[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A THREAT TO AMERICA'S CHILDREN:
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL
TO UNDERMINE PROTECTIONS FROM
MERCURY AIR TOXICS STANDARDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 6, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-90
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-658 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Michael Cloud, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Chip Roy, Texas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Ro Khanna, California W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Jimmy Gomez, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
Deb Haaland, New Mexico
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Britteny Jenkins, Subcommittee Staff Director
Michael Castagnola, Professional Staff Member
Joshua Zucker, Assistant Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Environment
Harley Rouda, California, Chairman
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Minority Member
Jackie Speier, California Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Jimmy Gomez, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 6, 2020................................. 1
Witnesses
Ms. Heather McTeer Toney, National Field Director, Moms Clean Air
Force
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Ms. Katie Huffling, Executive Director, Alliance for Nurses for
Healthy Environments
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Ms. Mandy M. Gunasekara (Minority Witness), Founder, Energy 45,
Senior Fellow to Texas Public Policy Life: Powered Project
Oral Statement................................................... 11
Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox, President/CEO, Evangelical Environmental
Health Network
Oral Statement................................................... 13
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
Documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Letter from Senators Alexander, Carper, Collins, Manchin,
Tillis, and Brown to Secretary Wheeler; submitted by Chairman
Rouda.
* Press Release from Rep. Elise Stefanik Opposing Weakening of
MATS Rule; submitted by Chairman Rouda.
* Letter from Rep. Rooney to EPA Administrator Wheeler;
submitted by Chairman Rouda.
* Memo from Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corporation;
submitted by Chairman Rouda.
* Opinion Piece from Senators Alexander and Carper; submitted
by Rep. Tlaib.
* Letter from Power Industry Groups to Assistant Administrator
Wehrum, EPA; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
A THREAT TO AMERICA'S CHILDREN:
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL
TO UNDERMINE PROTECTIONS FROM
MERCURY AIR TOXICS STANDARDS
----------
Thursday, February 6, 2020
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley Rouda
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Rouda, Tlaib, Krishnamoorthi,
Norton, Maloney (ex officio), Comer, Gosar, and Keller.
Mr. Rouda. The subcommittee 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 five minutes to give an opening
statement.
Good afternoon. This week, the Committee on Oversight and
Reform has been holding a series of hearings to examine the
Trump administration's senseless attacks on children through a
system of regulatory actions that touch every corner of the
executive branch.
Today, as part of that series, the Subcommittee on
Environment will examine the Trump administration's efforts to
undermine the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, also known at
the MATS rule, by changing the calculation of the rule's
benefits and concluding that it is no longer appropriate and
necessary under the Clean Air Act.
Our goal here today is to examine how the Environmental
Protection Agency's efforts to undermine the MATS rule is yet
another example of this administration's prioritizing the
profits of corporate polluters over Americans' health and
safety.
And like so many of the Trump administration's rollbacks,
this attempt to undermine the existing MATS rule comes with
devastating, life-and-death consequences. I will not mince
words here: The EPA's actions are a direct attack on the health
and welfare of pregnant women, infants, and children.
Coal-fired power plants are among the worst industrial
polluters, and the MATS rule forces older, dirtier power plants
to clean up their act. In addition to the billions of tons of
carbon dioxide emitted by coal burning worldwide, these plants
also accounted for half of the total manmade emissions of
mercury in America and more than half of all arsenic,
hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, and selenium emissions.
Once the MATS rule was implemented in 2012, the owners of
the worst emitting power plants had to make a decision: either
shut down or install pollution-control equipment, such as
scrubbers and large filters called baghouses.
As a result of that rule, mercury pollution alone has
decreased by 80 percent since its implementation. In fact, when
the EPA updated the rule in 2015 following a Supreme Court
ruling that rejected an attempt to weaken the rule, the Agency
found that these safeguards helped prevent as many as 11,000
premature deaths a year.
Mercury, a toxic metal dangerous to all humans, is
particularly perilous for the most vulnerable among us: infants
and children. Children, babies, and fetuses are more vulnerable
to the negative health impacts of mercury in fine particulate
matter than any other populations. And they, therefore, benefit
most from mercury and air toxins regulations.
Mercury, particularly when converted in the environment to
the organic form known as methyl mercury, is a neurotoxin,
which means that it disrupts the central nervous system when
ingested or absorbed through the skin, and can permanently
damage children's brain development both before and after
death.
Accounting for these impacts should not and absolutely
cannot be an afterthought. Taking steps to prevent unnecessary
deaths and long-term illnesses must be fully considered when
deciding the benefit of the current mercury rule.
And you don't have to take my word for it. Several of my
Republican colleagues, including Representatives Stefanik and
Rooney and Senators Alexander, Collins, and Tillis, have voiced
concerns regarding Administrator Wheeler's efforts to undermine
the MATS rule and have urged the EPA to let the current MATS
rule stand.
I'd like to introduce letters from the Senators and
Representative Rooney into the record. I'd also like to submit
Representative Stefanik's press release on the issue into the
record, without objection.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. In sum, we know the MATS rule saves lives. We
know the current MATS rules protect our most vulnerable: our
children, our unborn, and our pregnant moms.
However, as witnesses here today will testify to, despite
the proven health benefits of this rule, the EPA's own
scientific advisory board's criticism of the Agency's efforts
to undermine the current mercury rule and the significant
bipartisan support from lawmakers across the political
spectrum, faith groups, and industry leaders, the Trump
administration is pushing forward with this attack on the
health and well-being of our children.
So, here is the life-and-death question: Why are we sitting
here today talking about the administration's efforts to gut
such a vital rule? The answer is simple but frightening:
Because of the corrupt influence of a handful of coal companies
over the Trump administration and the EPA is why we are here.
Bob Murray, the former CEO of Murray Energy, and a few
other coal operators have been working to reverse the current
mercury rule. Mr. Murray, in addition to his previous position
as the head of the country's largest coal-mining company, is
also a longtime Trump supporter.
He donated $300,000 to the President's inauguration and $1
million to a pro-Trump political action committee. Then Mr.
Murray cashed in his chips. He presented President Trump with a
wish list of environmental rollbacks just weeks after his
inauguration.
Murray is continuing his influence campaign. Within the
past six months, Mr. Murray has contributed almost $300,000 to
the Republican National Committee.
Since we are now in the third year of Trump's Presidency,
it is not surprising to see that some of the top positions of
the EPA are held by industry-friendly swamp creatures who are
no strangers to advocating for lax standards and aggressive
rollbacks of bedrock environmental protections.
In fact, prior to his confirmation as Deputy EPA
Administrator, Andrew Wheeler worked as a lobbyist whose best-
paying client was none other than Murray Energy. And just last
week, it was announced that EPA Administrator Wheeler's chief
of staff is leaving the Agency to help lead the National Mining
Association, the Nation's top coal-mining trade group.
So, given the prevalence of industry-led political
contributions and a revolving door of lobbyists at the EPA,
we're supposed to believe those who tell us that the coal
industry is not influencing this decision?
The Trump administration is willing to put more mercury in
the bodies of children so that coal companies can profit, plain
and simple. Instead of draining the swamp, President Trump has
repeatedly helped prop up swamp monsters, prioritizing
corporate lies and donors over truth and science.
It seems like more than a coincidence that the White House
and relevant Federal agencies have completed or are on track to
fulfill most of the 16 requests detailed in Bob Murray's wish
list.
I'd like to introduce Bob Murray's memo into the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Instead of protecting children, the Trump
administration is fulfilling an industry's list of desires in
exchange for corrupt contributions.
