news

Statement of Ranking Member Nydia M. Velázquez
Hearing on EPA Rules and Regulations
June 27, 2012

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Since its inception in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has been vital to protecting the public health and safety.  A series of statutes enacted by Congress over the decades has placed greater responsibility on this agency for ensuring the water we drink and the air we breathe is safe and not a threat to human health. 

Under the Clean Air Act, we’ve seen significant gains and improvements in our nation’s air quality.   In a single year, through reductions in fine particulate matter, the Clean Air Act has saved 160,000 lives, prevented 1.7 million asthma attacks and stopped 13,000 heart attacks.  There are significant economic benefits, as well.  It is estimated that 13 million missed workdays are prevented thanks to the cleaner air we enjoy. 

We’ve seen similar benefits accrued from the EPA’s enforcement of water regulations.  Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the number of waters safe for swimming and fishing has doubled.  Billions of pounds of pollution from industrial and sewage sources have come under control. 

Since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the number of waters that are safe for swimming and fishing has doubled. Billions of pounds of pollution have been controlled by industrial facilities and sewage treatment plants. Ongoing efforts to better manage stormwater and runoff from diffuse, or “nonpoint” sources of pollution are increasingly helping to restore polluted waters.  Through these steps and the implementation of the Clean Water Act, Americans are healthier, our waterways are being remediated and industries like fishing and recreation are seeing greater opportunity.  This is a far cry from where we were four decades ago when rivers literally caught on fire and we were watching America’s water systems become increasingly polluted.

All of us, on both sides of the aisle can agree that the goals of the EPA – protecting our health and environment – are laudable.  Reducing pollution and environmental risk is not only important to the public health, but carries important economic benefit, as well.   However, as the EPA carries out its vital mission, it must always be mindful of how new rules and regulations impact our nation’s small businesses. 

There’s no doubt that almost all small businesses want to be good environmental stewards.  In fact, we’ve heard time and again in this Committee how entrepreneurs are pioneering many of the green technologies that are making our economy more sustainable. 

Still, when we talk about regulating energy consumption, or the discharge of certain chemicals into the air or the water, an economic impact is inevitable. 

And, small businesses will almost always carry the brunt of these changes.   Firms with less than 500 employees pay 30% more than large companies when complying with environmental regulations. For very small businesses – those with fewer than 20 employees – the costs are 78% higher than large corporations. 

It is critical that as new rules are developed, small businesses’ interests are balanced against our desire to preserve the environment.  

Central to this is making sure small firms have the ability to provide input and make substantive comments throughout the regulatory process.  The EPA is supposed to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis when proposing a new regulation in order to fully evaluate how firms are impacted by new rules.  In addition, unlike most other agencies, EPA has unique obligations to include small entities in its rulemaking process.  During today’s hearing I hope to hear very clearly how EPA is conducting outreach to small firms.  I want to know what is working and what is not – and, most of all, how the process can be improved. 

Small businesses have a vital role to play in improving our environment. Not only are green entrepreneurs finding ways to make renewable energy and remediation profitable, but small firms can help EPA to craft sensible regulations that work for both our environment and our economy.   It is my hope that in today’s hearing we can find new ways to bridge the gap between the EPA and the small business community – meaning a cleaner environment and a stronger economy.

With that, I thank our witnesses for their participation and yield back the balance of my time.