[Senate Hearing 114-915]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-915
OPPORTUNITY DENIED: HOW
OVERREGULATION HARMS MINORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, AGENCY
ACTION, FEDERAL RIGHTS AND
FEDERAL COURTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 6, 2015
__________
Serial No. J-114-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT[
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-714 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Ranking
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama Member
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED CRUZ, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Kolan L. Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kristine Lucius, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, AGENCY
ACTION, FEDERAL RIGHTS AND FEDERAL COURTS
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware,
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah Ranking Member
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina CHARLES SCHUMER, New York
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Thomas L. Jipping, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Ted Schroeder, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Cruz, Hon. Ted................................................... 1
Coons, Hon. Christopher A........................................ 4
Leahy, Hon. Patrick
Prepared statement........................................... 95
WITNESSES
Alford, Harry C.................................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Responses to written questions............................... 97
Barrera, Michael................................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Responses to written questions............................... 100
Loving, Sabina................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Responses to written questions............................... 103
Mair, Aaron...................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Responses to written questions............................... 106
Narang, Amit..................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Responses to written questions............................... 111
Sandefur, Timothy................................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Scott, William C................................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 75
APPENDIX
Items submitted for the record................................... 41
OPPORTUNITY DENIED: HOW
OVERREGULATION HARMS MINORITIES
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights,
and Federal Courts
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:23 p.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Hatch, Coons, and
Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Chairman Cruz. This hearing will come to order. Good
afternoon. Welcome. I would like to welcome our distinguished
panel of witnesses for joining us today. Very glad to have you.
In his very first inaugural address, President Thomas
Jefferson defined good government as one that ``shall restrain
men from injuring one another'' and ``shall leave them
otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and
improvement.'' This pro-liberty standard embraced by our
Founding Fathers and the Constitution has served us well.
Today, the United States stands as the most powerful and
prosperous Nation in history, a beacon of hope to people
throughout the world. There is a growing sense among many that
our Nation is in decline.
We have now seen years of sluggish economic growth,
stagnant household income, the largest percentage of Americans
not working since 1977, far too many people who have simply
given up any hope of having a job, of starting a business, of
having a future. Entrepreneurship, truly one of America's
defining traits, is hurting badly. It is a tough time to own a
small business in America today.
The last several decades have seen a dramatic decline in
the rate of business formation. Business deaths now outpace
business births. That is a deeply troubling trend in our
Nation, one that stands in direct opposition to the promise of
America as a land where anyone can start with nothing and
achieve anything.
On top of that, the United States now ranks 46th in the
world when it comes to the ease of starting a new business--
46th. That is hard to imagine. Why is that? What has gone
wrong?
We are here today to discuss a major part of the problem:
Government overregulation. It is axiomatic that the larger and
more intrusive Government becomes, the smaller and more docile
we, the people, are forced to become. There is no greater
obstacle to growth, to opportunity, and prosperity for all
Americans than an invasive and bloated Government. Ronald
Reagan understood this. ``It is no coincidence,'' he said,
``that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to
the intervention and intrusion in the lives that result from
unnecessary and excessive growth of Government.''
The Federal Government and, sadly, many States no longer
adhere to the Jeffersonian standard of leaving the people free
to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.
Instead, they now seemingly regulate everything under the Sun.
Fifty-five years ago, there were 13 regulatory Federal
Government agencies. Today, there are over 70. Fifty-five years
ago, the Code of Federal Regulations contained 23,000 pages--a
sizable amount. Today, the Code of Federal Regulations takes up
an astounding 175,000 pages and 235 volumes, all incredibly
small print. Somehow the American people are expected to comply
with 175,000 pages of regulations that no one person can even
begin to understand.
This figure dwarfs the number of statutes actually enacted
by Congress, the body that the Constitution entrusted with
making our laws. Federal statutes today take up over 40 volumes
and 50,000 pages--about a quarter the length of the Federal
Regulations.
Although an inexact science, estimates of Federal
regulations are estimated to increase costs up to possibly $2
trillion a year. Is it any wonder we have the economic
stagnation, so many millions hurting, when the Federal
Government is putting $2 trillion a year of cost on small
businesses, on those trying to create jobs and opportunity?
Unfortunately, the media far too often writes off
overregulation as a trifling issue because they believe it only
concerns giant corporations, not everyday people. This hearing
is about shining the light on the true people paying the price
for Government overregulation.
Truth be told, overregulation harms everyone, but it
especially harms those who do not have the resources or
political connections to get a special exemption, to have a
lobbyist, to get a favor from Government, and far too often
those are minorities--African Americans, Hispanics, single
moms, people who are struggling but want to start a small
business, want to stand on their own feet, want to provide for
their family. The burden of Federal regulation makes it harder
and harder and harder to do exactly that.
Peter Kirsanow is the longest-serving member of the United
States Civil Rights Commission. He is an African-American, and
at a hearing very much like this, held 20 years ago,
Commissioner Kirsanow said this: ``Regulations affect all
businesses, but they have a particularly pernicious effect on
small businesses, on businesses that are marginally
capitalized, are labor-intensive, or are perceived as being
credit risks. A disproportionate share of those businesses are
owned by minorities and by Black Americans.''
Unfortunately, 20 years later, overregulation remains and
has become an even bigger obstacle to the success and
prosperity of those who are struggling to achieve the American
dream.
Revenues for minority-owned small businesses still,
unfortunately, lag behind revenues for nonminority-owned
businesses. Yet minority-owned businesses must absorb
regulatory costs of roughly $7,000 to $10,000 per employee,
just like any other small business. What this means is that
regulatory costs have a more severe impact on the bottom line
of minority businesses than other businesses, making it more
difficult for minority businesses to grow and hire more
employees.
The regulation epidemic in this country certainly has not
translated into more jobs and prosperity for minorities,
especially since President Obama has taken office. The median
household income for African Americans and Hispanics, for
instance, has remained virtually unchanged since President
Obama was elected, meaning that there has been no recovery
since the 2008 crash, and poverty rates for African Americans
have gone up. African-American unemployment remains almost
double that of nonminorities, as it has for over 50 years.
There are together roughly a million fewer working-age African
Americans and Hispanics employed today than when the President
took office.
Let me repeat that statistic. There are together roughly 1
million fewer working-age African Americans and Hispanics
employed today than when the President took office. That is
roughly 1 million lives impacted, plus their children, plus
their families, people who want to work, want to provide for
their families, and yet are being denied that opportunity.
It is estimated that for every additional $1 million that
the Government spends enforcing its regulations, the economy
loses 420 private sector jobs.
Of course, it does not have to be this way. Curbing
excessive Government regulation should not be a partisan issue.
We should be able to find a way to stem the tide of red tape,
to loosen the burdens on small businesses that are struggling
to create opportunities, without weakening essential
protections for our society. Not all regulations are bad. A
wall of regulations descending from Washington on small
businesses and crushing job creation is making it harder and
harder for people who are struggling to achieve the American
dream.
I want to thank each of you for being here, and I look
forward to your testimony. We have today seven witnesses.
The first witness, Mr. Michael Barrera, a Kansas City-based
attorney with over 30 years of business, legal, nonprofit, and
Government experience. A graduate of Kansas State and the Texas
Law School, he serves as the national economic prosperity
manager for The LIBRE Institute, a nonprofit that promotes
economic freedom in the U.S. Hispanic community. Before joining
LIBRE, Mr. Barrera served as the president and CEO of the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and prior to that as the National
Ombudsman for the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Our second witness is Amit Narang, an expert on the Federal
regulatory process. A graduate of the University of
Pennsylvania and the American University Washington College of
Law, Mr. Narang is a regulatory policy advocate for Public
Citizen, a nonprofit public interest organization founded by
Ralph Nader.
Timothy Sandefur is an Arizona-based attorney who
specializes in economic liberty and constitutional law. A
graduate of Hillsdale College and Chapman Law School, Mr.
Sandefur currently serves as the principal attorney for the
Pacific Legal Foundation, where he is the lead attorney in the
PLF's Economic Liberty Project.
