fail to reduce the regulatory burden on them, the U.S. is at
risk of threatening the spirit that has allowed small
businesses to thrive. On the other hand, if we reduce their
burdens and their cost, there is no limit to what small
businesses can accomplish.
Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. I recognize Ms. Wagner for her 5-minute
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF CYE COOPER WAGNER, VICE PRESIDENT,
EXPLORATION, COOPER OIL AND GAS
Ms. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
esteemed Members of the Committee. It is an honor to be able to
speak with you today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the introduction. And that is
quite enough about me. Let's talk about my small business.
I am a second generation E&P operator. We are based in Fort
Worth, Texas, and the majority of our production is in north
central Texas, in rural areas where I grew up. I graduated from
a high school class of about 30 kids and went off down to Texas
A&M and got an engineering degree. And after working for some
great esteemed, large independent companies and even a super
major during college, I landed back in Fort Worth with a small
independent, and then came knocking on my dad's door for a job
and I enjoy being the second generation running that company,
which I do now with my husband and my brother. So, a true
family business.
We employ 11 people full-time. We have about 20 contractors
that we hire on a month-to-month basis. And in addition, we, in
2023, sent 1099s to around 200 other contractors that the
majority of their payroll, you know, is Joe Smith, LLC. It is
just Joe. He just comes and does all of the roustabout work or
another type of repair work. His wife is a nurse in the local
hospital. She comes in and does the books at night.
We are the lifeblood of the small rural communities where I
was born and raised. We have a significant community impact as
a company. Not only do the taxes from our wells, the ad valorem
taxes, the property taxes, go straight to the rural hospitals,
the school district, and the local communities. But we are very
active members in the lifeblood that keeps these rural areas
thriving.
We sponsor the county stock shows, the Little League teams,
the volunteer fire departments, because there is no full-time
staffed fire department in these rural areas. The towns are a
size of 200 to a couple thousand people. We are one of the
largest employer in almost a four-county area to offer 401(k),
health insurance, paid leave. Our company is a vital piece of
the micro economy of these rural areas.
And while I am pleased to be here today to share what is
probably a unique perspective, because not only am I a second
generation E&P mom-and-pop oil and gas operator, I am a fifth
generation farmer and rancher. So stewardship of natural
resources is in my veins. It runs through my blood.
I am a staunch supporter of clean air, clean water, and
caring for the lands on which we provide these natural
resources to America. It is a message that I tell my kids
daily. My two young children are frequently riding around with
my husband and I in rural areas and on our ranch. And I say,
this is how we farm this wheat crop responsibly. This is how we
raise these thousands of cattle, all natural, with no steroids
or antibiotics, and care for the water they drink, the air that
they breathe, and the land that they graze. This is how we
hunt, fish, and manage the game responsibly on this property,
and do so, so that we can continue to do that for generations
to come. And these are the oil and gas wells that mommy and
daddy drilled right here in the middle of it where your great
grandparents still live.
And I am not alone. While that may sound like a unique
perspective from the oil and gas industry, I am just a small
representation of a very large swath of small to midsized
operators, not only in Texas, but when I was Chairman of the
Board of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, a 3,000 strong
member organization in Texas, I was able to meet folks from all
over the country, from Kansas, Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, and learn they share the same small business ethos
and regulatory environments that I have in Texas.
In that regulatory environment, I am mandated right now on
basically three levels of regulation. We have state-mandated
regulation, federally delegated regulation to the state of
Texas, and also American Petroleum Institute standards for my
equipment for safety and emissions. In 2023, in oil and gas
friendly Texas, in 365 days in a calendar year, I was inspected
297 times. I passed all of those inspections, some with
reinspections. And that is up in average from 215 inspections
on average per year from August 1 of 2015.
I am a proud member of a highly regulated industry. And
within those existing rules, the state of Texas has done great
things. The oil and gas industry has done great things. We have
sextupled production, meaning a sixfold increase of production,
with the same or lower greenhouse gas emissions than we have
had since 2010.
We are stewards, not wasters. The wells I operate are very
marginal. They make an equivalent of five barrels of oil a day.
I do not have room to waste in my business. I have to monitor
every single product that I produce because it is vital to be
able to give the good jobs and support the communities of which
I live in.
The regulations on small business like mine provide
certainty for me, my employees, and the communities we support.
I urge this Committee to please know that if you do not allow
my company to continue to produce these viable in-demand
products in the cleanest and best ways that we do in the world,
you will push these jobs and this environment overseas where
they don't do it cleaner because they don't have an EPA, an
API, or a Texas Railroad Commission.
Thank you so much.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back. And I now
recognize Dr. Aklog for his 5-minute opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF DR. LISHAN AKLOG, MD, CHAIRMAN & CEO,
PAVMED, INC.
Dr. AKLOG. Good morning, Chairman Williams, Ranking Member
Velazquez, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify today.
My name is Dr. Leshan Aklog. I am a heart surgeon, medical
technology innovator, and small company chief executive. Last
summer, I was honored to testify before the Subcommittee on
Health on Medicare Coverage of Innovative Medical Devices. My
testimony today focuses on upcoming EPA regulations on ethylene
oxide, which is used to sterilize billions of medical devices a
year.
Although there is broad industry support for updated
regulations, EPA's proposals are projected to greatly reduce
sterilization capacity and patient access to critical medical
devices. I am here to provide my perspective as a surgeon and
small company chief executive. I am not an expert on
environmental science, toxicology, sterilization technology, or
even the deeper policy dimensions.
Most lifesaving medical innovation happens at small
companies such as mine. Government can have a significant
positive impact on patient access to our innovations. For
example, SBIR and STTR funding are a lifeline to early stage
companies, and I commend the House for reauthorizing these
programs and for including innovation, fostering R&D expensing
provisions in the recent tax bill.
I was also pleased that H.R. 1691, the innovation-focused
subject of my testimony last summer made it out of Committee.
Today, however, we address a proposed government action
with a large potential negative impact, exposing millions of
patients to the risk of delayed care and even death. And I
assure you that is not hyperbole.
Sterilization lies at the heart of medical device
manufacturing. One of the most time-consuming and costly steps
of the FDA clearance process is sterilization validation. We
must prove that the device possesses zero infectious risk to
the patient and that sterilization does not damage or impair
its function. This is more difficult than it sounds.
Sterilization using heat or radiation can damage intricate
components and can't penetrate the inner parts of a complex
assembly. Ethylene oxide gas, however, can sterilize every
inner surface of a device without damaging its structure or
function. It is the only available technique to sterilize the
majority of medical devices.
Let me offer an example from my own experience as a heart
surgeon. Nearly a million patients per year receive lifesaving
artificial heart valves. They are marvels of modern medical
technology. Perfect sterilization is critical since artificial
heart valve infection is catastrophic and sometimes fatal.
Ethylene oxide is the only available technique to sterilize an
artificial heart valve.
A large percentage of heart valves are sterilized at a
single U.S. facility. The sudden closure of this facility, even
temporarily, would be devastating and many patients would die.
I also have experience with ethylene oxide sterilization as
an entrepreneur and chief executive.
Our experience commercializing our EsoCheck device
illustrates the unique challenges small, innovative companies
face with sterilization. EsoCheck is a deceptively simple tool
which allows precise, targeted collection of lower esophageal
cells for precancer testing. It is performed in a doctor's
office in less than 2 minutes without anesthesia or sedation. A
small balloon attached to a thin catheter gently swabs cells
from the target area, and a capsule protects the sample as the
catheter is withdrawn. EsoCheck's gentle approach to
noninvasive cell collection is a dramatic and elegant
improvement over cruder, decades-old technology, which involves
dragging a Brillo pad-like sponge on a string indiscriminately
scraping cells from the stomach, esophagus, and mouth. It is a
big advancement.