It was Gandhi who said a nation's greatness is measured by
how it treats its weakest members. By attempting to gut several
regulations, including the MATS rule, the Trump administration
is placing the most vulnerable among us in harm's way.
In this situation, there are many clear losers and only one
obvious winner: a handful of big coal companies. If the Trump
administration's efforts to undermine the MATS rule are
successful, more children will have trouble breathing,
learning, and surviving; more children will die.
Instead of prioritizing the bottom lines of donors and
polluters, the Trump administration should deeply consider the
impact of this devastating and corrupt action on current and
future generations. These actions reveal a pattern of, at best,
disregard for the well-being of America's most vulnerable
children and, at worst, a calculated agenda to inflict
suffering upon them in the effort to line the pockets of donors
and corporate supporters.
Thank you.
And I now invite my colleague, the subcommittee's ranking
member, Mr. Comer, to give a five-minute opening statement.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Rouda, and thank all the
witnesses for being here today.
We are here today for a hearing about the Trump
administration's proposal to revise the supplemental cost
finding for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS rule.
I thank the witnesses again for their willingness to appear
before this committee.
The premise of today's hearing is to discuss a supposed
threat posed by the Trump administration's actions regarding
the MATS rule. I want to make one thing very clear: The
proposed action by EPA regarding the reconsideration of the
supplemental cost finding would not undermine environmental
protections because it does not change the original 2012 MATS
rule.
The MATS rule was created to limit the amount of mercury
and other air pollutants emitted from power plants. I think
it's crucial to discuss where mercury comes from and how we're
exposed to it.
Mercury is released into our environment through two
primary ways. The first way is through a naturally occurring
process such as volcanic eruption, a forest fire, and the
normal breakdown of minerals in soil and rocks. The second way
that mercury can be released is by human action such as the
burning of materials that contain mercury.
When mercury is released in the atmosphere, it will
eventually deposit into bodies of water. In water,
microorganisms can change mercury into methyl mercury, which
can accumulate in fish and shellfish. Exposure to mercury can
take several different forms, but exposure to methyl mercury
most often occurs through eating fish and shellfish. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that nearly
all human exposure in the United States is through fish and
shellfish consumption.
The MATS regulation was intended to reduce the amount of
mercury created from human activity, specifically mercury
emitted from coal-and oil-fired power plants.
The MATS regulation has had a long and complex history
across multiple administrations involving scientific studies,
proposed rules, and final rules, in addition to cases before
D.C. Circuit Court and even the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. EPA determined
that EPA must consider cost when determining whether this
regulation was appropriate and necessary, which the Obama EPA
failed to do.
In December 2018, the Trump EPA issued a proposed
rulemaking which revises the supplemental cost finding for the
MATS rule to more accurately portray the cost-benefit
determinations of this regulation.
The proposed rule does not--and I repeat--does not remove
the standard. It only proposes to remove the ``necessary and
appropriate'' standard that justified the costs of MATS
regulation by the co-benefits of regulating particulate matter,
which, by the design of Congress, is regulated under a
different section of the Clean Air Act.
EPA's proposed reconsideration of the Obama-era
supplemental finding is smart policy and necessary to comply
with the Supreme Court's finding that a rule must be cost-
justified to be appropriate.
I look forward to working with the majority to drive energy
and environmental innovation in ways that are beneficial to
everyone.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
and look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ranking Member.
The chair would now like to recognize the chairwoman of the
full Committee on Oversight, the Honorable Chairwoman Maloney
of New York, for an opening statement.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
And good afternoon and thank you to all of you for coming.
And as chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I want
to thank all of my colleagues here today but especially Harley
Rouda, chair of the Subcommittee on Environment, for convening
this hearing on the administration's effort to undermine
protections from the Mercury Air Toxins Standards rule, known
as the MATS rule.
I commend him on his creative work to help preserve the
environment, and I would say that the best rule is anything
that undermines the health of our children or adds more mercury
to the air is really unjustified and should be fought in any
way, shape, or form.
This is the last in a series of four hearings that we've
had over the course of two days that have looked at the
negative effects of the Trump administration's poverty,
housing, hunger, and health regulations on children.
The MATS rule protects our own health and our children's
health, plain and simple. And you don't have to take my word
for it. We can look to the Environmental Protection Agency's
own statements to prove this. According to the EPA's own
calculations, the MATS rule prevents up to 11,000 premature
deaths, over 4,000 heart attacks, over 130,000 asthma attacks,
and up to 540,000 missed work or sick days each year.
So, you see there is no ambiguity here. We factually know
that mercury and air pollutants are bad for human health. We
also know that the administration's effort to gut Mercury Air
Toxics Standards will harm children's health and will result in
increased occurrences of childhood asthma and babies born with
developmental disabilities.
Any efforts to modify mercury standards should reduce--not
increase, but reduce--environmental toxins and improve
children's health and life outcomes. But the administration is
proposing to do the exact opposite.
What this series of hearings has uncovered is that this
administration is engaging in an unforgivable attack on
children which, as we have also seen in these hearings, is both
unprecedented and systemic. It is our job in Congress to shine
a spotlight on these regulations, and we will continue to do
just that. I encourage my colleagues, both Democrats and
Republicans, to work together in protecting our children's
future.
Again, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for his
really extraordinary and creative work in this Congress on
environmental concerns to protect our children and all of us.
I yield back, and I thank you very much.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.
Next, I'd like to recognize our vice chair, Representative
Tlaib. But before I hand the mic over to her, I had the
opportunity to go with Representative Tlaib to her district and
saw firsthand her commitment to environmental justice for not
just the people in her district but around our country and the
world.
So, with that, I'd yield to Representative Tlaib to speak
more to the importance of clean air for all.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman. I cannot thank you
enough for going on a toxic tour within 13th congressional
District.
As some of the folks here know, in my district, something
that is impacting our children is corporate polluters, one of
them Marathon Petroleum. That's why I teamed up with our
chairman, Chairman Rouda, and sent a letter today to the EPA
requesting an investigation into Marathon's chemical release in
Detroit and downriver communities of Melvindale, River Rouge,
and Ecorse.
We also sent one directly to Marathon's CEO requesting a
list of all chemicals that leaked out and what measures they
are taking to mitigate those outputs.
I also want to note that my residents are the last to find
out when these toxic releases happen. Marathon will contact the
authorities. They actually will watch from our porches--that's
how close the refinery is to our homes--and watch workers get
evacuated. But the residents are home. That's where their
children are, that's where they sleep, that's where they eat.
And that is unacceptable.
And so I want to thank the incredible leadership and
courage of our chairman to stand up to corporate pollution. And
no matter people's income background, no matter their ethnic
background, the color of their skin, they all deserve to
breathe clean air.
And I really appreciate you standing with me and holding
this company accountable.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Vice Chair Tlaib. And thank you again
for your leadership on this important topic.
Now I want to welcome again our witnesses. We have Ms.
Heather McTeer Toney, national field director, Moms Clean Air
Force, with part of her army behind her, it appears; Ms. Katie
Huffling, executive director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments; Mandy Gunasekara--am I close?
Ms. Gunasekara. Close enough.
Mr. Rouda. Gunasekara?
Ms. Gunasekara. That's better.
Mr. Rouda. OK--founder, Energy 45, senior fellow to Texas
Public Policy Life: Powered Project; Reverend Mitchell Hescox--
--
Rev. Hescox. Very good.
Mr. Rouda [continuing]. Goes by Mitch--president, CEO,
Evangelical Environmental Health Network.
If the witnesses would please stand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Thank you.