William Scott is the CEO of Tristatz, LLC, a community and
economic development consulting company in Selma, Alabama.
Educated at Alabama State University and Troy University-
Montgomery, Mr. Scott is a former mayor and council member of
the town of Mosses, Alabama, and a veteran of the United States
Army. Thank you, Mr. Scott, for your service.
Sabrina Loving is a Chicago-based small business owner. A
graduate of Robert Morris College and Roosevelt University, Ms.
Loving runs Loving Tax Services, Incorporated, a tax
preparation service she started 5 years ago to assist
individual and small business clients with their tax returns.
Aaron Mair is the 57th president of the Sierra Club, one of
the Nation's premier environmental organizations. He became a
member in 1999 and has held numerous leadership positions
within the organization since 2002.
Henry Alford is a DC-based business leader. A former
Wisconsin football player and Army officer--thank you for your
service as well--Mr. Alford currently serves as president and
CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, which he founded
with his wife, Kay, over 20 years ago. Prior to founding NBCC,
Mr. Alford worked for several Fortune 100 companies.
We will now have an opening statement from Mr. Coons.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, and thank you for
calling this hearing.
The foundational principle underlying this hearing, that
regulations are inherently harmful to business and our
prosperity, I think is highly dubious. A previous Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing in this very Congress examined this
point, and evidence presented by the OMB suggests that major
Federal regulations have a net benefit to our economy of
between $130 and $800 billion measured over 10 years. That
should not be surprising because, since 1981, every
economically significant regulation is required to undergo a
searching cost-benefit analysis before being put into effect.
Rulemaking is also governed by the APA, the Administrative
Procedures Act, which guarantees all stakeholders the
opportunity to be heard, and courts have not been shy about
striking down regulations that run afoul of rulemaking
procedures or organic statutes, as evidenced by the Court's
decision last term in Michigan v. EPA.
Turning, though, to the precise topic of today's hearing,
of this hearing, the impact of regulations on racial
minorities, I would observe that the argument against
regulation is too narrowly focused on looking at the acute
costs of regulation and not sufficiently focused on the wide-
ranging benefits of regulating some private behavior to
minimize injustice and to defuse externalities.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, is thought of as
civil rights legislation, which, of course, it is, but also a
powerful piece of economic regulation because, prior to its
enactment, businesses were free to exercise their economic
liberty to refuse to do business with or hire minorities in
much of the country, and many businesses did just that.
Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Department of
Justice served as regulator for 48 years, using that law to
block the implementation of some roughly 2,400 proposed
discriminatory voting changes. When the Supreme Court struck
down a key component of that law, doing away with much of the
relevant Federal regulatory framework, unfortunately, several
States then moved fairly quickly to enact their own regulations
that have the effect widely of disenfranchising voters of
color. Anti-equality voting regulations have been enacted to
shorten voter registration, early voting periods, implement
photo I.D. laws, and purge voter rolls of eligible minority
voters.
I am proud to cosponsor bipartisan legislation in this
Senate, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore
these critical Federal regulations in order to protect the
rights of minorities to vote.
Federal regulation then prevents discrimination in lending,
housing, and education against minorities. In each area,
regulation has improved the economic opportunities of African
Americans and other racial minorities in America,
notwithstanding the claims of civil rights opponents who stated
they would interfere with economic liberty.
In addition to these transformative laws, there is a host
of other Federal regulatory structures outside the civil rights
context that have, nevertheless, benefited the health, the
safety, and the economic opportunities currently available to
Americans of color.
The Affordable Care Act, for example, has improved access
to private health insurance for nearly eight million African
Americans and four million Latinos who have gained coverage
since passage of the law, decreasing the uninsured rate in the
Hispanic community by roughly 27 percent. Thanks to the ACA,
all Americans are today free from discrimination due to pre-
existing conditions or lifetime caps and fees associated with
routine screenings.
These improvements will ensure that the chronic rates of
disease in minority communities, diseases like diabetes, heart
disease, obesity, will have access to affordable and
comprehensive health care coverage to address these challenges.
Environmental regulations, which are often held up as prime
examples of overregulation of business, protect us all, but are
especially crucial to minority communities. Due to the vestiges
of housing discrimination and a lack of economic opportunities,
many minorities have no choice but to live in areas with very
high levels of industrial and atmospheric pollution. In the
South Bronx, for example, which is overwhelmingly Hispanic and
African-American, asthma rates are four times the national
average due to a heavy concentration of air pollution.
A number of studies suggest minorities face 40 percent more
exposure to a variety of toxic air pollution components--
sulfates, nickel, silicon, vanadium--which are linked to deaths
from cardiovascular and lung disease. They are also exposed to
much higher levels of other air toxics like aluminum, which is
associated with low birth weight.
Instead of asking if environmental regulations go too far,
perhaps we should be asking in these circumstances and for
these particular communities if they go far enough.
The case that regulation harms minorities turns a blind eye
to the manifold ways in which regulations have been used to
promote equality and justice in health care and the
environment, as I have already mentioned, but we could also
consider workplace safety and payrolls, the ability to fight
back as a consumer against unfair trade practices, and indeed
in economic terms by producing a level playing field for all
businesses.
I look forward to a robust and sustained exchange of views.
I join the Chairman in welcoming all the witnesses and thanking
you for your service to our Nation in several cases and for
being here today. You have a broad range of relevant
experiences, and I look forward to that informing our
discussion.
If I might, I would like to briefly offer a special welcome
to Mr. Scott on behalf of your Representative in Congress and
my friend, Congresswoman Terri Sewell, who has also joined us
here today. I understand, Mr. Scott, you are a former staffer
to Ms. Sewell and are currently a business leader in the Black
Belt region. I join in stating that we can and must do more
together to provide the minority business community with the
tools necessary to succeed, and I look forward to a vigorous
debate as to the role of regulations in doing so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, Senator Coons.
I would ask each of the witnesses to please rise. If you
would raise your right hand. Do you affirm that the testimony
you are about to give before this Committee will be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Barrera. I do.
Mr. Narang. I do.
Mr. Sandefur. I do.
Mr. Scott. I do.
Ms. Loving. I do.
Mr. Mair. I do.
Mr. Alford. I do.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chairman Cruz. You may be seated. Mr. Barrera, you may
begin.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BARRERA, NATIONAL
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY MANAGER, THE LIBRE
INSTITUTE, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
Mr. Barrera. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Committee and my fellow panelists, my name is Michael
Barrera, national manager of Economic Prosperity for The LIBRE
Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that educates
Hispanics on the importance of economic freedom. Thank you for
your invitation to testify regarding the impact of Federal
regulations on the minority community. I will focus my comments
on the impact on small businesses and the Hispanic community.
Americans are suffering under the crushing burden of
overregulation, and I stress ``overregulation.'' In 2014,
Federal regulations cost nearly $2 trillion through higher
prices and lost productivity. In a 2008 report, the Small
Business Administration found that small businesses, those with
fewer than 20 employees, bore the largest burden of complying
with Federal regulations, facing an annual cost of over $10,000
per employee. This is 36 percent higher than large firms of
more than 500 employees. It should be noted these were the
costs 7 years ago and do not include the cost of compliance
with the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank. Federal
regulations continue to grow as the number of pages in the
Federal Register, as was pointed out, grew from 23,000 in 1960
to over 175,000 today.
Additionally, the NFIB reported that for 65 straight
months, small business owners cited regulations as a top
impediment to conducting business. Also, 21 percent of small
businesses cite regulations as their single most important
problem.
The U.S. is also losing leadership in business startups as
the growth of regulations contributed to the U.S. falling out
of the top 10 worldwide rankings in the ease of starting a
business. In fact, the World Bank found that it is easier to
start a new business in Portugal, Romania, Panama, Hungary, and
Belarus than in the U.S.