EsoCheck's initial FDA clearance required ethylene oxide
sterilization. Unlike large companies who can bring
sterilization in house, we are dependent on a small number of
third party sterilization companies with limited capacity. We
are the lowest priority customers and as a result, experience
serious supply challenges as EsoCheck demand grew.
To mitigate supply chain risk from proposed EPA
regulations, we decided to deploy precious resources and
successfully resubmitted EsoCheck for FDA clearance as a
nonsterile device.
The other products in our pipeline, however, must be
delivered and remain at severe risk if EPA regulations move
forward as proposed. Although, as I noted, I am not an ethylene
oxide sterilization expert, I am a mainstream small company
executive who is deeply concerned that pending EPA regulations,
if implemented as proposed, will have a devastating effect on
patient care.
I am also first and foremost a physician and recently lost
a family member to cancer. No one in this room is more
committed than I am to preventing cancer. Cancer prevention is
the sole mission of Lucid Diagnostics, which occupies the
majority of my professional time.
As a first-generation American who fled political violence
in Ethiopia, I have faith that this great country, which has
given me boundless opportunities, can apply technology and
commonsense solutions to address its challenges.
Let me be blunt, as surgeons are prone to be, updated EPA
regulations require the surgical precision of a scalpel. We can
keep communities safe without compromising patient access to
critical devices. I implore this Committee in Congress to
urgently work with the EPA, FDA, and the medical technology
industry to get the updated ethylene oxide regulations right.
Patient access to critical and lifesaving technologies depend
on it. Thank you very much.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Doctor.
And I now recognize Mr. Green for his 5-minute opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GREEN, DIRECTOR, CLIMATE AND
ENERGY POLICY, AMERICAN SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS NET-
WORK
Mr. GREEN. Let me start by just saying happy Valentine's
Day. Hopefully, you guys have a second to reach out to somebody
that you love or think about them.
Chairman Williams, Ranking Member Velazquez, and fellow
Members, I welcome the opportunity to engage with your
Committee to discuss the nature of regulatory policies coming
from the EPA and their impact on main street businesses. I have
the opportunity today to represent the American Sustainable
Business Network and our hundred of membered businesses,
chambers of commerce, and affiliated groups spread across the
country.
I also have the opportunity to speak to you from a unique
perspective of owning a small business that is on my
community's main street in Woodstock, Vermont. I would like to
start with sharing the experience of our community this past
summer when a series of irregular weather caused our second
100-year flooding event in the last 15 years. Between July 10
and 11, we had nine inches of rainfall on the green mountain
spine. The waters rushed down in inundated towns across our
state, causing widespread damage to businesses, farms and
homes. My family was fortunate to be spared from the
devastation experienced by my neighbor right next door and many
of the businesses in our community.
On the morning of the 11th, people woke up across the state
to complete destruction as several communities were completely
cut off from rescue services with roads sucked into the raging
rapids. In Woodstock this storm not only flooded our
businesses, but it also wiped out our town's public water and
drinking supply in what should have been our busiest summer
peak season.
This experience is not unique to Vermont. This is the same
story of small businesses across the country as we learn to
adapt to climate change. We know that small businesses are
disproportionately impacted by the threats of climate change
due to their limited resources to absorb financial shocks from
such catastrophic events. A study by FEMA highlighted that 40
percent of the small businesses never reopen following such a
disaster. This is caused by a lack of ability to relocate our
brick-and-mortar businesses, being locked into less diversified
supply chains, and an inability to compete with large
corporations in the global marketplace.
Businesses are not only feeling the impact of the climate
crisis through major flooding events, as many businesses are
also forced to shutter their doors because of extreme heat and
poor air quality over this past summer. The impacts of
unchecked localized air pollutants have an impact on our
workforce as they exasperate these issues and our customers and
communities as a whole, as they are either stuck inside at best
or struggling to breathe from asthma and acute pulmonary
impacts of air pollution at worst. Strong EPA regulations, such
as the recent final rule on soot, play a critical role in
safeguarding public health and reducing pollution related
illnesses, lowering our health care costs for our small
business community.
The EPA can also support main street businesses when they
are left powerless, facing the challenges outside their
control. The Good Neighbor plan is a great example of this, as
a policy protects companies from the pollution from faraway
facilities that don't mitigate their downstream effects. It
would be almost impossible for a main street business to create
these sort of protections in their own state, let alone to do
this in a neighboring state.
These are the threats that we should be focused on today,
and we should be discussing. For far too long, we have been fed
by a false narrative that environmental and public health
regulation hamper our economic growth. Experience shows the
exact opposite is true. EPA regulation and technical assistance
grants open the door for innovation and investment into
otherwise antiquated, polluting industry. This innovation
creates jobs, aligns the marketplace with a healthier
environment, and the opportunity for growth.
EPA regulations have often been a catalyst for innovation,
driving both large and small businesses to develop, adopt, and
market environmental-friendly technologies and practices. This
has created a wave across the country of clean technology, and
it makes it one of the fastest growing sectors in many of the
states that have given it the opportunity.
I would like to end my testimony today by challenging the
premise offered for our conversation. Main street businesses
are often the backbone of their local economy, especially in
small towns like mine. At the end of the day, we have to look
at our neighbors face to face. Main street business owners are
often compelled to pursue decisions based on what is right for
their community as they understand the delicate role for public
health and environment play in their strong community fabric.
Plain and simple, we will choose stronger controls over
putting the local environment and public health at risk 10 out
of 10 times and side with the health and safety of future
generations. This is a different motive than the out of state,
shareholder-controlled polluting industries that are driven by
no other motive than profit.
Time in today's conversation would be best spent focusing
on the resources needed to align with large point source
pollution emitters, which I have never seen on a community's
main street in the first place, with what is best for our
public health and our environment. I will continue to work with
this Committee, as well as with the EPA to ensure that small
businesses are provided a seat at the table and push for the
strongest protections possible for our environment, public
health.
I welcome any questions. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Great job. And before we get started, I
want to just say you will see Members moving in and out,
coming, and eventually everybody will have worked their way
through here. But don't take it personal, okay? We have got a
lot of Committees going on today, so that is important to know
that.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
In some cases, the EPA is so aggressive that they look to
regulate entire industries and rules out of existence. My
family has been in the automobile business for almost 89 years.
I have been in it 50 years. And we have never seen such an
aggressive push to regulate tailpipe emissions and force the
transition to electric vehicles.
The problem with this is in Texas, there is no market, I
repeat no market, for electric vehicles. People are looking for
a car or truck that can pull a horse trailer or a boat hundreds
of miles and not have to be worried about finding a charging
station and waiting a long time for electric vehicles to get
charged back up. And the EPA doesn't understand this. They just
don't. And they are trying to force this transition on the
market when the people simply should decide they want it or not
want it and let the product sell on its own.
So the oil and gas industry is currently seeing similar
hostilities, I believe, from this agency. So, Ms. Wagner, can
you elaborate on the way the EPA treats the oil and gas
industry compared to renewable energy companies? And what do
you think the long-term impacts of this forced transition will
be?
Ms. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The difference between
a lot of what you see in the green industry and the renewable
industry, to which I am very familiar with, on one of our farms
and ranches, we have wind turbines on a ranch of ours that is
in my family land. So I have seen what happens when the big
renewables come to the small towns and what they do and a big
push from the EPA and a lot of people that support more
regulation is that the jobs that will go away in my industry,
because of this duplicitous regulation that is coming.
Like I mentioned in my testimony, I am highly regulated
already. I am a marginal well producer. I know what resources
are coming out at the wellhead and what I am selling. And if
there is a loss anywhere between those two points, I am looking
at it before any regulator because I cannot afford to have a
leak, a spill, or anything else. So these proposed regulations
are onerous and would cost the jobs in the community and the
lifeblood in those small towns.