Please let the record show that the witnesses answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you. And you've sat down. Keep in mind, the
microphones are very sensitive, so make sure after your opening
statement and when you answer a question that you turn it on
and the microphone is close to you.
Without objection, your written statement will be made a
part of the record.
With that, Ms. Toney, you are now recognized to give an
oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER MCTEER TONEY, NATIONAL FIELD DIRECTOR,
MOMS CLEAN AIR FORCE
Ms. Toney. Thank you, Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member Comer,
and members of the subcommittee and Chairwoman Maloney of the
Oversight and Reform Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify about this administration's efforts to undermine the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards.
My name is Heather McTeer Toney, and I serve as the
national field director of Moms Clean Air Force. We are a
community of over 1 million moms and dads committed and united
against air pollution and climate change for the sake of our
children's health.
On May 21 of 2019, I testified before the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations regarding dangers of undermining the current
MATS rule. At that time, our organization was fully engaged in
the fight to protect this important Federal standard that we
know to be successful. We collected over 22,000 comments that
were submitted and urged the Agency to rescind any discussion
of weakening the standard.
We met with OMB and advocated against this idea that the
Obama Administration's calculation of the costs and benefits of
the rule was limited, thereby creating an opening for the rule
to no longer be considered appropriate and necessary. Their
case was faulty and disingenuous at best then, and it remains
so today.
I can honestly say that while I'm happy to serve and be
here today, like you, Mr. Chairman, I am baffled at the fact
that we're still working to prevent our Federal Government from
allowing industry to poison unborn babies' brains. At this very
moment, the Trump administration's EPA is still engaged in a
full-scale assault on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard.
And while they are extremely close to finalizing its
proposal, I am grateful that we keep asking the question of why
we should stop protecting our children. I believe it's at the
very heart of why the late Congressman Cummings saw the need to
have a series of hearings to talk about protecting children. He
understood that the protection of children is the insurance
that we hold for our collective future, and failure to do so is
equivalent to refusing to pay the policy.
The facts have not changed, and mothers know this. Coal-
burning power plants are the largest source of human-caused
mercury emissions in the U.S., and mercury is harmful to the
development of the brain. Everything we know about these
pollutants shows that controlling them is not just appropriate
but vital.
We also know that the rule works as is. In 2018, the
American Lung Association reported that the MATS rule achieved
a 90-percent reduction in mercury emissions from power plants
and cleaned up dangerous particle pollution at the same time.
When the rule was adopted, it was estimated that it would
not only prevent deaths and asthma attacks and hospital visits
annually, but we now know that it has done so much more. It
also has helped us protect ourselves against cancer, heart and
lung ailments, neurological problems, and other severe
environmental and public health impacts. This rule has given us
protections that have exceeded expectations but is now being
stripped from our communities unfairly.
In addition, power plants have already made the necessary
investments and adjustments to meet the standard, and it did
not cost them as much as they thought it initially would.
The utility sector understands that pollution control makes
sense, which is why they urge the administration to forego any
changes to the rule. Healthier air means their employees don't
take time off work to tend to sick loved ones. It means we all
benefit from the lower healthcare costs. It means that black
and brown communities and indigenous people that sit on the
front lines of these facilities are finally granted some of the
forms of protections after years of living, quite literally,
under a cloud of pollution.
I previously shared the story of one of our moms, Nikki
Katrice White from South Carolina. She sat before an EPA
hearing panel and shared how her family was grateful for the
sustainable income yet, at the same time, blissfully
unsuspecting of the dangers that come with living alongside a
coal-fired power plant. She shared how they didn't think twice
when her mother gave birth to her only son and he was
stillborn. And it didn't even dawn on her when their own
children started to have respiratory issues when there was no
family history or significance of risk factors.
Ms. White's words were not just spoken on behalf of her and
her two children but on behalf of the millions of kids around
this country that live under a cloud of air pollution and
dangerous, brain-damaging toxins that inhibit the lives and
limit their potential.
Or also those in the indigenous community: Great-
grandmother Mary Lyons of the Ojibwe Tribe, Rachel Heaton of
the Muckleshoot Tribe, and Rachel Fernandez of Menominee
Nation, who talk constantly about how EPA never consulted with
the Tribes. Yet they live and they focus off of the fish that
they honor, and are concerned about the contamination of the
forest and the fish that they eat.
So, what should be done? What can be done? To the current
rule, it should be nothing. You'll hear repeatedly that the
Obama Administration failed to calculate correctly the health
benefits and costs, thereby allocating an unfair compliance to
the utility sector.
You will hear the words ``appropriate and necessary'' and
that this rule does not meet the standard. But please
understand, the criteria of ``appropriate and necessary'' is a
legal yardstick under the Clean Air Act, and removing this
status undermines the legal foundation of the rule, leaving it
vulnerable to legal challenge.
The creative math of this administration would like us to
discount the particulate impacts because they call them
duplicative. The particulate impacts are the most important and
also the most expensive for good reason: They kill people.
Furthermore, while EPA has continuously claimed that it's
leaving the current standards for mercury emissions in place,
they're taking steps consistent with changing or altering the
rule. EPA specifically solicited comment on whether, if it were
to finalize its proposed conclusion, then it has the authority
or obligation to rescind the MATS rule. Again, the ability of a
discount to particulates in MATS undermines every other Clean
Air Act rule.
In the words of my colleague and good friend Molly Rausch,
it's as if MATS is a gateway drug and we're trying to convince
teenagers not to travel down this dark path that will
ultimately lead to their demise.
I previously served as Regional Administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency's Southeast Region under
President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. My job was
not only to assist communities and industries in implementation
of MATS but also to explain the importance of these protective
measures, especially in vulnerable communities and communities
of color.
I'm also a former mayor of Greenville, Mississippi, and for
two terms I served my hometown. I'm a wife, a mother of three,
ages 24, 14, and 3, and new grandmother to two.
If there is anything that I know, it is important for us to
protect our children and our future. And rather than revisiting
these life-saving standards, EPA should be strengthening them
to reduce hazardous air pollutants further from these sources
to protect the health of our families.
In the event that this rule is finalized, it's incumbent
upon this committee and this Congress to provide oversight and
demand that EPA conduct the most stringent enforcement and
accountability.
As mothers, we're going to continue to call this action out
for what it is: a direct threat to our children's health that
is simply unacceptable.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ms. Toney.
Ms. Huffling, you're now recognized for a five-minute
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF KATIE HUFFLING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE OF
NURSES FOR HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS
Ms. Huffling. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony here today. My name is Katie Huffling, and
I'm the executive director of the Alliance of Nurses for
Healthy Environments. I'm also a nurse midwife. The alliance is
the only national nursing organization focusing solely on the
intersection of health and the environment.
My work in environmental health began early in my midwifery
career, when I recognized what an important component the
environment is to having a healthy pregnancy and healthy
babies. I now work with nurses and nursing organizations around
the country and globally to address the health impacts caused
by environmental exposures.
As nurses, we strongly oppose any efforts to undermine the
Mercury Air Toxics Standards due to the significant health
benefits afforded by this rule.
A core part of nursing practice is working to prevent
disease. We work every day to help our patients stay healthy.
We'd be happy just to see you once a year for your annual
wellness visit rather than taking care of your child in the
emergency room because they're struggling to breathe with an
asthma attack.
With the MATS rule, there's been an amazing opportunity to
prevent disease and even death, and it's working. In fact, it's
been so successful that it's reduced mercury emissions from
coal-fired power plants by 81 percent since 2011.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, causing permanent damage to
the brains of the babies and developing fetuses, leading to
developmental delays, learning disabilities, and birth defects.