One of the most disturbing statistics we found is that
business failures now outpace business startups. From 1977 to
2008, the number of new startups outpaced the number of failing
businesses by about $100,000 a year. Startups lag behind
closures. These trends concern the Hispanic community and our 4
million businesses, many of which are family owned. Nationally,
family owned businesses account for 50 percent of the U.S. GDP,
60 percent of the country's employment, and 78 percent of all
new jobs.
Family--family business is also important in our community.
Mass Mutual reports that 89 percent of Hispanic entrepreneurs
started their business in order to provide financially for
their family and 70 percent of Hispanic business owners plan to
pass that business down to their family members. Additionally,
31 percent of Hispanic entrepreneurs hire extended family,
people like their siblings, their parents, their cousins, their
aunts, and their uncles. As such, the impact of Federal
regulations affect both business and family lives. As Federal
regulations grow, so does the cost of doing business. This
forces entrepreneurs and their families to make difficult
choices. Do I spend my time and money complying with Federal
and local mandates? Or, do I spend it managing and marketing my
business, hiring new employees, or working to increase their
wages?
This testimony is not a blanket rejection of regulation. It
is about overregulation. Elected and unelected officials must
rededicate themselves to weighing the costs and benefits of
each proposed rule before proceeding. This is the law. The
burden of proof should be on the regulator to prove that a rule
is necessary and will benefit our lives and help businesses to
prosper, not on small businesses to prove otherwise.
Sadly, something is truly amiss when unelected agency
officials pass 16 new regulations for every law passed by you,
our elected officials.
In conclusion, small businesses employ close to two-thirds
of American workers and must be more than a convenient talking
point when policymakers discuss reviving our economy.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans and
entrepreneurs, including Hispanics, will tell you Government
rules and regulations are confusing, complex, time-consuming,
and expensive. Moreover, many of our businesses are hesitant to
contest, complain, unable to defend or advocate for themselves
due to the expense, time, and in some cases the intimidation
formed by Federal regulators.
It is very important--I heard a great story in North
Carolina where a small business talked about, ``Mr. Barrera, I
cannot reproduce myself. The time I spend complying with
Federal rules and regulations, I could be spending that
personal time''--he is a personal trainer--``with my customers,
researching new ways to help people become healthy. I spend
time with Federal regulation.''
Polls consistently show the economy and jobs are a top
priority--in other words, how to achieve prosperity. I heard
another story in Colorado from a business leader. He talked
about Government and entrepreneurs' attitude. He summed it up
this way: ``When elected officials talk about laws that they
pass, that is all nice and good. I would rather they talk about
the rules and regulations that they eliminated to make it
easier to do business and to live my life.''
We believe economic freedom, the rule of law, the free
market, and a constitutionally limited Government--not
excessive regulation or Government cronyism--are the pathway to
prosper and the best way for each person to achieve their
American dream. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrera appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, sir. Mr. Narang.
STATEMENT OF AMIT NARANG, REGULATORY
POLICY ADVOCATE, PUBLIC CITIZEN, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Narang. Thank you. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Coons,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. I am Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate
at Public Citizen's Congress Watch. Public Citizen is a
national public interest organization with more than 400,000
members and supporters. For more than 40 years, we have
successfully advocated for stronger health, safety, consumer
protection, and other rules, as well as for a robust regulatory
system that curtails corporate wrongdoing and advances the
public interest.
Regulation which has been adopted to protect the public has
been among the greatest public policy success stories in our
country's history. Regulations have made our air far less
polluted and our water much cleaner. They have made our food
and drugs safer. They have made our workplace less dangerous.
They have made our financial system more stable when they have
been in place. They have protected consumers from unsafe
products and from predatory lending practices, and they have
made our cars safer.
For minorities in particular, regulations have made our
society more equal and fair by outlawing discrimination in many
contexts, by giving traditionally disenfranchised minorities
the opportunity to vote and participate in our democracy, and
by combating policies that expose minority populations to
higher rates of pollution and environmental toxins.
Indeed, the premise of this hearing has it exactly
backward. Regulations have been crucial in providing basis
rights and opportunities to minority that otherwise would not
have existed. The story of regulation should not only be
celebrated but also emulated going forward. While regulators
deserve credit for these successes, the true credit goes to
Congress who passed landmark legislation such as the Clean Air
Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Civil Rights Act, and
the Fair Housing Act, laws which gave regulators the authority
to protect the public and make our country more equal and fair.
On the other hand, when regulatory safeguards have not been
in place, regulatory failure has occurred, and our country and
economy has suffered. Deregulation of the financial industry
led to the greatest recession since the Great Depression,
costing our country $13 trillion and throwing millions out of
work and their homes. A lack of adequate offshore drilling
safety measures led to the British Petroleum oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico, one of the greatest ecological disasters in our
country's history.
Tainted food scandals, derailing and exploding oil trains,
unsafe children's toys leading to injuries and recalls,
chemical spills in critical waterways, oil and gas pipeline
ruptures all share a common theme: underregulation of dangerous
and unfair business practices due to a misplaced faith in
industry's self-regulation.
While it is true that we have made much progress as a
country and that regulation has been critical to that progress,
it is also clear that there is much progress to be made. This
is why it is so important for Congress to avoid making the
problem of underregulation worse and instead actively engage in
efforts to fix what I agree is a broken regulatory system, a
regulatory system that is broken in three ways, and the public,
including minorities, is paying the price.
First, our regulatory process moves far too slow when
implementing new laws intended to protect the public. The
examples of regulatory delay touch virtually every area of
public protection. The new food safety regulations were
finalized over 4 years ago--over 4 years after Congress
demanded them. Up to a third of the new Wall Street reforms
intended to prevent the next financial crisis still have not
been put into place almost 7 years after the financial crash.
Five years after the BP oil spill, and we still do not have
safety measures in place to fix one of the primary causes of
the oil rig explosion that led to the disaster. These delays
are the status quo, not the exception, and are a concern across
party lines and ideologies.
This summer, the R Street Institute, a libertarian, free
market-oriented think tank, looked back over the past 20 years
to see how often regulators were able to meet deadlines
established by Congress. The results were deeply troubling.
Regulators missed congressional deadlines a shocking 50 percent
of the time. Regulatory delay is central to the problem of
underregulation.
Second, our regulatory system does not have the authority
and resources to effectively enforce violation of regulations
by bad actors, leading to undercriminalization of white-collar
crime. The public is deeply dissatisfied, and rightly so, that
virtually no individuals or bank executives have been
prosecuted in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Similar
situations have unfolded in the wake of the General Motors
ignition switch scandal. While GM has paid a fine, no
individuals were held accountable, and the lead prosecutor even
admitted that quote, ``there are gaps in the law'', unquote
that made it difficult to prosecute individuals.
Fines that are no more than the cost of doing business will
not deter future illegal behavior that costs lives and costs
our economy, and they will surely do nothing to change
corporate cultures that lead to this wrongdoing.
Finally, our regulatory system must adopt approaches to
regulating that are precautionary in nature and seek to prevent
threats to the public safety or our economy rather than simply
reacting when something goes wrong. Here, Congress has taken
promising steps in this direction, although more can be done.
For example, the Food Safety Modernization Act shifted our
food safety regulatory structure from trying to mitigate
tainted food outbreaks once they occurred to actually
preventing those tainted food outbreaks in the first place. In
some respects, the Wall Street reform law, Dodd-Frank, adopts
the same approach by requiring banks to be better capitalized
and preventing them from engaging in risky activity. When
passing new laws intended to protect the public, often in
response to crises created by underregulation, Congress should
be mindful of adopting laws that are designed to prevent
crises, not just react to them.
Unfortunately, Congress is considering legislation that
would make the problems I just outlined worse. So-called
regulatory reform legislation, better termed, ``deregulatory
reform legislation,'' would further slow down the rulemaking
process by adding numerous redundant and unfunded legal and
analytical requirements, likely paralyzing rulemaking as a
result. In certain instances, legislation will force the least
costly rule to regulated industries, and we saw with the Wall
Street crash that the least costly rules to Wall Street were
the most costly to the public and small businesses.