And when the big green companies come in, it is a temporary
job. A lot of people, you hear the rhetoric that there are
green jobs out there for everyone that leaves the oil and gas
industry because fossil fuels are bad and they are all going
away. Well, we need fossil fuels. We need them for the medical
products that the good doctor has talked about here.
And those jobs did not come to our small town and stay.
They were temporary guys that came in. And the green companies
that come in have wonderful subsidies and grants and things
that the federal government has done for them that do not get
reinvested into Main Street USA. Very different than the oil
and gas economy.
So while they are getting helped, we are getting hindered.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you for that testimony.
Mr. Farris, it is estimated that U.S. small businesses
spend over $60 billion per year on electricity. As electricity
rates increase for consumers across the U.S., we must
prioritize the importance of affordable and reliable
electricity access for small businesses.
So my question to you is, can you please speak to the
cumulative impact of EPA's regulations targeting the energy
sector on the electric bills of small businesses?
Mr. FARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and absolutely. With
the EPA's new power plants proposal, they are targeting 60-plus
percent of our power generation, and that is natural gas and
that is coal. And they have to, within 10 years, have
widespread deployment of carbon capture and hydrogen. Both of
those are wonderful technologies, but they are not available at
the scale needed for this. And what will happen in those 10
years is that 60 percent of our power generation will shut
down. And so bills will go up trying to meet these, but also we
will have widespread power outages in the U.S. because of that
power generation shutting down. So it can have a catastrophic
effect on small businesses, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. Dr. Aklog, I got about a
minute left to go here and I want to talk about ethylene. Is
that how you say it? Say it again. Ethylene oxide, right?
Explain to the Committee what banning the use of ethylene oxide
would mean for human health.
Dr. AKLOG. Well, it starts from the fact that there are 20
billion medical devices sterilized by it with ethylene oxide in
this country a year, and that represents about one in two
medical devices. Ethylene oxide sterilized devices are
everywhere in healthcare. You step into a hospital, every
corner has IV, syringes, you know, very simple technologies, as
well as the most complex technologies, such as the heart valve
that I described.
So a decline, a meaningful decline in capacity for
sterilization with ethylene oxide will lead to supply chain
issues and patient access to lifesaving medical technologies.
And in some cases, where they are urgent, where these
procedures are urgent, it could lead to severe patient
suffering and death.
Chairman WILLIAMS. Okay, thank you. My time is up.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Green, Americans want a livable planet, but some in
Congress believe there is a trade-off, either the environment
or the economy. Is this true?
Mr. GREEN. This shouldn't be true, but that is their sense.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How are new, innovative technologies
emerging from environmental regulations leading to new business
starts?
Mr. GREEN. Yeah. So I have had the opportunity to spend
some time at an innovation space called Greentown Labs, which
they have an operation in Houston as well as an operation in
Boston, Massachusetts. They are growing, incubating, and
supporting small businesses that are revolutionizing clean
technology. And guess who is one of the largest supporters in
embracing of these new technologies, is the oil and gas
industry. They look at this as an opportunity to change their
business models and start to innovate and clean up in ways that
are being less maybe facing the regulation and more towards the
opportunity of growth and looking forward to a new American
economy.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Green, the regulations written by the
EPA clean our nation's air, land, and waters. In your
testimony, you mentioned that they can also level the playing
field for small businesses. Can you please expound on this
aspect of your testimony?
Mr. GREEN. Small businesses and main street businesses that
we work with don't have the opportunity to use our air and
water as a dumping ground. And they often are at the feeling
the impacts of such decisions that are made by large
corporations. So when leveling the playing ground, all it is
doing is it is holding the corporations to the same thing that
a small business would probably decide in the first place of
supporting public health in their local environment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Dr. Aklog, the proposed rule
doesn't ban EO, does it?
Dr. AKLOG. I don't believe so. But as I mentioned, I am----
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Correct. I support strong rules to protect
public health. I understand your concerns with the proposed
rule, and I really appreciate your testimony here today. I
would like to know, has the EPA worked with federal agencies
and the private sector to hear your concerns?
Dr. AKLOG. Yes. So, I serve on the board of AdvaMed. I am
the incoming Chair of the Excel division, which focuses on
small companies. And I have been invited to participate in
discussions with the EPA, with the administrator, with the
deputy administrator, mostly for my perspective, not on the
policy side, but on the healthcare side. And so those
conversations have occurred. I know FDA has weighed in. I
believe the SBA has also weighed in. So those conversations are
happening.
And I think the important point is that industry supports
updated regulations. It is just the specific aspects of these
rules are not surgical. They have the potential to have an
impact. And I believe there are sensible modifications that can
achieve those goals without having that adverse patient impact.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Farris, you cite a 2023 Crane
& Crane report. I haven't read the report, but I do know that
in 2010, a study that was produced by Crane & Crane was
criticized by CRS and the Government Accountability Office, two
independent offices that work with Congress, as well as the
Economic Policy Institute for using unreliable methodology and
flood data. Were you aware of that?
Mr. FARRIS. We are aware that anytime there is an academic
study, there will be questions about the validity of the data.
We stand behind the Crane study and believe that is a valid
snapshot of the cost of regulation.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So do you believe that the Congressional
Research Office and the Government Accountability Office were
wrong in their assessment of the Crane & Crane report?
Mr. FARRIS. Yes, ma'am. We stand behind the Crane data.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. Well, I questioned the data based on
the study and the opinion issued by our government agencies.
Mr. Green, Democrats delivered on two new laws: the
Bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act and Inflation Reduction
Act. How are the regulations to carry out these laws helping
small businesses to grow and flourish?
Mr. GREEN. Thank you so much for the question. You know, in
small mountain communities and communities that are feeling the
impacts of climate change such as ours, we are looking for
folks down here in D.C. to pull every single lever you possibly
can to help us get on the right trajectory. So these
regulations work hand-in-hand with the innovation and the grant
programs that are coming out of the EPA, as well, to help
businesses reach to compliance, as well as to reach the
innovation goals that we all have for a healthy environment.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank
you.
Mr. GREEN. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Meuser from the great state
of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you very much to our witnesses. Really appreciate it. It is
very interesting and highly informative.
So, as I think most of us know, inflation over the last 3
years is up over or nearly 18 percent, 17.9 percent. We get CBO
records that show regulations on businesses in general are up
since the Biden administration has taken--went into effect,
over $400 billion. Clearly, that adds to inflation.
Regulations do serve, clearly, a cost on your business, Ms.
Wagner, as you were pointing out. We also have a letter from
the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy stating
how on this proposal, Clear Power Plan 2.0, that the EPA has
significantly underestimated the cost that its proposed rules
would impose on small entities.
I am interested in hearing, Mr. Green brought up that or
the question was do we have to forsake the environment for land
development, for manufacturing development, for the development
of medical devices that are life-saving?
I would like, Mr. Farris, I am going to start with you, A,
tell me what you think about that comment as well. You have how
many manufacturers that you represent?
Mr. FARRIS. Nearly 14,000.
Mr. MEUSER. Fourteen thousand. And how many of them are
small business?
Mr. FARRIS. The vast majority.
Mr. MEUSER. Okay, the vast majority. Number one, do you
think they would agree with that comment? And number two, has
the EPA come and spoken to you and asked how would this rule
affect those vast majority of 14,000 small businesses that
create the jobs that pay for the Little Leagues, that take care
of--truly are the ones invested in taking care of their
communities' environment?
Mr. FARRIS. Thank you, Congressman. And what I can say is
there doesn't have to be a trade-off. Industry has worked, and
we have some of the cleanest air in the world. We have
innovated, and those technologies have led to having some of
the cleanest air in the world.
