[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]