In terms of enforcement, the imposition of new mens rea and
criminal intent standards will make it even harder and surely
not easier to prosecute Wall Street and corporate executives
for future crimes.
Public Citizen stands ready to work with lawmakers across
the aisle to make our regulatory system work effectively and
efficiently for consumers, minorities, working families, and
small businesses. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Narang appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cruz. Thank you very much. Mr. Sandefur.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY SANDEFUR, PRINCIPAL
ATTORNEY, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION,
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Sandefur. Thank you, Senator. I believe economic
freedom is the greatest hope for the poor, for immigrants, and
for members of minority groups who seek independence and
success for themselves and their families. Whenever I think
about this subject, I think of the story of Frederick Douglass
who described in his autobiography what it was like to escape
from slavery to New Bedford, Massachusetts, on the Underground
Railroad. He said quote, ``The fifth day after my arrival, I
went in search of work. On my way down Union Street, I saw a
large pile of coal in front of a house. I went to the kitchen
door and asked the privilege of bringing in and putting away
this coal. I was not long in accomplishing the job, when the
dear lady put into my hand two silver half-dollars. To
understand the emotion which swelled my heart as I clasped this
money, realizing that it was mine--that my hands were my own,
and could earn more of the precious coin--one must have been in
some sense himself a slave. I was not only a free man, but a
free working man, and no master stood ready at the end of the
week to seize my hard earnings'', unquote.
Sadly, overregulation at the Federal, State, and local
levels today deprive many Americans of this fundamental human
right to economic liberty. I will give just two examples.
Occupational licensing laws often force people to satisfy
expensive and time-consuming educational requirements before
they may pursue their trade. Florida, for example, requires
people to have a college degree before they can work as an
interior designer. In other words, it is illegal for someone to
advise me on what color drapes to hang in my living room unless
that person has spent two years in college at the cost of
perhaps tens of thousands of dollars. Since Black and Hispanic
Floridians are about a third less likely to have a college
degree, this restriction makes it much harder for members of
these groups to enter this trade.
It may not sound like much to you and me to take an exam to
get a license, but remember that, in addition to the degree
requirement, exams are only administered a few times a year,
sometimes far away from where people live, so they have to get
transportation and a hotel room and pay the licensing fees. All
of this helps make entry-level jobs off limits to those who
need them the most. Minority entrepreneurs are less likely to
have a license than their white counterparts, and licensing
laws drive them into the underground economy where they cannot
get loans or insurance or are subject to police harassment,
cannot advertise openly, and in general are less likely to
succeed.
Yet licensing laws are on the increase. The White House
reported in August, in a very thorough and long overdue report,
that nearly a third of all jobs in America--that is, a third of
the American dream--is now off limits without some form of
Government permission.
My second example is much worse. A certain kind of
licensing law called a, ``certificate of public convenience and
necessity'', or a ``competitor's veto law,'' which has nothing
to do with whether a person is qualified or skilled or honest,
but simply forbids people from operating a business unless they
first get permission from the companies already operating. This
sounds absurd, and it is. It is the law in most States and most
major cities. These competitor's veto laws apply to a wide
range of businesses, everything from taxicab and limo companies
to moving companies, liquor stores, car dealerships, and
hospitals. In all these industries, it is illegal to start a
new business unless you first get permission from your own
competition. Obviously, these laws create a cartel that can be
very hard for members of minority groups to break into.
Take my client, Maurice Underwood, for example. Maurice
lives in Reno, Nevada, where he wants to start a moving
company. Nevada has the most anticompetitive licensing laws in
the Nation. There the law says that even if you are fully
qualified and have a squeaky clean record, you cannot run a
moving company unless you first prove that you would not
compete against the existing moving companies in the State. To
get a license, Maurice would have to provide detailed
statements from potential customers, hire a lawyer, attend a
hearing before the Nevada Transportation Authority, and prove
to State bureaucrats that there is a public need for a new
moving company, and that a new moving company would quote,
``foster sound economic conditions,'' end of quote--whatever
that means. Under such vague and anticompetitive restrictions,
it is little wonder that people like Maurice find it hard to
break into the old-boy network.
We at Pacific Legal Foundation challenged that law, and
that case is still pending in court. Federal courts today
typically ignore violations of the right to earn a living.
Although Supreme Court Justice William Douglas called it the,
``most precious liberty that man possesses,'' courts today
typically refuse to enforce that right and allow Federal,
State, and local governments to restrict economic opportunity
virtually without limit.
This should not be a Republican-Democrat issue. I mentioned
Justice Douglas endorsing this right, and he was about as a
liberal as a Justice can get. Another liberal Supreme Court
Justice, John Paul Stevens, warned in the 1980s of the danger
of businesses using licensing laws to prevent competition
against themselves.
Like all restrictions on economic freedom, these laws have
a disproportionate impact on members of minority groups because
they lack the political influence necessary to get the
Government to do their will. They turn to courts to protect
their rights, and thanks to the theory of judicial restraint,
courts typically cover their eyes and ignore these violations.
That is what happened in Florida when courts refused to protect
the rights of entrepreneurs who wanted to be interior designers
and upheld that State's power to impose absurd and unnecessary
licensing laws.
In my written testimony, I have suggested ways Congress
could, at today to protect the rights of America's wealth-
creating entrepreneurs. Most restrictions on economic liberty
are at the State and local levels, and the 14th Amendment gives
Congress the power to protect people against State governments
violating their rights. Congress should forbid States from
imposing unnecessary, burdensome licensing requirements on
interior designers, for example, and abolish competitor's veto
laws across the board. We would never tolerate such laws when
it comes to freedom of speech or freedom of religion, and yet
we tolerate them when it comes to the right to earn a living
without unreasonable Government interference, the most precious
liberty that man possesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sandefur appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, sir. Mr. Scott.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. SCOTT,
SENIOR CONSULTANT, EMERGING CHANGEMAKERS,
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRISTATZ, LLC,
MOSSES, ALABAMA
Mr. Scott. Good afternoon, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Coons, and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Subcommittee
on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, and Federal
Courts. I am William Scott, and I serve as the president and
CEO of Tristatz, a community and economic development
businesses. We provide services to mid-tier and small
businesses who provide service solutions to Federal, State, and
local government, nonprofits, and commercial markets. I thank
you on their behalf for giving me the opportunity to speak and
appear before you about the organizations and their
opportunities in America.
I would be remiss to not acknowledge Hon. Terri Sewell of
the 7th Congressional District of Alabama, who is my
Congresswoman. For almost 11 years, I have focused my career on
providing economic development and resources to small business.
I am the host of the top-rated ``Small Business Radio Show'',
and my name is ``The Business Doctor'', that reaches over
150,000 people and the former mayor and councilmember of the
town of Mosses in Lowndes County, Alabama. Over the years, I
have worked for the United States Department of Commerce as a
partnership specialist and as a Black Belt Outreach Coordinator
for The Honorable Congresswoman Terri Sewell of the 7th
Congressional District of Alabama.
I have completed 12 years of dedicated and decorated
service in the United States Army. Helping people and providing
quality service is my primary goal in life. My diverse
experience allows me to understand issues from multiple
perspectives.
Though I work with small businesses in economically
distressed communities with majority Black populations, it is
not just these entrepreneurs in Alabama that I represent.
According to Fortune, the number of businesses owned by
African-American women grew 322 percent since 1997, making
Black females the fastest growing group of entrepreneurs in the
United States.
While some politicians say that Federal regulations are
stifling small business growth, the statistics and I am here to
tell you that that is not the case. A national poll conducted
for the American Sustainable Business Council found that ``lack
of demand''--and not regulation--is the biggest problem that
small businesses face. Small business owners see regulations as
a necessary part of a modern economy, 86 percent, and believe
they can live with regulations if they are fair and reasonable,
93 percent.
I understand firsthand needs of Black entrepreneurs in our
community, and I can tell you that regulations play an
important role in meeting the needs of our businesses and
protecting our communities.