One of the great problems that we are seeing right now with
these regulations is that they are so close to zero that they
are unachievable. So, yes, there does not have to be a trade-
off. We can have clean air and we can have a wonderful economy,
but we cannot have it with these regulations that we are seeing
right now.
And then to your point about is EPA hearing? Is EPA
listening? I differentiate hearing and listening. Yes, there
are hearing sessions where they hear concerns, but are they
listening? What we have seen on PFAS, what we have seen on
ethylene oxide, is that other agencies are weighing in with EPA
and saying, if you create a de facto ban on PFAS, we can't make
semiconductors in the U.S., and the EPA isn't listening.
We have heard the same thing on ethylene oxide. If you
create a de facto ban on ethylene oxide, we will no longer be
able to sterilize most medical equipment. And EPA isn't
listening, sir.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you. Ms. Wagner, I am going to ask you a
question. So of all the regulations that you deal with, would
you say half have the type of effect that was intended on the
environment and the other half are unnecessary costs? I don't
want to put words in your mouth. You tell me what you think the
outcomes are of those regulations that obviously add a lot to
your cost of doing business.
Ms. WAGNER. Absolutely.
Mr. MEUSER. Which ones are worth it and which ones aren't.
Ms. WAGNER. In Texas, the regulations that we are
functioning under now that, like I said, my family business has
been under and in good standing with the Texas Railroad
Commission for 40 years, those regulations are prudent and just
and necessary. They are based on science, fact, common sense.
There is a lot of boots on the ground work to understand how
these things work in the real world.
There is understanding of the difference in a marginal well
that a producer like myself with a couple of hundred wells
across the state of Texas versus the super majors and millions
of barrels a day that they are moving. The economies of scale
are taken into consideration, the volumes, the pressures. There
is a lot of science to that.
So the regulations we have, like I said in my testimony, I
think both written and oral, I am a proud member, as many
operators are, of a highly regulated industry. We have a duty
to protect and steward the natural resources, not only the ones
that we produce, but the ones that we protect. The problem with
the regulations that are ambiguously being proposed right now,
the ambiguity, pardon me, is a huge part of the problem.
And the rest of that is we are doing it. We are stewards.
We are doing it now. So now it is just duplicitous and punitive
and it is not going to help the environment.
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you very, very much.
Ms. WAGNER. Sure thing.
Mr. MEUSER. Question to you, Doctor. Do you think there is
a more realistic and effective way in which the EPA could
implement this rule that would not be detrimental, that could
actually be positive to you?
Dr. AKLOG. My understanding is there are engagements and
there are alternatives really focused around the time to
implementation and the flexibilities that we have.
Mr. MEUSER. I apologize, sir.
Dr. AKLOG. Thank you.
Mr. MEUSER. I didn't leave you enough time to respond.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Ms. Scholten from the great state of
Michigan for 5 minutes.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Fantastic. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and
thank you to our witnesses. I am up a little earlier in my
order than I thought I would be, so I am going to jump right in
here.
This is the third regulatory oversight hearing that we have
had, and I really look forward to hearing how smart, well-
crafted regulations help level the playing field for small
businesses throughout America. To that end, it is important to
recognize when it comes to the EPA that the Agency is carrying
out the laws passed by Congress using science and leveraging
the latest technologies available.
My first question is for you, Mr. Green. Cutting through
the rhetoric that compliance with commonsense environmental
protections stifles opportunities for small businesses to grow
and operate, to what end is the impact of these regulations
measurable economically? Can we safely say that the benefits
outweigh the costs of the regulations or vice versa?
Mr. GREEN. We absolutely can. It is 30-to-1, $30 to gained
to our economy for $1 spent in the regulation.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Fantastic. I am not going to argue with you
there.
As the effects of climate change hit more and more
doorsteps across the country, it is clear that Main Street
America has to adapt. That being said, it is not easy to say
what we can reasonably expect small businesses to do on their
own while remaining solvent and, in some cases, quite literally
above water. We also know not all small businesses are created
the same, right, ranging in scale from a couple dozen to a
couple hundred.
This question, again, is for Mr. Green. In your testimony,
you highlight ways environmental regulations help to level the
playing field for small businesses. Can you also speak to their
impact on markets and any new and innovative strategies that
they may produce?
Mr. GREEN. Yeah. No, they absolutely create the opportunity
to move markets and create new products for consumers that I
think there is a strong demand. As an electric vehicle driver
in a rural community, my family has taken advantage of such
amazing programs. And I was really pleased when I took the
opportunity to look up Roger Williams Chrysler, Jeep, and
Dodge, and at the very first top of the menu was how to
purchase an electric vehicle.
And so we are already seeing a lot of consumer interest and
consumer demand pushing towards these new innovative
technologies. And industries, even as old as the auto industry,
are really getting to harness that opportunity.
Ms. SCHOLTEN. Well, I thank you so much for your testimony
and for all the witnesses being here today.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The lady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Ellzey from the great state
of Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLZEY. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of Mr. Meuser, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to enter a joint trade letter into the Record from
National Mining Association, American Exploration and Mining
Association, the Essential Minerals Association discussing the
challenges small businesses face due to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's burdensome regulations.
Chairman WILLIAMS. So moved.
Mr. ELLZEY. Costs have been going up in our country for a
long, long time. Under the Biden administration, the cost of
living in the United States is about 20 percent, has gone up
about 20 percent. Makes it very difficult for people to afford
basic necessities.
The Environmental Protection Agency is a part of that
problem. They are one of the most oppressive rulemaking
agencies, and they are responsible for approximately $70.6
billion in new regulatory costs in 2023. That is not borne by
the companies. It is borne by the consumers in passalongs. You
can't afford a truck, you can't afford your rent, you can't
afford to pay your taxes, you can't afford to go to the grocery
store.
An additional 5.5 million paperwork hours for companies.
These regulations have increased the cost and regulatory burden
for nearly every job creator in America. What the
administration fails to understand, these regulations have real
world consequences for the American public overall, and
specifically small businesses.
We have the cleanest environment, water and air, of any
industrialized nation on the planet. And the only thing the EPA
knows to do is serve as a self-licking ice cream cone to
provide for its own existence and create new difficulties for
American businesses to succeed. And those businesses hire
people who live in this country.
Now, in our appropriations bill in the Interior, we have
cut back on the EPA by 40 percent. Forty percent. And that is
just a start. But we have to get that appropriations bill
through the Senate and signed by the President so we can stop
allowing the EPA to have total control when they so choose over
the business community in the United States of America.
I have a lot of questions to ask three of you, and I wish I
had time to get to them. But I did some digging about our folks
on the end there. The American Sustainable Business Network is
a merger between 2021 American Sustainable Business Council and
the Social Venture Circle. And then I did some more digging on
what this group actually does. It is a member of the
Declaration for American Democracy Coalition, a left-leaning
activist coalition that advocates electoral administration
policy changes.
And then I read a little bit further that they are a
project of the Public Citizen Foundation founded by Ralph
Nader. And then I did a little bit further digging. The
foundation, located in Washington, D.C., provides
administrative and financial support to Public Citizen, in
addition to running its own research and media programs with a
focus on health, environmentalism, and limiting business
rights.
Make no mistake about what is going on with the EPA and
groups like our group on the end. This isn't about American
businesses and making them stronger. This is about shutting
down American businesses and outsourcing our guilt, like we
have done with the mining of our rare earth metals, which we
need for our national security and the very lives we lead every
day for microchip production, for energy independence. So we
are going to limit LNG production in the United States so that
Germany is more dependent on our enemy, Russia, for their
natural gas.
This is harmful to national security. It is harmful for the
security of our families. It is making life more difficult for
them.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you have done in these
hearings on promoting American businesses, holding the Small
Business Administration accountable, trying to improve their
ability to help small businesses. But when somebody says they
are trying to help the 33 million small businesses in this
country by making it harder for them to do their jobs, and the
restrictions on a five-barrel-a-day production, well, limiting
the ability for our medical community to clean the things that
we use to take care of our American people, they are making it
difficult to live in the United States.