Since MATS was finalized, the estimated number of children born
in the U.S. each year with prenatal exposure to methyl mercury
levels that exceed the EPA reference dose has decreased by
half, from between 200,000 to 400,000 down to 100,000 to
200,000 exposed.
This is huge. This means we have half as many children who
will have reduced potential for productivity, achievement, and
well-being for their entire lives because they were spared
toxic mercury exposure.
Coal-fired power plants don't just pollute our environment
with mercury; air pollution from these plants contains more
than 80 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Clean Air
Act for control, including arsenic, chromium, lead, dioxins and
furans, as well as particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Air pollution from coal plants causes respiratory problems
like asthma, stunted lung development, and sudden infant death
syndrome. Air pollution has also been linked to effects on
cognition and behavior in children and to the risk of childhood
autism.
The impacts on families related to these illnesses can be
immense. Besides the pain, suffering, and emotional toll caused
by poor health, there are significant economic costs, with days
lost from school that can impede a child's ability to reach
their full potential and days lost from work which, for a low-
income family already struggling to pay their rent, can be
disastrous.
Air pollution is also linked to poor pregnancy outcomes.
Exposure to particulate matter during pregnancy is linked to
both low birth weight and pre-term birth. These birth outcomes
can lead to a variety of negative health impacts, greater risk
of chronic disease as an adult, and can be incredibly costly. A
pre-term infant's hospital stay is, on average, 10 times more
costly than a normal birth.
People who have low incomes or are members of racial or
ethnic minorities bear a disproportionate burden of the health
effects of air pollution. Because they're more likely to live
closer to industrial facilities and high-traffic areas, low-
income and minority populations are at a much higher risk of
exposure to the most harmful pollutants.
Despite the proven health benefits of the MATS rule, in
2018, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it
would be revising the supplemental cost finding, stating that
the significant health benefits and lives saved from reduced
emissions of fine particulate matter should not be counted.
Counting co-benefits is just common sense because it gives
the full picture of the benefits of an EPA action. In fact,
both the EPA and the White House Office of Management and
Budget have long established guidance that agencies should and
do consider co-benefits in their analyses.
The standards not only save lives; they also save up to $90
billion every year in avoided costs associated with these
health impacts. Based on EPA estimates, for every dollar spent
to reduce this pollution, Americans get $3 to $9 in benefits.
These benefits are real to babies, children, and families.
Ignoring these significant health benefits makes no sense from
a nursing perspective, but that's exactly what EPA's proposal
wants to do.
As someone who is trained to care for pregnant women and
babies, I know firsthand that preventing exposure to harmful
pollutants is one of the most important things we can do to
safeguard the well-being of babies and children. Weakening the
Mercury Air Toxics Standards threatens the health of all
Americans and goes against the mission of the EPA to protect
public health and the environment.
Undermining the rule in any way is an unconscionable step
backward in the efforts to prevent disease and one that nurses
strongly oppose.
Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ms. Huffling.
Ms. Gunasekara, you're now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MANDY GUNASEKARA, FOUNDER, ENERGY 45, SENIOR
FELLOW TO TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY LIFE: POWERED PROJECT
Ms. Gunasekara. Thank you, Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member
Comer, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for
the opportunity to testify today on this important issue.
My name is Mandy Gunasekara, and I am the founder of Energy
45, a nonprofit based in Jackson, Mississippi. The mission of
Energy 45 is to inform the public of the energy, environmental,
and economic gains made under the Trump administration.
I'm a senior fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's
Life: Powered Project, which is dedicated to promoting economic
freedom and advancing the human condition. I'm also a visiting
fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, which works to engage
and inform women on policies that enhance their freedom,
choices, and opportunities. Finally, I volunteer on a range of
boards and caucuses whose goal is to enhance the discussion and
thought regarding today's leading environmental issues.
Prior to starting Energy 45, I served President Trump as
the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of
Air and Radiation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I previously served as majority counsel on the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee as well as in the U.S.
House of Representatives for Congressman Bob Latta.
Children's health is an extremely important issue. Beyond
my public policy interests, I'm a mother of two young children,
so this hearing addresses an issue that's especially personal.
I'm thankful they're growing up in a Nation that celebrates the
environment and in which our leaders strive to improve our
world-leading status in clean air, clean water, and cleaning up
contaminated lands.
This administration has taken a number of actions to
improve children's health, including releasing information on
successes and opportunities. This October, EPA released a
comprehensive update, the first in a number of years, to its
report on ``America's Children and the Environment.'' This
report shows that great progress has been made in protecting
children from environmental harms, including reduced exposure
to criteria pollutants and improved access to cleaner water.
And these trends will continue under the Trump administration's
regulatory agenda.
There is much to celebrate, which is a testament to the
talented engineers, scientists, economists, and experts at the
Agency, many of whom I work personally with, and those who work
hard every day to fulfill the mission of protecting public
health and the environment for our children.
There's also a clear recognition that more progress can be
made. Under the Trump administration's leadership, a range of
rules and initiatives have been developed to secure and expand
the success of this mission. A few examples include the new
Lead and Copper Rule that would require daycares and elementary
schools to sample for lead, as well as the Healthy Schools
Initiative, for which they're attempting to get additional
funding.
Children's health and the continuation of important
programs are issues that warrant an earnest conversation. I no
longer work for the Agency, but I have no doubt that if any of
the members of this committee or the stakeholders represented
on this panel were to request a conversation with EPA to figure
out ways the Agency can complement the ongoing work of the
committee, EPA would jump at the opportunity.
But turning to one of specific topics of today's hearing,
the proposed revisions to the existing MATS standard would not
threaten in any way the Nation's ongoing progress in improving
children's health. That's because the proposal would not change
the standard in any form, which is explicitly stated on the
first page of the Federal Register notice.
And I quote: ``EPA further proposes that finalizing this
new response to the Michigan v. EPA will not remove the Coal-
and Oil-Fired EGU source category from the Clean Air Act
section 112(c) list of sources that must be regulated under
Clean Air Act section 112(d) and will not affect the existing
Clean Air Act section 112(d) emission standards that regulate
hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal-and oil-fired
EGUs.''
So, in other words, the proposed MATS revision has nothing
to do with changing mercury protections. Those suggesting that
is does either have not read the rule or are purposefully
acting in a disingenuous manner.
The proposed MATS revisions aim to fix a dishonest
accounting mechanism the last administration used that had the
effect of justifying any regulatory action regardless of cost.
Such an approach flies in the face of section 112 of the Clean
Air Act and is wholly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's
decision in Michigan that remanded the 2012 rule back to the
Agency.
Recall in that decision the Court found the Obama
Administration's ``appropriate and necessary'' finding
underlying the 2012 rule to be fundamentally flawed because EPA
failed to consider costs in making that finding. The Court
specifically observed that it is not rational, never mind
appropriate, to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in
return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.
Prior to the February 2019 proposal, the MATS rule was an
egregious example of the previous administration's use of co-
benefits to justify otherwise-unjustifiable regulatory actions.
Their disregard for cost was deemed inappropriate by the
Supreme Court.
This administration's proposal is not in any way about
weakening existing protections, but, rather, fulfilling a legal
obligation to properly respond to the Supreme Court through a
process guided by science and the facts. If finalized, EPA's
rule would establish an accounting process that properly
addresses co-benefits, ensures future rulemakings are
effective, and holds true to the Clean Air Act's carefully
crafted measure of balance.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Reverend Hescox, you're recognized for five minutes of
testimony.
STATEMENT OF REVEREND MITCH HESCOX, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EVANGELICAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK
Rev. Hescox. Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member. I am the
Reverend Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelical
Environmental Network. I'm also a board member of the National
Association of Evangelicals. And I've been appointed to be a
member of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee by this current
administration.