I am also the senior consultant for Emerging ChangeMakers
Network in Alabama. Emerging ChangeMakers worked in the areas
of leadership and social entrepreneur building among
historically marginalized communities. We provide professional
business consultation to developing and growing small business
owners and to owners who believe that you do not have to choose
between growing businesses and social and environmental
protection.
In fact, our businesses in Alabama understand that we do
better because of these protections because they create a level
playing field for competition. Much of our work involves
accessing capital for our business clients. The success of this
effort follows closely their own investment of personal and
sweat equity. Therefore, our clients understand that there is a
great need for good regulation like Dodd-Frank that protects
their investment of hard work and money from the risky behavior
of the big banks that led to the Great Recession, which
devastated small businesses around the country.
Our small business clients also know that the success of
their businesses depends on the health of their communities.
That is why regulations to protect our communities from
chemical and environmental disasters, which disproportionately
impact minority communities, is important to us. Environmental
Protection Agency regulations are not stopping Black
entrepreneurship. They protect our community so that our
businesses can have a future. Regulations are needed to create
the conditions under which society as a whole can prosper so
their financial health and environmental protection can exist
to support the growing economy.
That is why I and Emerging ChangeMakers is a part of the
larger efforts of the American Sustainable Business Council and
over 250,000 businesses that they represent to advance smart
regulations that protect our communities and the environment,
as we grow our businesses, create good jobs, and build a
vibrant economy.
I am on the ground with Black entrepreneurs and small
business owners every day. If you want to really help them,
then provide more resources for professional business
consultations to minority-owned businesses and provide more
resources for compliance assistance and making sure that those
small businesses providing services under Federal contracts get
paid on time. Efforts to slow down regulation to deregulate are
not being a friend to African-American small businesses. Thank
you for the opportunity to be before you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, sir. Ms. Loving.
STATEMENT OF SABINA LOVING, PRESIDENT AND OWNER,
LOVING TAX SERVICES, INC., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Ms. Loving. I thank the Chairman and this Committee for the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Sabina Loving. I am the owner and president of
Loving Tax Services, an independent tax preparation firm on
Chicago's South Side. I am the ``Loving'' in the Loving v. IRS
lawsuit that successfully challenged an IRS power grab that
would have posed national licensing on tax preparers.
I am a small businesswoman trying to stay afloat in the
economy while helping people with their tax preparation and
building up my community. I should have the right to earn an
honest living doing what I love, and so should my employees.
Equally important, my customers--not the IRS--should be the
ones who decide who prepares their taxes.
You almost never hear the IRS or anyone else who advocates
for tax preparer licensing talking about me or my co-plaintiffs
when they talk about the Loving case. It is almost as though
they forget that we are real people who were actually being
harmed by the anticompetitive IRS licensing scheme. There are
about 300,000 independent tax preparation entrepreneurs like
me, many of whom would have been forced to close their
businesses.
Today, I would like to share my story with you to help you
understand how overregulation affects real entrepreneurs like
me, why I sued the IRS, and why Congress should not give the
IRS new power to license tax preparers.
I am a native of Chicago who is blessed to earn a living
doing what I love: helping people with their taxes. In 2011, I
opened my business, Loving Tax Services, on Chicago's South
Side, where there are high unemployment and foreclosure rates.
My business was the first to occupy its storefront in at least
a dozen years. I have been fortunate enough to employ several
people in my community and bring money back into our
neighborhood.
Ever since I was young, I wanted be an accountant and work
with numbers. I dreamed of one day being able to start my own
business. I worked hard to make my dream a reality. I worked
full-time as an accountant for major financial firms for nearly
a decade. The economic downturn hit my industry so hard, so I
decided to take this as an opportunity to realize my American
dream. I put myself to work as an independent tax preparer
while earning a master's degree. I formed Loving Tax Services
in 2010, and I never looked back.
Tax preparation is a seasonal industry, and my business
model depended on flexibility. Fortunately, I was able to find
qualified people who could assist me seasonally. Just as my
business was taking off, I learned that the IRS was going to
force tax preparers to jump through a bunch of hoops in order
to allow them to continue earning a living preparing taxes.
For the first time in 100 years, the IRS was imposing a
license to prepare tax returns. We would have to pass an IRS-
mandated exam and complete continuing education requirements
each year. The license would give the IRS great control over
tax preparers, making us dependent on the most powerful Federal
agency for our livelihoods.
It also imposed additional costs and burdens on my
business, which I would have to pass on to my customers in the
form of higher prices. I pride myself on offering lower prices
than the major tax firms. I did not want to raise my prices,
but I could not afford to make any lower profits.
Higher prices meant fewer customers, but if my business
shrank, I would not be able to hire people to help me during
the tax season. That would put me at a competitive disadvantage
to the major tax firms which were likely to get my customers I
was going to lose.
This licensing requirement did not apply to everyone. CPAs
and attorneys were exempt, even if they had never taken a
course in tax law or tax preparation. Even though I had a
decade of experience in accounting, I was not a CPA, so I was
not exempt. Powerful industry groups lobbied for another
exemption. Anyone who was being supervised by an attorney or a
CPS could also prepare returns without a license. I wanted the
opportunity to hire more employees and supervise them as tax
preparers so I could expand my business and serve more of my
community. I did not write the rules, so I did not get a
special exemption.
I knew that this new license would not do anything to
protect consumers. There are already all sorts of laws on the
books that do just that. Instead, it protects big tax
preparation chains and CPAs from competition by smaller
businesses like mine, many of whom would have been forced to
close or shrink their businesses. The end result would be fewer
options and higher prices for taxpayers. That is why I sued the
IRS, and I was represented pro bono by lawyers at the Institute
for Justice. Thankfully, we won.
The IRS and big tax preparation chains keep pushing for
Congress to expand IRS power. After we won the case, several
bills were introduced that would authorize tax preparer
licensing. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate Finance Committee
announced one proposal. A national license for tax preparers
was a bad policy then, and it is a bad policy now. It is
anticompetitive, anticonsumer, and will hurt small businesses
like mine. I urge the Senate not to give the IRS any more power
and to vote against any bill that would authorize the IRS to
license tax preparers. Thank you very much for this opportunity
to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Loving appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, Ms. Loving, for that powerful
testimony. Mr. Mair.
STATEMENT OF AARON MAIR, PRESIDENT,
SIERRA CLUB, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Mair. Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member Coons, thank you
for inviting me here today to testify about the importance of
environmental protections and public health safeguards in
ensuring the safety and well-being of all Americans, especially
the communities of color who carry disproportionate risk of
harm caused by pollution.
I speak today as the first elected African-American
president in the 123-year history of the Sierra Club. The
Sierra Club is the Nation's largest grassroots environmental
organization with 2.4 million members and supporters. In
addition to helping people from all backgrounds explore nature,
the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy safeguard health
in our community. It protects wildlife and it preserves our
remaining wild spaces.
In addition, I have been an advocate for clean water, clean
air, and environmental justice for over 31 years, including
work as a resident in Arbor Hill, Albany, New York, against a
waste incinerator that was causing respiratory illness in the
community.
I am a father, a husband, and a public health analyst for
the State of New York. Part of the reason I am here today is
because some of the fossil fuel corporations are spending a lot
of money to scare people of color and low-income families into
believing that new clean air and clean water safeguards like
the Clean Power Plan will hurt them. These corporations and
their CEOs are terrified that holding dirty industries
accountable would cut into their enormous profits. They want
low-income and minority communities to think that these
regulations will hurt us, but nothing could be further from the
truth.
Recently, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, an
organization represented here today and heavily funded by the
fossil fuel industry, released a bogus report claiming that the
Clean Power Plan would hurt African-American and Hispanic
communities. This is just the latest example of polluters
desperately trying to confuse leaders of color and trick them
into sabotaging their best interests and the interests of our
communities by opposing this essential plan.
