[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]