``We're here for a very simple reason: defend the right of
every child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given
potential.'' That quotation came from President Trump at the
March for Life last week.
While many in our community applaud the President's actions
in certain areas of being pro-life, his administration's effort
to eliminate over 95 environmental standards questions the
sincerity of his commitment to be completely pro-life. If
President Trump truly wanted to defend the right of every
child, born and unborn, to fulfill their God-given potential,
then his actions must speak louder than his words, including
the protecting of unborn children from mercury pollution.
The President's record of destroying environmental health
rules threatens every child's right to fulfill their God-given
potential, what Jesus calls abundant life. Jesus was not just
referring to a spiritual connection but to a holistic
understanding of well-being, of body and soul together. Jesus
was especially concerned about vulnerable populations being
denied abundant life. And our commitment to Jesus Christ
compels us to do all that we can to protect unborn children
from mercury poisoning.
In keeping with our commitment to the sanctity of life,
over 145,000 pro-life Christians supplied comments last year
against rolling back the MATS standard. In addition, over 120
evangelical leaders sent that message, which I hand-delivered,
to Acting Administrator Wheeler on December 4, 2008.
Before MATS, one in six children were born with threatening
levels of mercury and brain damage. Mercury causes all sorts of
adverse health effects, which you've heard from the other
people and I'm not going to repeat here today. Mercury is
emitted from coal-fired power plants and is deposited back into
the Earth. It concentrates in fish in numbers that are 10 to
100 million times greater than the concentrations in water.
And one thing I'd like to point out to the committee: When
it comes to the health of children, they're not little adults.
Their developing bodies leave them more vulnerable. And the
most at risk are unborn children and newly born.
And the good news--and you've heard it today--is that MATS
works. Mercury pollution is lower. The compliance costs are
down. Women have less mercury. Children have lower mercury
levels.
But the work isn't finished. Mercury fish consumption
advisories remain in all 50 states, and still at least 200,000
children remain neurologically impacted each year from mercury.
So, why is this happening? Why is MATS under challenge? The
Trump administration's MATS proposal would reverse EPA's
finding that it's appropriate and necessary to regulate
mercury. EPA Administrator Wheeler knows that removing the
``appropriate and necessary'' finding opens the door for energy
developers to pursue lawsuits that overturn the standards while
he can sit there and, in my opinion, play Pontius Pilate and
say that he's not overturning mercury but the courts did.
But even more that, the most damaging element is that the
proposed changes would exclude co-benefits and ancillary
benefits. This contradicts the guidelines we heard about that
the George W. administration did. And it makes little sense, as
we've also heard, to remove certain benefits just because of
how they're labeled. A baby's lungs don't know where PM2.5 came
from and what took it out, but they need to benefit from it.
Changing the co-benefit standard is what I believe this
entire underhanded process represents. And a member in a
meeting on December 4 with Acting Administrator Wheeler, at the
time, he alluded to this by saying that we should have separate
standards for different things. But even keeping with his
underhandedness, I would really big to differ with the person
who preceded me.
An oft-repeated untruth in the justification of a MATS rule
is that the Supreme Court required it. Bill Wehrum told me that
at a Clean Air Act Advisory Committee meeting on September 28.
On that December 4 meeting, Acting Administrator Wheeler said
the same thing. He did the same thing in the newspapers, and he
even did it at his EPW confirmation hearing.
But here's the truth: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit upheld MATS in its entirety, including the
``appropriate and necessary'' finding. The Supreme Court ruled
that EPA had erred in not considering costs in making the
``appropriate and necessary'' finding. Instead, what the
majority expressed was that it left EPA to determine how to
take account of costs and make the comparison to benefits.
Then the D.C. Circuit Court, without staying MATS, remanded
the ``appropriate and necessary'' finding to the EPA for
reconsideration of the costs. The EPA new cost accounting was
issued in a supplemental finding in April 2016. No further
legal action was required.
The MATS revision is categorically not to fulfill a request
from the Supreme Court but to try to establish a new precedent
for not counting co-benefits. And removing the ``appropriate
and necessary'' finding, it would cause havoc.
I have been working on this rule for over 10 years. You can
tell that I'm very passionate about it because I love unborn
children. And I know my time has expired, so I will end there.
But know that this action is a moral tragedy, that the people
of the United States, no matter your faith, no matter your
beliefs, if you love a child or a grandchild, we cannot allow
this to happen.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
And thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony.
The chair now recognizes myself for five minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Gunasekara, you are the head of Energy 45 Fund?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Rouda. Do you receive a salary?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Rouda. So, you're not doing this gratuitously; you're
paid to do this job, correct?
Yes. You receive a salary.
Ms. Gunasekara. No one is paying me to come testify today
specifically.
Mr. Rouda. But you receive a salary. And your money comes
from where? How is the fund funded?
Ms. Gunasekara. It comes from a number of Americans, some
large entities, and a lot of individual small-dollar donors
that believe in my message and believe in this administration's
approach to regulating----
Mr. Rouda. So, you've got contributions coming from
companies that are for-profit as well as executives and
individuals with ties to the fossil-fuel industry and the coal
industry. Is that true?
Ms. Gunasekara. Again, my donations come from Americans
that believe in my message and they believe in my ability to--
--
Mr. Rouda. Are you disagreeing with what I said, or is it
possible that you're receiving contributions from coal
companies and executives with coal companies? Yes or no? You
simply know the answer. Yes or no, do you?
Ms. Gunasekara. Again, I get donations from Americans that
support Energy 45's mission and my ability to----
Mr. Rouda. We'll take that as a ``yes,'' because obviously
you don't want to answer the direct question that you do take
funding directly from coal companies and coal executives.
You testified that the MATS rule that currently is in place
is based on some action that previous administrations took that
was false evidence. So, is your testimony today that revoking
the MATS rule would have no health consequences on anybody
whatsoever?
Ms. Gunasekara. No. My testimony today is that that is not
what this administration is proposing. This administration is
not proposing to revoke the standard. In fact, they're
proposing to uphold the standard.
What they are proposing to do is to correct a dishonest
accounting metric that would----
Mr. Rouda. So, that change in the MATS rule that you think
the Trump administration is proposing has zero impact on health
implications for children and infants across America. Is that
your testimony?
Ms. Gunasekara. Absolutely, in the context of MATS. And I'm
not only saying it today; it is----
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. I appreciate that because I wanted to
understand----
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. Explicitly covered in the
Federal Register notice.
Mr. Rouda. I just wanted to make sure I understood that you
are saying that the Trump administration's proposed change to
the EPA will have zero effect on the health of Americans and
their children and their infants.
Ms. Gunasekara. Again----
Mr. Rouda. You know, we've clearly seen----
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. Not changing the regulatory--
--
Mr. Rouda. Excuse me. Clearly we have seen, with what has
been given to this administration through the coal industry and
executives, that the President of the United States does not
need to look to Ukraine for corruption; he simply needs to look
at his own administration, because we're seeing it firsthand.
Reverend Hexton----
Rev. Hescox. Hescox. That's okay.
Mr. Rouda. Sorry. Hescox. I apologize. Have we ever seen an
EPA honor a wish list by an executive of a coal company and try
and implement that wish list as law?
Rev. Hescox. Not in my knowledge.
And what's even more infuriating to me is that on that wish
list and copied on it and helping to arrange the meeting with
Secretary Perry was the now current director, or Administrator,
of the EPA, Andrew Wheeler, when he was at his old law firm,
which is extremely troubling to me, that he's engaged in a
process that he actually lobbied upon. And I find that a very
troubling conflict of interest, personally.