Unfortunately, these dirty energy companies and those that
amplify their information are jeopardizing the health of tens
of thousands of kids across the country, and they should be
ashamed. Fortunately, most of us are not buying what these
companies are selling. Polls show that African Americans lead
the country in support for tackling the climate crisis. A
whopping 85 percent have said they want to see an international
climate agreement. Similarly, the polls show that 90 percent of
Latinos want to strengthen the Clean Air and Clean Water Act
and 85 percent want to reduce smog and air pollution.
It is no surprise that the opponents of the Clean Air and
Clean Water Act are fighting against us at every step of the
way, just as they have done with virtually every safeguard ever
proposed--acid rain protections, Clean Air Act. We have heard
the same talking points from the same industry. They said the
sky was falling, but the truth is the air just got cleaner.
What is shocking is the big way polluters are using smoke
and mirrors to try and confuse communities of color. Big
polluters desperately want Black and Hispanic voters to believe
that the President's clean air protections will raise their
electric bills and cost us jobs, when in reality the
protections will save lives and actually lower these costs.
At the same time, all that is going on, thanks to people in
movements like Black Lives Matter and Fight for 15, the call
for racial and economic justice is getting louder and stronger.
While we are out on the streets fighting for equality, our kids
are being poisoned by the air they breathe. Environmental
injustices are taking Black lives.
The overwhelming evidence shows that low-income areas and
communities of color do not receive equal protection from
environmental harm, despite suffering the greatest exposure to
toxic pollutants. Lacking political power, these communities
are frequently chosen as sites for polluting facilities or feel
compelled to accept them as a source of jobs despite the health
hazards they pose.
I know this firsthand by my experience in shutting down the
incinerator in Albany. Industry and local government brushed us
off for 10 years, but through sheer persistence, we were able
to prevail.
Because these communities often lack access to adequate
health care, community residents face an increased risk of
respiratory and cardiovascular illness, cancer, birth defects
that can last long after these facilities have ceased to
operate.
Despite the promise of jobs, such pollution actually causes
economic harm, driving down property values and discouraging
investment needed to keep communities healthy. Sadly, African
Americans are more likely to live near environmental hazards
like power plants and be exposed to hazardous air pollution,
including higher levels of nitrogen oxide, ozone, particulate
matter, and carbon dioxide while their white counterparts do
not. The presence of these pollutants increase rates of asthma,
respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and puts newborn
babies at risk and causes missed days of work and school. We
just cannot afford this.
African-American kids already have the highest rate of
asthma in the Nation, and our infant mortality rate is nearly
double that of the national rate. Conditions in which we are
born, grow, work, and live are determined by the difference in
our health outcomes, and it is essential to recognize that
these circumstances are shaped by the inequalities in the
powers and the resources at the local and national and global
levels. Helping disadvantaged communities succeed in the
forefront of strong and just and a clean green economy will
benefit them and all Americans.
In closing, whether you are talking about new pollution
protections against smog, carbon pollution, mercury, or other
toxic metals that pollute our air and water, it is important to
remember that nearly every major environmental public health
safeguard, polluters have predicted dire economic outcomes that
never actually will happen.
We are living in an alternate universe if we seriously took
every instance that they said that these regulations will be
the most expensive regulations in history. We have got to look
at the facts and not look at self-serving polluter propaganda.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mair appears as a submission
for the record.]
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, sir. Mr. Alford.
STATEMENT OF HARRY C. ALFORD,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Alford. Good afternoon, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Coons, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Harry C. Alford, and I am the president and CEO of the
National Black Chamber of Commerce. The NBCC represents 2.4
million Black-owned businesses within the United States, 140
chapters within the United States, and we have over 80 chapters
offshore representing 4 different continents. We are the
largest Black business organization in the world.
I am here to testify about the harmful and adverse effects
of overregulation on minorities and their communities. As the
hearing title suggests, the continuous stream of unreasonable
and overreaching regulations that have come out of the Federal
Government over the last few years has led to the denial of
countless opportunities for minorities. Employment
opportunities, income opportunities, and housing opportunities
for minorities--all of these are being compromised by an ever
growing number of Federal regulations.
At the onset, I think it is important to be clear about
something: The National Black Chamber understands and
appreciates the importance of regulations within our society.
Regulations help keep our workers protected, our water and air
cleaner, our food safer, and our consumer products reliable, to
name a few. What we do not support are regulations that are
based upon erroneous and opaque analysis and process. The
rulemaking process--and the regulations that come out of it--
should involve transparency, notice, sound science, quality
data, and reliable cost-benefit analysis. Without a doubt,
there are multiple new regulations that potentially will harm
the economic opportunities of minorities; but for today's
hearing, I am going to focus on two regulations from the
Environmental Protection Agency to illustrate my point.
First, there is the EPA's new rule on regulating greenhouse
gas emissions from existing power plants--often referred to as
the ``Clean Power Plan.'' While increased costs often come with
increased regulation, the Clean Power Plan in particular seems
poised to escalate energy costs for Blacks and Hispanics in the
United States, including individuals, families, and minority-
owned businesses.
In light of these concerns, the National Black Chamber of
Commerce undertook an effort to examine the potential economic
and employment impacts of the EPA's carbon regulations,
including the Clean Power Plan, on minorities and low-income
groups. On June 11, 2015, the National Black Chamber of
Commerce released a study on the threat of the EPA carbon
regulations to low-income groups and minorities. I note that
since then, the EPA released the final Clean Power Plan rule,
which has differences from the proposal. Nevertheless, we
believe that the findings of our study are illustrative of the
rule's potential economic impacts.
The National Black Chamber's study found that the proposed
Clean Power Plan would impose severe and disproportionate
economic burdens on poor families, especially minorities. In
particular, the proposed rule would impose the most harm on
residents of seven States with the highest concentrations of
Blacks and Hispanics. These communities also suffer from higher
unemployment and poverty rates compared to the rest of the
country, yet the EPA's regressive energy tax threatens to push
minorities and low-income Americans even further into poverty.
We have got statistics which you have written there. I am
not going to go through those now. I want to move on to the
National Ozone Air Quality Standard.
The second regulation that I want to address today is that
ozone proposed rule. Just last week, the EPA finalized a new
ozone standard--tightening it from 75 parts per billion to 70
parts per billion. While the agency adopted the higher end of
the range under consideration, a 70 ppb ozone standard still
will increase the number of areas in the country in
``nonattainment.'' This nonattainment classification will
severely limit economic and employment opportunities in the
affected areas. Unfortunately, this tightened ozone standard
likely will hurt not only the Nation as a whole, but will
disproportionately affect America's urban, low-income, and
minority businesses.
If a community comes in below the 70 parts per billion, it
will be deemed ``in attainment,'' and the usual amounts of
construction, infrastructure projects, development, and other
elements of a healthy and growing economy can continue. These
activities create jobs and generate revenue. On the flip side,
the EPA wields a heavy stick for communities that are deemed in
``nonattainment.'' It can step in and overrule State decisions
to issue permits, stopping development and growth, with no
consideration of the financial impact or loss of jobs. Air
permits, in particular, can be difficult to obtain because
companies building or expanding facilities will have to show
ozone reductions from other sources. These offsets can be
expensive and hard to obtain. For example, in the Houston area,
offset prices are $175,000 per ton of nitrogen oxide and
$275,000 per ton of volatile organic compounds.
In conclusion, the National Black Chamber of Commerce and
its members value and support clean air, clean water, and
environmental quality, and we recognize the importance of
regulations protecting those things. We also value and support
economic growth, job creation, and prosperity for our
individual members and this country as a whole. These are not
mutually exclusive goals, and one does not have to be
sacrificed for the other.
We appreciate the Committee holding this hearing and
highlighting these critical issues. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any
questions. The National Black Chamber of Commerce is going to
roll on and make this a better and better Nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alford appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Alford. I want to thank each
of the witnesses for your very fine testimony. I think this
hearing has powerfully illustrated that many of the people
paying the biggest price for the economic stagnation we have
seen for the last 6\1/2\ years are the most vulnerable among
us; that overregulating is stifling opportunity for people who
want to achieve the American dream.