And I think it is about time to go back to the
Administrative Procedures Act and do away with the EPA, because
we already have a redundancy in every state. Every state has
their own EPA. In Texas, it's the TCEQ. And those TCEQ members
do a very good job of making sure that the air and the water in
the state of Texas is clean. We don't need the EPA's help.
I am about out of time. Sorry I didn't get to ask any
questions, but it needs to be clear on what the agenda is of
some folks in this country when they claim it is about
supporting American businesses.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Ms. Maloy from the great state of Utah for
her 5 minutes.
Ms. MALOY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a bunch of
thoughts I was prepared to share about federalism and how
redundant and unnecessary some of these EPA regulations are,
but Mr. Ellzey just did a fantastic job of that, so I am going
to move on. In fact, I wish I had said what he just said.
Ms. Wagner, first of all, thank you for your testimony. You
are a fantastic witness. And I have a high school graduating
class of 32. I rarely meet people who can beat me on that,
besides my siblings, so great to hear about that.
And what you said really had a ring of truth to me. I grew
up in a small town in a rural area where people are dependent
on resources to make a living, and we have a built-n incentive.
We learn from the time we are tiny that we have a
responsibility to take care of the resources God gave us on
this Earth. So thank you for sharing that.
And to that point, reading through the materials for this
hearing, I am reading that small business optimism is very low.
One reason is the burdensome regulations that are coming from
unaccountable federal agencies that can't be voted out of
office, that don't have to go back and face the voters every 2
years like we do.
And the EPA isn't just regulating pollution and protecting
human health anymore. They are trying to change the way we do
business in this country, which is outside of their scope. They
are part of the executive branch. We, as the legislative
branch, have the responsibility to act as a check on them. And
that is why you are here. That is what we are doing here today.
Overregulation kills main street under the weight of
compliance and also the cost of inadvertent noncompliance, when
rules get so burdensome that people don't even know whether
they are in compliance or not. So I am getting to questions
here.
Our friend Mr. Green on the end just said that he sees a
30-to-1 return on regulation. For every dollar they spend, they
get a $30 bump. And I want to go down the line with the other
three of you and ask you individually, Mr. Farris, you
represent a lot of small businesses. Do you find that to be
accurate?
Mr. FARRIS. I would say that I would love to see those
studies. All of our studies do not show that.
Ms. MALOY. So your Members don't feel like regulation from
the EPA helps their bottom line?
Mr. FARRIS. Not from what we are seeing right now. We can
work together on regulations. Regulations can be helpful, but
what we are seeing right now is they are not helpful, and they
are all set at zero to where, to your point, it is shutting
down businesses.
Ms. MALOY. Thank you. Ms. Wagner?
Ms. WAGNER. I would say the inverse of the other witnesses,
duplicitous regulations cost money. They will never produce
more oil and gas or any cost savings for my business, which
will hurt my employees and the communities that we support.
Ms. MALOY. Thank you. That also has the ring of truth to
me. Mr. Aklog?
Dr. AKLOG. So, I work in an industry that is primarily
regulated by the FDA. And obviously, we all would accept that
healthcare technologies needs to be regulated. And so the issue
is really about smart regulations and coordination between the
regulatory agencies to make sure that we don't end up with
adverse consequences to patients. And that is what we are
trying to accommodate here.
Ms. MALOY. And do you think that further regulations give
you a 30-to-1 increase in your profit margin?
Dr. AKLOG. I am not focused on our profit margin. I am
focused on patients and patient outcomes. And that, to me, is
the overriding question here, is that we have to have
regulations that protect patients, but don't do the opposite,
which is what we are facing here.
Ms. MALOY. Thank you. And during your testimony, it struck
me that, you know, the justification for these environmental
regulations is that we are trying to keep our air and water
clean, protect human life. But in the case of removing
something we need to sterilize medical devices, it is having
the opposite impact. We could be taking human lives in the
effort to protect human lives. You don't have to respond to
that. Just an observation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Alford from the great state
of Missouri for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALFORD. Thank you, Chair. And I apologize for not being
here sooner. We have a lot of competition on the Hill today.
Just met King Abdullah from Jordan and Secretary Vilsack in
another hearing. But this is so important, and I wanted to be
here for your testimony.
I have read it. I appreciate you coming here on your own
time and your own dime, as I like to say, because I know that
is part of being American is coming before Committees like
this. We are concentrated on making America great again through
making main street great again. And I thank the Chairman and
the Ranking Member for holding this.
The EPA, of course, you know, was created by President
Nixon to monitor and enforce our national guidelines on the
environment. However, under President Biden the EPA has
completely abandoned this mandate. Instead, taking their cues
from radical environmentalists, they are attempting to regulate
entire industries out of existence.
In 2023 alone, the EPA was responsible for approximately
$70.6 billion in regulatory cost and an additional 5.5 million
paperwork hours for companies. The Biden EPA might be happy to
learn that America is actually reducing the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions and has been since 2007.
As the United States has drastically decreased our
emissions, communist China emissions have spiked. China's
emissions have approximately doubled since '06, when they
became the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. While
American emissions have been constantly decreasing, the Chinese
continue to increase their pollution.
While the radical environmentalists would love to claim
that America's progress is due to their activism, the data
clearly shows that this happened despite their best efforts.
The reason American emissions peaked in '07 is because of
hardworking independent energy producers, like Cooper Oil and
Gas.
America reduced emissions and gained energy independence
because of the shale revolution and the policies of the Trump
administration. This has led to cheap and plentiful energy,
including a doubling of the natural gas produced since 2006.
America reduced emissions and gained energy independence
because of our small energy producers, not because of the
roadblocks thrown in their way by radical environmentalists. As
Ms. Cooper Wagner will surely attest, the shale revolution has
been the greatest environmental boon the world has ever seen.
Now to our questions. For Ms. Cooper Wagner, American
carbon emissions have declined year on year since '07, as I
mentioned. Much of the progress has been due to increased usage
of natural gas from small-scale producers like your own. Why do
you think the Biden administration is proposing rules and
regulations that would crush small energy producers like yours
if you are part of the solution?
Ms. WAGNER. That is a fabulous question and I appreciate
your comments. And will even say something I don't get to to
most people, you are welcome.
Our industry is fiercely private. We are a small mom-and-
pop. Again, I work with my dad and mom, with my husband and my
brother. We never knew that we needed to be so public and
educate regulators, legislators, and the general public about
what we do and the quality and quantity of life that we
provide. I don't know if it is just a lack of education and how
things work, why the lights are on, why your cars are safe, why
when there is disaster, you are safe from it. And the majority
of those reasons are because of fossil fuels.
You know, I am not sure why there is a target on my back.
And as a mother of two young kids, I never try to be a doomsday
sayer and everything is bad and, you know, the big guys are
after us. I don't like to live in that world. I believe there
is good in all people and good in this world. But it is a
difficult line to walk as an E&P producer and someone in the
oil and gas industry, and I am not quite sure they want to wipe
us out, but it definitely feels that way.
Those returns that you are talking about and leveling
playing fields between super majors and us don't exist. I will
never compete with them. The economies of scale, we are in
different markets, different everything. They can absorb
erroneous regulations from the EPA for no real environmental
benefit and push that cost to the end consumer. I can't do
that. I am the end. The buck stops with me and my small company
and my small business and our small community.
Mr. ALFORD. Well, thank you so much. And, you know, they
like to say that ignorance is bliss. In this case, ignorance is
dangerous. It is dangerous to your company, your business, and
to the American people.