Mr. Rouda. And, Ms. Toney, I'm understanding this, that
when we look at the rule and the rollback that the Trump
administration is trying to do, is based in part by eliminating
the review of co-benefits. Can you explain a little bit more
for us as to why co-benefits should be included?
Ms. Toney. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You need to look at the co-benefits because that has a
direct implication into the particulates. The particulates is
the count that we look at because that is what is harmful to
human beings, it's what kills people. And when there's a
removal of this from MATS, then it's a removal that undermines
the entire Clean Air Act standard. So, taking it out of one
piece takes it out of all. And it allows and opens the door for
litigation, as Reverend Hescox said.
Mr. Rouda. So, just put it into layman's terms here. If we
looked at cigarettes and only looked at one carcinogen and
didn't look at nicotine and tar, and made our judgment based on
just one small chemical aspect of tobacco, that's kind of what
we're doing here, instead of looking at the overall effects of
nicotine in cigarettes on the individual.
Ms. Toney. Absolutely. If we did that, my children would
still be watching cartoons with people smoking.
Mr. Rouda. Exactly.
Ms. Toney. Thankfully we don't.
Mr. Rouda. I just have a few more seconds here. Ms.
Huffling, I'm going to go to you. Is there anything you've
heard that you would like to weigh in on before I yield my
time?
Ms. Huffling. One thing that I would say about the co-
benefits around the financial aspects that they're looking at
from mercury pollution, since 2011 we've had an increase in the
research around mercury, and the local mercury concentrations
are much higher than we thought. You have many more people
being contaminated close to coal-fired power plants. And so the
calculations in the MATS rule right now are actually way too
small.
Mr. Rouda. OK. Thank you very much.
I yield back. And, at this time, the chair recognizes
Representative Keller for five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gunasekara, I'm not going to attack you for how you
earn your money, or anybody else on the panel, because I think
that's very unfair. We're here to get to an issue on a ruling
and on what--people want to get down to the facts, not attack
people personally on how or who pays their salary and question
motives of why you're here. I believe everybody's here to make
sure we get to the bottom of the issues on these things.
So, I want to focus on that, Ms. Gunasekara. And could you
talk about the progress that the Trump administration has made
in increasing environmental protections while also growing the
economy?
Ms. Gunasekara. Certainly. We are experiencing
unprecedented economic growth. And a lot of this is in the
context of the blue-collar boom. And under President Trump and
his deregulatory agenda, we've created millions of jobs. Twelve
thousand new factories have come on board. You've seen the
lowest unemployment rate for women, minorities, and for
veterans. There's a lot of really good things going on in the
context of the economy.
And it's important to understand, people who get a job, we
talk about it in terms of numbers, but a job is access to a
better way of life. I've seen this happen personally to friends
who have gone through that process. And when they get a new
job, it's not only a better way of life for them, their
children, and their surrounding community.
And the best part about all this economic success in the
Trump administration is that it's been done without sacrificing
the environmental progress we have made. We have the cleanest
air on record. We are No. 1 in access to clean drinking water.
We have deleted more Superfund sites from being listed as
Superfund sites, which in practical applications means that
areas that were once closed for economic productivity have now
been opened up, which is life-changing for communities that
have been riddled by a Superfund designation, and they're
changing that.
And so this administration has effectively balanced robust
economic growth alongside the continued progress of meeting
environmental protections.
Mr. Keller. Thank you.
And I know you talked about a lot of things broadly as far
as how things have been helped by the economic success, growing
our economy and so forth. Could you give any examples of how
the administration's policies have specifically helped
children?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, certainly.
Mr. Keller. Or children's health, I guess I would say.
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. One of the biggest programs--and it's
come up in a number of references--is the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards program. And one of the things we first did
under the Back to Basics agenda was home in and make the
designation process, one, occur in a timely manner, something
that's never been done before, and then, two, done in a way
where we gave the states, the ones who were primarily
responsible for implementing it, the tools that they needed to
implement the health-based standards for ozone, in this
particular instance--made sure they had the tools to do that in
a meaningful way.
And they've done that. And because of the credible
implementation of it, you're seeing a reduction in exposure to
a number of criteria pollutants, including ozone and
particulate matter and others, by our Nation's children.
You know, another one I mentioned in my opening statement
was the new Lead and Copper Rule. There are new requirements to
ensure that daycares and elementary schools test for the
presence of lead and copper in the surrounding areas to ensure
that children in any community are not exposed to unhealthy
levels.
And then the last thing I mentioned, too, in my opening
statement was the Healthy Schools Initiative. That's important
because it homes in on making sure that children that reside in
disadvantaged communities are not denied access to a safe and
healthy environment to learn.
So, those are just a few of the examples of regulatory
actions and programs this administration has been supporting
and revamping in ways that will substantially improve the
health and well-being of the children who live in those areas.
Mr. Keller. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And I yield back.
Ms. Tlaib.
[Presiding.] Now I'd recognize Representative Norton for
five minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I would like to enter into the record a copy of the
following documents: a copy of Senators Alexander and Carper's
opinion piece and a copy of a letter sent by the power industry
groups.
Ms. Tlaib. So, moved, without objection.
Ms. Norton. This is a very unusual hearing. In this very
polarized environment today, I've just entered into the record
a Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator's op-ed. It's
entitled ``Don't Stop the Fight Against Mercury Pollution:
Republican and Democrat to Trump EPA.''
These gains have been made over the past decade to protect
children and families from dangerous mercury pollution.
Reverend Hescox, in this kind of polarized political
environment, why do you think Senators from different parties--
and I will give examples from others--from different policies
that don't agree on much, agree on this mercury rule?
Rev. Hescox. Well, I think it's the same way that former
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and I agree upon it. We also
wrote an op-ed together. Because I think we're an example and
they're an example of what truly should happen in this town.
When people are going to have differences--Gina McCarthy
and I have fundamental differences on very many things. But the
one thing we strongly agree upon is the need to protect
children's health from environmental pollution. And I think
that's what the Senators saw too, is that we need to protect
our children.
And, yes, there's a time to have different policies and
different things to talk about, but there also is a time to
come together as a country. And I think that the work between
Senator Carper and Lamar Alexander, Congressman Rooney here in
the House, myself and Gina show that work can be done when
people will really work together. And I think this is one
particular thing that shows it.
And, unfortunately, this issue here--I mean, I'm a lifelong
Republican. I've--how can--you know, it just comes to mind, and
which makes things so frustrating, is there's an old saying
that figures don't lie but liars can figure. This new proposal
uses the same mercury costs as the original rule of a few
million dollars, when the science clearly shows billions of
dollars of----
Ms. Norton. Reverend Hescox, was there bipartisan support
when the MATS rule was first promulgated----
Rev. Hescox. Yes, it was.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. In 2012? So, I mean, this has been
consistent.
Then we come to industry. Now, if you would expect
opposition from any part--and this really, it seems to me, is
important to note, because industry has already incurred costs
for capital investments they've already made. And they could
say, fine, let's stop it now. But they're urging the EPA to
leave the underlying MATS rule in place.
Ms. McTeer Toney and Reverend Hescox, both of you, why do
you think the industry is agreeing with bipartisan Members of
the House and Senate about maintaining this rule?
Ms. Toney. Yes, ma'am. Because it makes sense. It makes
economic sense for their organization, and it makes sense for
the communities in which they live.
You're absolutely right. They sent a letter to Mr. Wehrum
to state that they were in complete and total agreement with
not doing anything to this rule. They had already invested, per
their numbers, $18 billion and that the rule was successful and
they wanted to keep it like this.