Indeed, the numbers are sobering. If you compare overall
median income in this country in 2009, it was just over
$54,000. In 2013, it had dropped to $51,939. That is a decrease
for the average family of $2,120, or 4 percent, median income
has gone down. I would contrast that to what occurred during
the 8 years of Ronald Reagan's administration when the Federal
Government did not engage in overregulation, and, indeed,
President Reagan pulled back the regulatory burden on small
businesses. During those 8 years, median income for the average
American family increased $5,555, or 12 percent. That is a real
difference for an average family, whether your household income
drops four percent or goes up 12 percent.
Indeed, the contrast is even starker when you look at
minority households. Under President Obama, between 2009 and
2013, the median income for African-American households has
dropped $789, roughly 2.2 percent. In contrast, under President
Reagan, between 1981 and 1989, the median income for African-
American households rose $5,008. That is 18 percent.
It is worth thinking about for everyone here who is
concerned about allowing those who are struggling to have an
opportunity to achieve the American dream, the marked
difference for Black families, your median income dropping 2.2
percent versus rising 18 percent under Reagan's economic
policies.
Looking to the Hispanic community, under President Obama
the median income for Hispanic families has dropped between
2009 and 2013 $349, roughly 0.8 percent. In contrast, under
President Reagan, between 1981 and 1989, the median income for
Hispanic families rose $2,160, roughly 5.7 percent. These
policies make a real difference in the lives of millions of
Americans who are struggling. An extra $5,000 a year for a
family that is trying to make ends meet makes an enormous
difference.
I would note in the Hispanic community there are roughly
2.3 million Hispanic small business owners, roughly 1 in 8
Hispanic households is a small business owner. This is
something I know personally because my household was one of
them. My father, who came as an immigrant from Cuba with
nothing, with $100 in his underwear, who could not speak
English, who washed dishes making 50 cents an hour, he and my
mother, when I was a little boy, they started a small business
together. The Hispanic community is a tremendously
entrepreneurial community, and yet these barriers are making it
harder and harder for Hispanics and African Americans and
anyone who wants a better dream, a better opportunity for their
family to start small businesses and to survive.
Mr. Barrera, as the former president of the U.S. Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, can you describe some of the challenges
that your members faced in dealing with regulations, red tape,
and Government bureaucracy?
Mr. Barrera. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I
believe a lot of them are facing what we are calling this
``overregulation.'' I know I have heard people talk here today
about regulation that everybody is against. I do not think that
is what we are saying. What we are saying is overregulation is
killing initiative. It is killing people to go and achieve much
more.
What we have seen from the Hispanic community, a lot of
them are being forced to open businesses because they do not
have jobs. Many have become part-time workers, and they need to
go into business in order to survive. Most of them want--most
people, they want to comply with the rules and regulations.
They do not want to cheat. They want to do the right thing. It
is becoming so confusing nowadays that they do not know which
way to turn. They want to be able to provide for their families
and be a great business and be a great partner with their
customers. They spend so much time, like some of the examples
we heard today, trying to comply and not make any mistakes.
They do not know which way to turn. One of the best examples I
can say that they have problems with, ``Do I need to get a
lawyer? Do I need to get an accountant? Do I need to go to
Washington, DC? I do not have money for any of that. I need to
be able to do business.''
That is probably the best way to respond to your question
at this point.
Chairman Cruz. You know, one of the things I have tried to
do in my time in the Senate is host small business roundtables
across the State of Texas, bring small business owners and
listen to their concerns. Every one of these roundtables, I
just open it up and say, ``Share the biggest issues that are
weighing on your heart, the biggest challenges you are
facing.'' I have never held a small business roundtable in the
State of Texas where at least half of the small business owners
did not list Obamacare as the single biggest impediment to
their small business surviving and creating jobs, the
consistency with which small business owners say that over and
over again. Of course, small businesses produce two-thirds of
all new jobs, so if small businesses are being hammered, that
in turn has a direct result on the jobs that are available to
people.
One study by the American Action Forum finds that Obamacare
is reducing small businesses between 20 and 99 employees pay,
the salary you are taking home, by at least $22.6 billion
annually, and that the laws, regulations, and increasing
premiums have reduced employment by more than 350,000 jobs
nationwide.
In Texas, for example, the study finds that workers and
businesses with 50 to 99 workers are seeing upwards of $1,000
less in take-home pay and a nearly 20-percent increase in
premiums because of Obamacare. Texas small businesses with 20
to 49 employees have shed nearly 30,000 jobs since Obamacare
came into effect.
Mr. Barrera, can you talk about the impact of Obamacare on
small businesses?
Mr. Barrera. We have seen the same thing. In fact, there
was a business in Texas, a restaurant owner. He actually forgo
opening a second restaurant because of the expenses of
Obamacare. It is not because they do not want the people
insured, but the way it was written, it is so confusing for
people, and nobody has been able to find this answer: Why did
we drop the work week from 40 hours to 30 hours? Small
businesses are not dumb. They are there to make a profit. When
you start raising the cost of hiring people and imposing more
costs like Obamacare on them, they are going to find another
way to cut costs. As we all know, businesses, when they want to
cut costs, they cut employees. Like it or not, that is what the
first expense they are going to do.
I would like to know, and I think a lot of businesses I
talk to, they would like to know why did we drop the hours from
the 40-hour work week to the 30-hour work week? Because that is
all it has done, is hurt more people and cause more part-time
jobs. The scariest thing are the children and the teenagers,
because now because we have got a lot of retirees and people
who used to work full-time, they are now part-time, which has
pushed out the youth. That has hurt a lot of people.
Chairman Cruz. Ms. Loving, I want to thank you for your
particularly powerful testimony. That is testimony I think
every American should watch. The nightly news should put your
testimony on television because it tells a uniquely American
story of struggling to create a business and facing powerful
interests coming against you.
I want to ask you, Ms. Loving, who gets hurt by
overregulation and by occupational licensing laws putting
barriers to forming a small business?
Ms. Loving. Thank you, Senator Cruz. The consumers get hurt
because it creates barrier to entry for small businesses.
Bigger firms can absorb costs, where an extra $1,000 to my
bottom line is significant because I am dealing with a limited
number of resources. If there is not enough competition, then
consumers are stuck with the big firms. They have fewer
choices. There are fewer options, and it becomes a monopoly of
sorts. They have no other options but to pay exorbitant fees
for tax prep fees that really do not do anything special for
them at all.
Chairman Cruz. You mentioned also that these regulations
benefited the rich and powerful, those with lobbying influence
in Washington, those who had law degrees or accounting degrees.
For someone that wanted to start a small business in the South
Side of Chicago, you did not have the same lobbyists working on
your behalf.
Ms. Loving. I do not have the same resources, so,
therefore, I do not have people coming to Congress and talking
to the elected officials on my behalf. It's just me, and there
are 300,000 other people just like me.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you for telling your story, and thank
you for standing up to the power of Government and the power of
big money and lobbying trying to put barriers in the way to
your starting your business, your creating jobs, and your
helping your community.
Ms. Loving. I appreciate being invited.
Chairman Cruz. Mr. Alford, I want to ask a final question.
Mr. Alford. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cruz. The National Black Chamber of Commerce, you
described a study that you recently did on the EPA's climate
change regulations, and, in particular one result of that study
caught my attention, which is that the National Black Chamber
of Commerce concluded that the EPA's new rules could cost as
many as 125,000 African Americans in Texas their jobs and an
even more astounding 325,000 Hispanics in Texas their jobs.
Those are staggering numbers, and those are numbers in the
minority community.
Mr. Alford. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cruz. People that want to have a fair chance to
achieve the American dream. Mr. Alford, what would you suggest
that a politician who supports these rules say to the 125,000
African Americans in Texas who will lose their jobs under them,
to the 325,000 Hispanics who will lose their jobs, how should a
politician justify his or her support for rules costing them
their likelihood?
