WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Chairman Roger Williams (R-TX) led a full Committee on Small Business hearing titled “Burdensome Regulations: Examining the Impact of EPA Regulations on Main Street.” Chairman Williams issued the following statement after today’s hearing.

“Today’s hearing was especially important as the EPA continues to stifle innovation by wrapping American industry in red tape,” said Chairman Williams. “We heard directly from businesses who are forced to play defense because of the EPA’s burdensome regulations. We also learned that while the EPA sometimes takes input from small businesses, their views are consistently overlooked and disregarded when the final regulations are created. This Committee will continue to listen to and work with business owners to implement the best policies possible for Main Street America.

---

Watch the full hearing here.

Below are some key excerpts from today’s hearing:

Chairman Williams: “In some cases, the EPA is so aggressive that they look to regulate entire industries out of existence. My family has been in the automobile business for almost 89 years. I've been in it 50 years, and we have never seen such an aggressive push to regulate tailpipe emissions and forced to transition to electric vehicles… 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'm very familiar with, on one of our farms and ranches, we have wind turbines on a ranch of ours that's 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 this duplicitous regulation that's coming, like I mentioned in my testimony, I'm highly regulated already. I'm a marginal oil producer. I know what resources are coming out at the wellhead and what I'm selling. And if there's a loss anywhere between those two points, I'm looking at it before any regulator because I cannot afford to have a leak, a spill or anything else.”

Rep. Meuser: “The question weas brought up, ‘Do we have to forsake the environment for land development, for manufacturing development, for the development of medical devices that are lifesaving?’ Mr. Farris let's start with you. Tell me what you think about that comment as well. You have how many manufacturers that you represent?” Mr. Farris: “Nearly 14,000.” Rep. Meuser: “14,000, and how many of them are small businesses?” Mr. Farris: “Vast majority.” Rep. Meuser: “Okay the vast majority. Number one, do you think they would agree with that comment? 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 the communities environment?” Mr. Farris: “Thank you, Congressman. And what I can say is there doesn't have to be a tradeoff. 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're 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 tradeoff. We can have clean air and we can have a wonderful economy, but we cannot have it with these regulations that we're 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?”

Rep. Stauber: “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 health care industry, and rural America is always the first one negatively impacted. Rural America, rural health care, 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: “The answer is yes. So, all of the all of the examples that you gave and I can 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 you know, in order to be able to offer a sterile device. And so, the answer is they are that's the only option for those. And not having that would have, again, a devastating impact on delays for surgery and potentially death and harm.”

###