This is one of the rare instances where we have found that
not only industry, the utility sector, but also health
professionals, communities, mothers, and bipartisan efforts
have all come together----
Ms. Norton. So, where is the opposition coming from? So
far, I can't find the vested interest----
Rev. Hescox. Well, can I add one thought to that to make
sure, before we run out of time, is that utilities recognize
that by the removal of the ``necessary and appropriate''
standing, that essentially puts the law and their investment in
legal jeopardy----
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Rev. Hescox.--because----
Ms. Norton. I want to know, where is the opposition--let's
call it out--where is the opposition coming from? If we have
such agreement, so unusual in this Congress, where is the
opposition coming from?
Ms. Toney. There was an argument that was made--a legal
argument came from Murray Energy that the standards themselves
were invalid because the regulation was not appropriate and
necessary, and thereby putting this entire standard now in
jeopardy. That is one place that we know it has come from.
Ms. Norton. My time has expired. So, has my patience.
Ms. Tlaib. Now I recognize our minority ranking member,
Congressman Comer.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you.
And before I begin my questions, I have to say this. This
subcommittee is--members on the other side make a lot of very
negative comments about coal. And I represent western Kentucky,
a huge coal-producing districts. It's one of the biggest
industries still today in my congressional district.
I've never received a donation from Bob Murray. I've never
received a donation from the NRCC. But I support the coal
industry. And I think that, if you look at the coal industry,
much like other essential industries in America, whether it be
the agriculture industry, which is the industry I'm involved
in--I'm a farmer--or the chemical industry or other industries
in America, they've come a long way in trying to improve.
If you look at the coal-fired plants in Kentucky, they have
scrubbers on there. They've gone to great lengths and great
expenses in research and development as well as in technology
to reduce their carbon footprint and to provide clean coal.
And I think that it's important to note that instead of
just hearing one version of an industry that I doubt very many
people criticizing it today on the other side of the aisle know
much about.
So, having said that, I want my questions to be centered
around the subject of co-benefits with respect to regulations
such as particulate matter.
And, Ms. Gunasekara--I know I mispronounced that, but I try
real hard, you know.
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Comer. My questions are for you. First of all, can you
discuss your concerns with heavy reliance on co-benefits to
justify the MATS rule?
Ms. Gunasekara. Certainly. It sets up an analysis to where
any regulatory action, regardless of cost and regardless of
other consequences, can be justified. And that's just not how
the cost assessment was set up in the Clean Air Act but
especially under section 112.
And it's important to understand this was carefully crafted
by this body. Congress came up with the best way to balance the
benefits with the cost. Because to engage in an industrial
process, it has some element of pollution, but we in this
country have embraced engineering advances and found ways to do
that in a much cleaner way. And it's a long-term process and
something that is explicitly laid out in section 112.
So, the over-reliance on benefits--and just to put context
on that, in this instance you were talking about a cost of $7
billion to $9 billion, whereas the benefits affiliated with the
reduction of the targeted pollutant, which was mercury, was $4
million to $6 million. And that's the thing that's often not
discussed as much, is the disparity in that.
And so, under section 112 and the way that the last
administration relied on that for justifying its relative
actions, totally flies in the face of the statute and
especially after the Michigan decision from the Supreme Court.
Mr. Comer. So, do you think it's a bit premature for this
committee to be discussing this proposed supplemental cost
finding, as it's not even final yet?
Ms. Gunasekara. I do think it's an important point to point
out that it is still going through the regulatory process. And
the way that it works is EPA and other agencies, they put out a
proposed rule, and they ask a lot of questions, because they
need answers and they need help from the experts out in the
general public. So, they've gathered that; they've received
thousands of comments on this.
And important to note, too: Whenever that final rule does
come out, what comes along with it is a response to those
comments. So, EPA will go through and look at every single
comment, every single issue, every single piece of additional
data or other important information and respond to it in a
proactive way.
Mr. Comer. OK.
Last question. Can you discuss how the Obama EPA double-
counted particulate matter reductions that have already been
captured by other rules? And why is this a dangerous precedent?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes, absolutely.
You know, the Agency didn't say this; I would say this,
that under section 112 they're precluded from considering co-
benefits, especially criteria pollutants, because they're
regulated in another section of the Clean Air Act.
But in this specific context, under section 112--you have
to understand that the Agency doesn't regulate in a vacuum.
There's all other sorts of programs, like the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards program, the New Source Review, which is
especially pertinent in permitting applications, as well as
section 111, which sets new source and existing source
standards. And there's many manner of programs that go about
regulating many manner of pollutants.
And so it doesn't make sense under section 112, where
you're supposed to look at what is the residual impact of
pollutants after considering the implementation and
effectiveness of the rest of the Clean Air Act, what would be
justified from the Agency's perspective in terms of going about
and trying to reduce.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you.
Just a--I recognize myself for five minutes.
Yes or no, the Trump administration's proposing to
undermine a rule that helped reduce mercury emissions by 80
percent? Yes or no?
Ms. Toney. Forgive me. Maybe I don't understand.
Ms. Tlaib. So, the current rule, as it is, reduced
emissions by 80 percent. Yes or no? It's working.
Rev. Hescox. Yes, it works.
Ms. Toney. Yes, it works.
Ms. Tlaib. How about you?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. And----
Ms. Tlaib. Great.
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. The Agency is not----
Ms. Tlaib. Nope, that's it. Reclaiming my time.
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. To undermine it----
Ms. Tlaib. Reclaiming my time.
Do you think this is about corporate greed?
Ms. Toney?
Ms. Toney. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Ms. Huffling?
Ms. Huffling. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. How about you?
Ms. Gunasekara. No.
Ms. Tlaib. OK.
Ms. Gunasekara. It's about abiding----
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you. Yes or no.
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. By the requirements of the----
Ms. Tlaib. I'm sorry. Yes or no, ma'am.
Ms. Gunasekara [continuing]. Clean Air Act.
Ms. Tlaib. You will be paid no matter what.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, Mr.--Reverend?
Mr. Comer. I don't----
Ms. Gunasekara. Nobody's paying me here today.
Ms. Tlaib. No, no, no. I mean, I'm talking about her
salary.
Mr. Comer. OK.
Ms. Tlaib. No, what she--her organization, no matter how
long her answer is.
Yes?
Rev. Hescox. The answer--yes.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. So, it's driven by corporations trying to
repeal something that protects our public health.
You know I represent a frontline community, where 48217 is
the most polluted ZIP Code in the state of Michigan.
When I go to a school, I ask the kids--because the kids
always ask, well, what do you do, and how much do you get paid?
And they ask, are you married? It's so cute. And they're second
and third graders, right?
One of the things I tell them is about the fact that, you
know, when I was a kid, I'd go into a restaurant and they'd
say, ``How many people?'', but they'd also say, ``Smoking or
nonsmoking section?'' And the kids are just like, ``What?'' And
I'd say, ``People used to smoke in the airplanes, at the
hospitals.'' And the kids would just, like, go, ``No way.'' And
then I'd say to them, ``So, my job is to protect the air. How
many of you have asthma?'' And a third of the class will raise
their hand.
Do you know, in the city of Detroit, one of the Nation's
highest rates of asthma, which alone causes, do you know, 1,700
days of missed school? That it's connected, that kids can't
learn if they can't breathe clean air?
Did you know that, Ms. Toney?
Ms. Toney. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. How about you, Ms. Huffling?
Ms. Huffling. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. How about you?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. How about you, Reverend?
Rev. Hescox. Absolutely.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. You know, truth matters. It really does.