This administration has put the crosshairs on the backs of
the American people by demonizing fossil fuels with
overregulation. We have got to regain our territory. We must be
energy independent once again.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Van Duyne from the great
state of Texas for 5 minutes.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The subject at today's hearing is one of tremendous
importance and one we hear about again and again from small
businesses. The EPA is determined to overstep its authority and
get in the way of Americans and job creators. Small businesses
are already having to suffer 3 years of disastrous policies
under the Biden administration that have driven up the cost of
living, making food, electricity, housing, and transportation
nearly impossible to afford.
Last June, I, along with the Chairman and several other
Members of this Committee, sent a letter to the EPA
Administrator on their proposed rule to ban the use of PCE,
which is used in dry cleaners as a cleaning solvent, and, if
banned, would force thousands of small businesses to close
their door. The EPA estimates that their rule could cost
businesses anywhere, and this is great, this is just phenomenal
work from the EPA, they are estimating that it could cost
businesses anywhere from $850 to $10.4 million. That is a huge
margin. And I want to know, I mean, how do you plan as a small
business for that type of a margin?
Last year, this Committee passed my bill, the Small
Business Regulatory Reduction Act, which requires the Small
Business Administration to ensure for each fiscal year that the
cost to small businesses of the administration's rulemaking is
not greater than zero, while also requiring the SBA to issue a
report on any regulations issued by other federal agencies that
impact small businesses. And I am looking forward to expanding
these provisions beyond just the SBA and into EPA. And I think
EPA is a perfect place to start when you consider what is
happening in our energy industry and its huge impacts on our
economy.
Ms. Wagner, thank you for being here today. I know it is a
little chillier here than at home in Fort Worth. I appreciate
your testimony. I appreciate your responses just now to Mark
Alford's questions. His questions were very similar to mine.
This is what happens when you are one of the last speakers,
right? All the questions have already been asked. But I know
that you have invested a lot in what is going on in the
environment. It is not in your best interest, you know, for the
environment to not be taken seriously and to be unsafe.
Can you talk a little bit about those investments? And can
you talk about the overregulations, the regulatory burdens that
your small business, that Cooper Energy is having to face, and
possible solutions or what specifically you think could help
get rid of some of those regulations? If you have got any
ideas, I would love to be able to hear them.
Ms. WAGNER. Sure. Thank you. Thank you for the questions
and for the time. It is an honor to be here today.
The regulations that we have in place in our small company,
we employ a full-time person to just manage the regulations
that we have now. So just in our little company, it is a full-
time job in the office for staff, just on the paperwork side of
things. For my guys in the field, it is part of their job every
day to make sure that these regulations are followed.
More regulations for me are going to mean I am going to
have to hire more people with, again, no benefit from those
regulations to be able to pay those people, to be able to give
them those good-paying jobs in a rural area that are so hard to
come by.
Again, regulations and being a part of a regulated
industry, like you have heard from the three of us, is
important, and we are a proud member of that. If EPA, if other
regulatory agencies could listen to some of the comments that
we have submitted, the input that we have tried to have, that
seems to go--I echo your comments on the difference between
listening and hearing. We need to be able to partner to be able
to make good, responsible decisions that aren't going to wipe
out small businesses.
We are a scrappy bunch. We make money on stuff that all the
majors have walked away from. We make money where you shouldn't
be able to. But there is a whole economy of that that supports
millions of vital rural economy Americans--American economies,
rather, and these regulations will effectively wipe that out.
There are businesses that will not survive and jobs that will
not survive.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I appreciate your testimony and your answer.
Dr. Aklog, I have heard from doctors in my district about
the concerns they have if the EPA moves forward with their
proposed rule banning ETO, which is used as a sterilization
agent for medical equipment. What type of alternatives exist if
the rule is finalized? And how realistic are they for small
businesses?
Dr. AKLOG. Thank you. There are a couple of other
traditional alternatives, such as steam heating and radiation
that have been used to sterilize medical devices, but they are
just not appropriate or they don't work in the vast majority.
So about 50 percent of medical devices, the only currently
available technology is ethylene oxide. There is active R&D,
and we are in the innovation business, so we certainly welcome
new types of sterilization. The problem is that none of them
are yet ready for prime time.
There is one example called vaporized hydrogen peroxide,
which is a gas like ethylene oxide, and in theory, could have
some of the benefits of being able to sort of work your way
through the innermost parts of these complex devices. But it is
really new, and we don't have the data. The processes of
determining that they actually work is quite overburden.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. My time has run out.
I yield back, but thank you for your answer.
Dr. AKLOG. Thank you.
Chairman WILLIAMS. The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Hunt from the great state of
Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNT. Thank you, Chairman Williams, and thank you,
Ranking Member. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us
here today.
I want to look at some of the burdensome regulations that
have been implemented by the EPA and the Biden administration
as they continue to put more hurdles in front of businesses
like yours, ma'am, and our hardest working citizens in our
country.
Ms. Wagner, I want to thank you so much, ma'am, for what
you have done. I want to thank you for your company. I want to
thank you for helping the smaller pieces of the oil and gas
industry in a rural part of our state where it is not the
easiest to create and thrive. Really appreciate you, ma'am.
And thank you for working to keep our houses cool in the
summer and heated in the winter. Without you, your dedicated
employees, and other companies like yours, our quality of life
in this country would be way worse than it is right now, for
the record.
President Biden has been actively calling for the end of
oil, of the oil and gas industry since the day and before the
day he took office. And he put the priorities of the radical
left's climate change agenda over the needs of the American
people and commonsense policies.
The administration is more than willing to use fossil fuels
to prop up their failing ESG initiatives, just as long as those
fossil fuels don't come from America or American companies. We
continue to see the Biden administration purchasing oil from
Venezuela and critical minerals from child labor mines in
Africa and allowing China to continue to build their multiple
coal-powered plants each month while ignoring their climate
footprint as they continue to increase their climate footprint
from time to time, from generation to generation, although we
continue to decrease our carbon footprint.
All foreign countries where they have less regulation, less
oversight, and exponentially dirtier oil, we continue to see
Joe Biden and the climate cartel approving pipelines in Europe
that allow natural gas to flow freely into homes of European
families while killing the very same projects domestically.
Our American energy companies are world leaders in
innovation, productivity and accountability. I cannot think of
a single energy company that does not obsess over their
compliance, field equipment maintenance, and take general
preventative measures on their own outside of whatever
regulations that are already in place to ensure that we
continue to operate at 100 percent capacity.
Ma'am, Ms. Wagner, this question is for you. What is your
estimated compliance cost over the next 5 years for the methane
rule and with other EPA regulations, and how does it impact
your bottom line?
Ms. WAGNER. Thank you. I appreciate your comments very
much.
Mr. HUNT. Appreciate you.
Ms. WAGNER. Thank you. The cost estimate currently, this is
also very ambiguous, and I hate to sit here and say I don't
know, but it is not clear. So many things are not finalized. So
many things are being restructured. There is a tax that we are
subject to that goes into effect before the formulaic work and
the empirical evidence has been shown to know if I am subject
to that tax.
I pay taxes. I don't do tax law myself.
Mr. HUNT. I pay a lot of taxes.
Ms. WAGNER. Yeah. A whole bunch of taxes, yes, sir. I know
that there are companies that have already been so concerned
and so, quite honestly, scared so many small businesses that
are living in fear that they have hired some environmental
companies to do this just to find out if they might qualify.
Because the environmental companies can't tell you for sure yes
or no has cost small operators like myself approximately
$10,000. And the answer is, thank you for the $10,000. Here is
all the work we have done based on what EPA has put out. I
don't know if you qualify or not. And if so, if you do, it will
be up to a range, like the Congresswoman pointed out earlier,
it could be hundreds of dollars if you don't qualify. It could
be millions of dollars if you do.