And I really want to center around, like, the facts and the
truth. It's working. Kids need to breathe clean air so they can
go to school. It is working.
And, yes, what the driving force is, you know, is around,
you know, corporate greed.
And, you know, Ms. Toney, can you talk about--and I think
it's really important--about frontline communities? We are
doing nothing about this. Do jobs fix cancer? Do they fix
asthma? When the economy is doing well, does that translate
into better air quality?
You know, explain to me this correlation. Because I feel
like--and then, Reverend, you and I may not agree on style or
approach, but today I'm a mother, not a Democrat or a
Republican or a Congresswoman. I'm a mother first and foremost,
and these are our babies.
So, talk a little bit about, Ms. Toney, how do we address
this in a way that people understand? It's not like we can go
and pump out clean air. This is all we got.
Ms. Toney. Yes. Thank you for that.
And mother to mother, it's hard to make that decision.
Unfortunately, there are mothers that are black and brown and
live in poor communities across this country that are not in a
position where they can make that decision.
We were in Houston, Texas, with our moms there not long
ago, where we know mothers that live right next-door to air
pollution have to go outside and make a decision, based upon
just a look, to determine whether or not they can take their
children to T-ball practice, whether or not they're going have
to spend money going to a hospital to respond to an asthma
attack or if they go to work, knowing full well that if they do
not go to work, they do not eat, and there's no one to take
care of their children. These decisions are hard.
So, you're absolutely right. When something is working,
there's no need to change or try to fix it. And this is
working.
Ms. Tlaib. And that's the thing about moms; we just want to
fix it. And we understand the urgency of it, right? It's not
like years we can get back for our kids.
I'm going to end with a quote from one of my residents. It
was in the Detroit Metro Times, and she was quoted. Her name is
Carmen Garrison, who avoids going outdoors because of the air.
She truly believes the air is poisoning her, and let me tell
you why. Because she says, quote, ``As a kid, she often threw
up and had a headache after walking to school in southwest
Detroit,'' where I grew up. ``And more than three decades
later, as an adult, her eyes burn, her throat hurts, and her
nose runs if she's even taking a short stroll down the road.''
Those are real human impacts. And I think we need to
connect that to the fact that it really does impact people's
quality of life.
And I so thank you, especially the moms out there, that,
really, it's one where we all come together. No matter our
backgrounds or even our ethnic backgrounds or our income
backgrounds, I think we understand the importance of protecting
our children's future. Thank you so much.
I'd like to recognize Congressman Gosar for five minutes.
Mr. Gosar. I thank the chairwoman.
Ms. Gunasekara, got a quick question for you. Now, there's
been criticism that certain stakeholder groups, including the
utility industry, has not been supportive of the proposed rule.
Can you speak to that?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. Certainly. The utility issue is one
voice of the many stakeholders and regulated community that are
impacted by the MATS rule. And so it just goes to show that no
one entity has an especially prevalent voice in the way that
EPA makes its decisions.
And, in fact, there was a question, where was the criticism
coming from? It was actually coming from a lot of the state
environmental directors because of the relative problems, and
they see the dangerous precedents for putting the regulatory
body in a position where you could justify a regulatory action
regardless of cost. Because the reality is that a lot of those
costs of implementation fall to the states. And that's where
the predominant source of concern with MATS and the last
administration's response to Michigan came from.
Mr. Gosar. So, now, collateral sources, I want to know a
little bit more about this. So, we're talking about air
quality.
Ms. Gunasekara. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gosar. And air's not stagnant, is it?
Ms. Gunasekara. Right.
Mr. Gosar. It moves. There are air currents. Isn't that
true?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes.
Mr. Gosar. OK, so--and, you know, I agree, we've got
problems, and there's problems with heavy metals, mercury being
one of those.
So, Reverend Hescox, you made the comment that everything
should be done. Have you issued and identified support for
forest management? Because you do know why I'm asking this
question; because one of the highest realms of toxic metals is
catastrophic wildfire.
Rev. Hescox. Absolutely. In fact, I've worked with Senator
Daines in that office right now, as a matter of fact, on his
work.
And, by the way, most of the mercury that is redeposited
from wildfires originally came from--deposited from coal
plants. So,----
Mr. Gosar. No, no, no, no.
Rev. Hescox. Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. Gosar. No, it is not. It's a natural-occurring element
in the crust of this earth. That's just the facts.
Rev. Hescox. Well, it is a fact, but most of it from the
United States has been redeposited from burning of coal. And I
have the scientific studies to prove it, sir.
Mr. Gosar. It's all part of the crust of this earth.
Rev. Hescox. I'm a geologist, sir, and I disagree with you.
Mr. Gosar. And volcanic action? Please tell me how that----
Rev. Hescox. It comes from volcanic ash too, but----
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
Ms. Huffling, have you actually filed support for forest
management to get rid of catastrophic wildfires?
Ms. Huffling. Many of the nurses that we work with are in
areas that have been impacted by wildfires. We haven't
submitted comments directly related to that, but we've
definitely been working on these issues.
Mr. Gosar. So, I would take that as a ``yes.''
Ms. Huffling. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gosar. OK.
How about you, Ms. Toney?
Ms. Toney. Many of our mothers, as well, are located in
places that are impacted by wildfires. And this is an issue
that is of great concern to us, and we are looking at ways that
we can potentially be engaged.
Mr. Gosar. So, like, forest management would be a great
opportunity to mitigate this, would it not?
Ms. Toney. We do not disagree that forest management is
something that is necessary. However, that does not negate in
any way the responsibility of industry in the United States.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I want to come back to that.
Ms. Gunasekara, so they're not fudging on this aspect.
They're adhering to the same rule. Is that true?
Ms. Gunasekara. Absolutely. And I think to the point that
the truth matters, the truth in this instance is that this
administration isn't proposing any changes to the standard.
There will be no impact to the existing protections that were
put in place by the 2012 rule under the newly proposed rule. It
will simply fix a dishonest and inappropriate accounting
mechanism.
Mr. Gosar. So, basically, and I've always said, good
process builds good policy builds good politics. True?
Ms. Gunasekara. True.
Mr. Gosar. Well, and then that's part of the problem here,
is the policy's not built on good process. That's what I'm
taking.
Ms. Gunasekara. Well, absolutely, I would say, and this is
especially true in the regulatory landscape. You want to talk
about the veracity and credibility of the Administrative
Procedure Act. Setting up some cost-benefit mechanism that
always skews what the outcome is going to be, that undermines
the potential credibility there.
So, the process, especially for regulatory agencies, it's
how they make their decisions and come to final outcomes. So,
protecting that is especially important.
Mr. Gosar. So, it's a process of peer review so that you
actually have a denounced way of ascertaining balance. Or what
you say you do at the front end is what you get at the back
end. True?
Ms. Gunasekara. Yes. There's an element--yes. Exactly.
Mr. Gosar. OK.
Well, I definitely want to see, Reverend, your support
letter for catastrophic wildfire and forest management, because
that's a big deal. That's a huge deal.
Rev. Hescox. I absolutely agree. That's why I believe in
forest management and working on it.
I can also show you the studies on where the mercury comes
from. So, I'll be happy to send those to you in the coming
week.
Mr. Gosar. Oh, I--my dad's a geologist--love it. I would
absolutely----
Rev. Hescox. Yes. Well, I have a Ph.D. geologist behind me
too, so we're both in good company.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much.
I'd like to thank all of our witnesses for testifying
today.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions.
It sounds like there have been some requests that you--and
then we ask all of you to please respond as promptly as you are
able to.
Ms. Tlaib. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]