The problem is, if you do or don't qualify under these
rules. what I am concerned about as a small operator is maybe I
am under a threshold. Maybe I don't emit, maybe I don't fit the
formulas. Proving the negative is going to be just as expensive
as if I did. And proving the negative means I am going to have
to do all of the same things that will not help my business.
They will not make my business more money to be paying those
taxes, paying those royalties, helping my communities. They are
just going to be a net cost that will wipe out businesses that
are the size of mine and smaller.
Mr. HUNT. Would you consider it to be like a hidden tax.
Ms. WAGNER. I would consider it to be erroneous and
overburdensome regulation.
Mr. HUNT. Understood. Quick, simple question for you as
well. Did you find it easier or more difficult to produce
energy for the American people today when Donald Trump was
president or when the current administration is now in office?
Ms. WAGNER. Our business practices basically sustain over
40 years, regardless of who is in office.
Mr. HUNT. Understood.
Ms. WAGNER. But I did not feel the target on my back that I
do since President Biden has taken office.
Mr. HUNT. Understood. I want to close with this, ladies and
gentlemen. As a candidate for President, Joe Biden again
promised to end the oil and gas industry. He said this with his
own words, but here is a dirty little secret. He only wants to
end it in America. Biden doesn't have any problem buying dirty
oil from Venezuela. He doesn't have any problem buying oil from
our adversaries. And Joe Biden and his colleagues want the oil.
They just don't want to see how the sausage is made.
The Biden administration's energy policy is out of sight,
out of mind. And as long as it is not being produced in
America, the climate lobby won't be upset. We have got to fix
this.
And thank you so much. I yield back the rest of my time.
Thank you for being here, ma'am.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. [Presiding.] I now recognize Rep.
Gluesenkamp Perez from Washington for 5 minutes.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Thank you, Chairwoman. And thank you
to the witnesses for being here today.
So before coming to Congress, I ran an auto repair in a
machine shop with my husband. We are an independent. Not
especially lucrative, right? And I will never forget going into
wrecking yards. I remember I was picking up parts for, like, a
'90s Toyota, and the guy was like, the owner, a buddy was like,
crying. He had an inspector there, so, right, wrecking yards,
cheap land. It is not a high-margin business. You are operating
often in wetlands.
So the environmental impact, you know, and businesses like
mine, I mean, we didn't cause the oil leak. We are fixing the
oil leak. We are stopping the oil from going into the river.
And we are the ones who are under scrutiny because we are the
one fixing the problem. And, you know, in these wrecking yards
that we see getting shut down all across the country, they are
the independents, usually, and they don't have the money for
the lawyers to navigate the system.
And, you know, you think about what is the average consumer
going to do when they can't get their Toyota Corolla fixed?
Instead of remanufacturing a part that is always been in
America, they are going to have to get some cheap thing from
China that is going to fail. And you think about the downstream
effects on the economy of shutting down these small repair
shops and wrecking yards when they are not compliant with EPA
regulations. That hinders a really important part of the supply
chain.
And so, you know, I guess my question is how--this is the
tension we see between the EPA's mission, which I value. I like
knowing my water is clean. I like knowing my air is clean. But
I also want equity and who is being held accountable and who
has the capacity to navigate these rules.
And, Mr. Green, in your opinion, how do you balance the
needs of the economy with that, like, lens of equity for the
smaller companies that don't have the infrastructure to
navigate?
Mr. GREEN. I think the lens of equity should really be
focused on the communities that have been disproportionately
impacted by the negative health impacts and the environmental
impacts, because their communities have often been overlooked,
overshadowed, and underrepresented when they are making
decisions about where to put things that are going to create a
lot of pollution in their backyard.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. When you say ``they are making
decisions,'' like, who are you referring to about making the
decision to put their wrecking yard in the only place they can
afford to put it? Who is making that decision?
Mr. GREEN. The business.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. The small business.
Mr. GREEN. The business is making a decision.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. So then you want to hold the small
business accountable for not having the resources to go to a
wealthier neighborhood.
Mr. GREEN. I would want the small business to be
accountable for the footprint and their business decision and
the impact that their business is having on their local
community.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I mean, I think that,
like, my experience is that the smaller guys are the ones who
are accountable. We are the ones who are sponsoring the Little
League team and donating to teachers. We are part of the
community. The small ones are the ones who are also the ones
who can't navigate these rules.
When I bought my property, when I bought my auto shop, the
seller literally had a heart attack because that is his whole
net worth. And if there was an environmental finding there,
like, he is liable. He can't afford to go to a nursing home
after that, you know. I mean, how do we balance? I don't know
if anybody here has insight, like, how do we balance in
creating a system that the smaller guys can navigate, also?
Because I think a lot of this is just contributing to
consolidation is my concern. And then you really do have the
big guys who don't go to the bake sale, you know, who aren't
selling Girl Scout cookies, you know.
Mr. GREEN. Right. Can I take----
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yeah, please.
Mr. GREEN. Yeah. And so I think part of it is that we are
moving the American public away from the understanding of the
true intent of the EPA by using, you know, like kind of these
tactics of talking about how scary these regulations, how it is
going to support, you know, countries over abroad that maybe,
you know, it is being placed in a way where people are anti-EPA
rather than trying to engage within the EPA process. So if we
used a conversation or had a conversation about these rules are
something that we all agree on and want to see happen rather
than fear tactics when we are talking about these things,
rather than scaring those small businesses away from the
conversation, we could bring them into the conversation.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Yeah. How would you recommend
bringing those small businesses in? And how would you
recommend--or can you point to things that you would----
Mr. GREEN. Yeah. So at the clean power plan ruling, there
were in the Region 1 offices in Massachusetts, there was a
overflow. And we actually filled not only the hearing room, but
also outside the hearing room with small businesses that were
around the Salem Harbor Power Plant, around the Brayton Point
Power Plant. So I would actually say that small businesses,
when there is the opportunity to engage, are engaging. Most of
us here today are claiming to or do support and represent the
small business community. So I think it is actually a words
decision to bring those businesses in and the mechanisms
already exist to continue to have them.
Ms. GLUESENKAMP PEREZ. Thank you all for being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Green.
I yield back.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
Stauber from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. STAUBER. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To my colleague that just spoke, I couldn't agree with you
more. I appreciate your comments about the small operators, the
small folks.
And Mr. Green, I couldn't disagree with you more about the
EPA. Let me tell you something. The EPA has shut down mining,
manufacturing, logging, and timber producing in our great
state, so I disagree with you fundamentally on the EPA trying
to work with them. Okay. I have seen the devastation. I have
seen our farmers and ranchers. The WOTUS rule was devastating,
devastating to small businesses. And so I think--I read your
comments. I appreciate where you come from. But sir, I
adamantly disagree with you.
The Biden administration is run by extreme radical
environmentalists who abuse the law and bend it to their will.
The unelected bureaucrats at the EPA are by far the worst
offenders. EPA regulations constantly attack my constituents
and our way of life. They restrict our mining operations, our
logging operations, and wildlife management. They force extreme
Green New Deal policies on our businesses without care for the
overwhelming costs. And now they are going after our
healthcare.
The proposed rule on ETO sterilization, ethylene oxide
sterilization, that technology will eliminate a chemical used
to sterilize medical equipment. Eliminating ETO would require
manufacturers to change how they sterilize medical equipment,
either adopting more costly or less effective solutions.
Additionally, there are many instances where ETO simply
cannot be replaced by other sterilization methods. Tools such
as respirators, heart valves, pacemakers, and catheters can
only be properly sterilized by ETO as other methods are
ineffective or even harmful.
Make no mistake, this rule will increase costs, reduce
access, and eliminate services in our healthcare industry. And
rural America is always the first one negatively impacted.
Rural America, rural healthcare, rural hospitals matter.
Dr. Aklog, each year millions of separate medical
instruments are needed for nearly 1 million breast biopsies,
300,000 hysterectomies, 500,000 open heart surgeries, and the
1.1 million C sections that are performed each year. Are the
instruments for all these procedures just mentioned sterilized
by ETO? And what would be the impact if they were not available
due to the lack of sterilization?
Dr. AKLOG. They are. The answer is--the simple answer is
yes.
Mr. STAUBER. Microphone. Thank you.
Dr. AKLOG. Apologize.
Mr. STAUBER. I am hard of hearing. I am an '80s metalhead.
Go ahead.
Dr. AKLOG. The answer is yes. So all of the examples that
you gave, and I could list numerous more, those are kits,
surgical kits that are packaged for use in surgery, and they
require a gas to penetrate the packaging in order to be able to
offer a sterile device. And so the answer is, they are--that is
the only option for those. And not having that would have,
again, a devastating impact on delays for surgery and
potentially death and harm.
Mr. STAUBER. And, you know, you added ``potentially death
and harm.'' Here is the EPA making these decisions.
Under EPA's proposal, millions of products would require
revalidation. What would this mean for capacity and supplies of
the critical medical technology needed for patient care?
Dr. AKLOG. In its current form, it would have a significant
impact. So to revalidate, even if there was an alternative for
those, to revalidate that technology, you have to go through a
very rigorous FDA process, which we all understand it is part
of what we do every day. And that to revalidate a complex
technology can take many, many years. So the idea that you can
channel into an alternative quickly without having an impact on
patient care, it is just not true.
Mr. STAUBER. Do you think small businesses like yours feel
heard in the federal rulemaking process?
Dr. AKLOG. I think, thanks to organizations like AdvaMed,
small businesses like myself do actually have a say. And I
would say there is engagement, and that is why we are here. I
am here to hopefully continue that and send the message that
there are alternatives that are less onerous, that, you know,
where the time to implementation and flexibility on standards
can mitigate the risks that we see with the rule as it is
currently proposed.
Mr. STAUBER. We must do more to increase the affordability
and accessibility of healthcare. And the EPA regulations just
put more people in harm's way.
As a reminder for this panel, $360 billion of additional
regulations put on our small businesses and farmers by this
administration. And I will repeat that, 360 billion. That is
with a B.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. I now recognize Rep. Bean from Florida for 5
minutes.
Mr. BEAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning to
you and good morning, Small Business Committee. Lady and
gentlemen of the witness panel, good morning. We are glad to
have you here.
Hats off to all small business owners. I have been a small
business owner. You are often the first to show up for work,
the last to leave. You are the last to get paid. And in a
perfect world, it is just hard to run a business. It is just
hard, let alone when the invisible hand of government comes and
tries to push you down and stifle you. That invisible hand is
not invisible anymore. We see it, we feel it. And hats off to
you.
Has it ever been this bad? Anybody want to jump in? Has it
ever been this bad? Ms. Wagner, you want to jump in? What say
you, has it been this bad before?
Ms. WAGNER. I have the history. I am not quite 40 years
old, and I keep saying my company is 40 years old. Well, that
is because it is the second generation, and my parents started
it from nothing themselves. The same with farming and ranching.
It is five generations.
So while I don't have the experience of myself, I have
learned from the experience of generations of my family, and in
telling stories of this is what I am facing. This is what it is
like now. The generations past, my parents, my grandparents say
to me, I can't believe that this has happened in our great
country. I can't believe that they are making it so hard for us
to feed the world and fuel the world and do it cleaner and
better than anywhere else in the world.
Mr. BEAN. Amen.
Ms. WAGNER. It is shocking. It is disheartening.
Mr. BEAN. You would testify today it has never been this
bad or even your folks, when you have lunch with them, they
say, it has never been this bad.
Ms. WAGNER. I have their history to go off of.
Mr. BEAN. Very good. Well done.
Mr. Farris, you have testified and given us that
information. We are now over $3 trillion in just crazy rules
and regulations that have come down. That is an all-time high.
That is 12 percent of our GDP. How about that? Often
duplicative or just wacky rules.
We all want to live in a safe, clean environment. But you
say we have gone too far. Is that correct?
Mr. FARRIS. Absolutely. I have only been around for a
couple of decades working on this. I haven't seen anything like
this onslaught. Every regulation coming out near zero, every
regulation targeting consumer choice, doing away with consumer
choice and doing away with entire industries. So, no, sir, I
haven't seen it as bad as this.
Mr. BEAN. Ten four. Okay. So they are making rules. They
make rules. Do they, A, give you all a chance to have input?
Don't they come have public hearings and say, Ms. Wagner, how
would this affect your business? Do they say to your team
members and members of the Manufacturers Association, do they
say, will this adversely affect, are we going too far? Do they
give you that opportunity? Does anybody get a chance to speak
at these rule hearings? Do they even have rule hearings?
Mr. FARRIS. I will say that we have been asked. I don't
believe that we have been listened to, but we have been asked.
Mr. BEAN. Okay. That is my next question. Do you feel
listened to or do you feel like you are just talking to a brick
wall? What do you think, Ms. Wagner? Is it a brick wall or do
you feel like they are listening to you?
Ms. WAGNER. It is a brick wall.
Mr. BEAN. Brick wall.
Ms. WAGNER. We have submitted through the Texas Alliance of
Energy Producers, which represents 3,000 members in the state
of Texas of small to midsized independent operators. we have
submitted multiple comments with very specific here are the
problems, here are the issues, and nothing changes. It is
falling on deaf ears.
Mr. BEAN. Would you say they have a narrative going in and
that is what we are going to end and it doesn't matter what you
say? I don't even want to hear what you say. We already know
what we are going to do.
Ms. WAGNER. Unfortunately, I think you are correct.
Mr. BEAN. Do you think they know that? In fact, this is
something I learned on the Steve Scalise energy tour last year,
going to spend a couple of days in the Gulf on a platform to
look at how we produce energy in America, learning that no one
does it cleaner than America, no one does it safer than
America. Do you think people that are making these rules
understand that? Anybody want to jump in?
Ms. WAGNER. They don't.
Mr. BEAN. They don't. So what happens when we--what I have
learned, would you agree with this statement, that when we, in
fact, we learn it is not a battle that the Biden administration
has on oil and gas, it is just American oil and gas? Because
when we don't allow it to be made here or produced here, we are
going to go somewhere else where they don't make it as clean or
as safe as others. True statement?
Ms. WAGNER. Very true.
Mr. BEAN. Very true. All right. Let's talk about what
happens if the unthinkable happens and Cooper Oil and Gas goes
away or just succumbs to the pressure. What happens to your
wells? What would happen?
Ms. WAGNER. Depending on how we go away, a lot of the issue
that we have in this country is not with responsible operators.
It is with things from the past or things that have been forced
upon them. If regulations are forced upon small operators,
there will be no resources for them. You will have more
abandoned wells, not more production, you will have less
production in the United States.
The fallacy and all of that issue, which is its own
environmental hazard, is that the demand for our product goes
nowhere. We must have fossil fuels to power our lives as they
exist today and for the foreseeable future. And if you don't
get it here, you are getting it from overseas. There is no
Texas Railroad Commission, API, EPA.
Mr. BEAN. Let me just say, amen. Thank you.
And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Thank you very much. I would like to thank
our witnesses for your testimony and for appearing before us
today.
Without objection, Members have 5 legislative days to
submit additional materials or written questions for the
witnesses to the Chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses. I ask the witnesses to please respond promptly.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG-118hhrg54743.txt
- Size
- 106,036 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1de471d18612be49a73a3c750cf67eaea65f6ef6131f8ad498fcd8035676b8a1
- Our copy
- CHRG-118hhrg54743.txt
- Original
- No public link identified.