Mr. Alford. Honestly, I want to be honest and looking at it
as it is, for what it is, and smile or try to justify it. There
are 10 million nationally, 10 million jobs nationally, and we
have not rebounded from 2008. People who get billions of
dollars from environmental organizations, and we have to scrub
along and, you know, make $20,000 here, $20,000 there, but we
carry the weight. One of the strangest thing that happened,
sir, last week I was in Paris working on a plan with our Paris
chapter to where we have got a $80 billion commitment from some
philanthropists in France that are going to fund electrical
projects in Africa. We are going to do this with the African-
American contractors, engineers, infrastructure, and take it
over to Africa and start lighting up the villages and such.
The interesting thing is, though, the French are very
strong on the Kyoto Treaty, very strong on environmentalism,
but their approach is if it cannot be done, it cannot be done.
We have to wait until the technology catches up. They do not
put a gun to your head and say, ``You have got to do this or go
out of business.'' That is what I thought was very interesting,
that they have a common-sense approach to it. We are going to
put in a clean Africa electrical grid, and we are going to be
friendly to the Earth. If we tried to do that here in this
country under our rules, they would stop us dead in the tracks.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, sir. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Cruz. I am going to
defer my questioning to Senator Klobuchar given the press of
her time and schedule, if I might.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Coons, and
thank you, Chairman Cruz, and thank you, Senator Hatch. As I
look at Senator Coons and Senator Hatch, I think about the
regulatory work we have done together since I have gotten here.
I represented businesses for years in the private sector on
regulatory issues, so I understand some of the issues you are
talking about, Mr. Alford, and that is why Senator Coons and I
teamed up on doing something on the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act, on immigration, and Senator Hatch and I have done a lot of
work with medical devices and trying, not only on the tax side
but also the regulatory side, to make it easier for our
businesses.
At the same time, as a prosecutor and then as a mom, I have
seen how you need some regulations in place to protect the
safety and health of our citizens, to protect our clean air and
water, whether it is working on lead in children's toys--which
I know you are aware of, Mr. Mair, a bipartisan bill that we
passed, the formaldehyde work I did with Senator Crapo--that
there are times when you need regulations in place to protect
the people that we are supposed to be representing.
Mr. Narang, I think I would start with you in terms of, if
you want to talk just very briefly about an example of
regulations that you think have helped people, that you think
is important for the minority communities.
Mr. Narang. Sure. Thank you, Senator. I want to refer to a
current topic and a current issue of concern for minority
communities, and that is predatory lending. We are seeing
higher rates of predatory lending abuse of minorities than the
general public, and that should be a concern. I know it is a
concern for the minority community. I am glad--and Public
Citizen supports strong measures from the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau that will address predatory lending schemes
that are costing minorities sometimes their likelihoods. They
are definitely resulting in significant costs to our economy.
Senator Klobuchar. I guess that is a good segue to Mr.
Scott, because as I was hearing Senator Cruz talk about some of
those economic numbers, I think we know that part of the
difficulty was during a recession that minorities were
inordinately hit with foreclosures and other things because of
what was going on in the financial industry. Do you want to
comment either on that or what you see as some rules that would
be helpful to the minority community in terms of business as an
entrepreneur yourself? I really want to ask what it was like
working for Congresswoman Sewell, but I will leave that for
later. Go ahead.
Mr. Scott. Sure. I think that there are regulations that
help us, you know, that work along with business owners, that
are not stifling or that are holding businesses back in any
kind of way, but that help with clean food. Since I, a lot of
times deal with farmers, and a lot of times we deal with
putting seeds in the ground that have nourishment toward coming
into our bodies, and having regulations in place that require--
and having those nutrients in place, they help with our life as
a whole, because if we do not have things in place, we will not
actually be here today. I look at, too, within--looking in this
room, we have wood that is in here, that this building, this
table, and everything that is made out of wood. Without
regulation, would we have clean wood in here or would it be
contaminated? The carpet that we walk on, would the carpet be
the quality that it is, or would it just tear up as soon as it
is put down?
I think that those regulations, when working along with
business owners, can be something that is beneficial to
everybody.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Mair, I think we have
seen the studies and the numbers and you brought them up about
how minorities are inordinately hurt by environmental problems
or toxic waste sites and things like that. Do you want to
elaborate on that?
Mr. Mair. Yes. Again, the question was: Who gets hurt? Who
gets hurt happens to be the very communities that folks are
here claiming that this so-called policy or proposal would
benefit. It is a cruel irony. You know, 7 out of 10 African
Americans live in areas that are unsafe and were three times
more likely to be admitted to hospitals for asthma. More
importantly, when we talk about what are the benefits of the
Clean Power Plan, we are talking about a $54 billion estimated
worth in public health benefits and climate benefits. We are
talking about 3,600 fewer premature deaths. We are talking
about 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children, 1,700 heart
attacks, 1,700 fewer hospital admissions. When we are talking
about benefits, the benefits are real and tangible. The data,
again, support this.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you so much. Just two last things
I wanted to mention. One, I will not go into it. Maybe I will
ask you about it later in writing. Senator Collins and I last
year introduced something called the ``SCORE Act''--she is a
Republican Senator from Maine--to look back 5 years later at
some of these rules and regulations to see how they have, you
know, affected the economy and ways to look and see if we need
to make changes, to look at things in a measured way. I would
ask you to look at that.
I guess I just wanted to end with one set of rules that I
think cries out for change, and that is, immigration reform. I
know that the Hispanic Chamber, in which you are involved, has
been a supporter, as well as the Chamber of Commerce in
general, and we worked really hard on the Senate bill.
Particularly Senator Hatch and I worked on this issue of
entrepreneurs and bringing in entrepreneurs. The fact that 90
of our Fortune 500 companies were formed by immigrants, 200 of
them were formed by immigrants and kids of immigrants, 30
percent of our U.S. Nobel Laureates were born in other
countries, yet we literally allow for unlimited visas for Wild
hockey players. You may not cover our team, Mr. Barrera, or be
a fan, but that is our professional hockey team. All the hockey
players can come in from Canada, but the Mayo Clinic cannot
bring in a doctor because their spouse cannot work for 7 years,
or 3M cannot bring in an engineer. I just wondered if quickly
you two on either end here could just comment on your views on
getting immigration reform done from that entrepreneurial
standpoint.
Mr. Barrera. I think when it comes to workers, we have to
improve our legal immigration system, and we need reform. I do
not think anybody here would deny that. We need to work on
legal immigration so we get the best workers. This is a country
of immigrants, so we agree that we have to have some kind of
immigration reform that takes into account getting the workers
that the businesses need. Whether they be hockey players or
people in the agriculture, we need to have immigration reform,
and the LIBRE Institute stands ready to assist in any type of
reform.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. America is not--what we need is a program that
is logical and people can follow and have some integrity about
it. Eighty percent of the Black retail businesses in New York
City are owned and operated by the Africans or Caribbeans. They
come to work, they come with their skills, and we should
welcome them with open arms.
Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you very much. I also would
note it is one of Grover Norquist's top priorities because it
brings the debt down so significantly if we pass comprehensive
immigration reform. I will leave you with that note. Thank you
for being here.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you very much. Senator Hatch.
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barrera, I will
direct this question at you, but I want to make a few comments
before I actually form the question.
Federal regulations today impose by some estimates a burden
of about $1.88 trillion on the economy. That is roughly $15,000
for every single household in this country. It is more than
corporate and individual income taxes combined. Too much
regulation, especially too much outdated regulation, means
higher prices, smaller paychecks, and fewer jobs for
hardworking Americans. We know that the communities that are
struggling the most with the costly rules that I think this
administration and Washington bureaucrats keep piling up are
the ones that can least afford to do so.
Every President since Jimmy Carter has agreed on the need
to review our regulatory burden to make sure that it is no more
intrusive and burdensome. That is absolutely necessary.
Nevertheless, regulations keep accumulating year after year.
The Code of Federal Regulations is now more than 175,000 pages
and contains more than 200 volumes. According to a study by the
American Action Forum, the Obama administration's efforts to
review old rules actually added more than $23 billion in costs
to the economy and nearly 9 million hours of paperwork.
To turn this long-standing bipartisan commitment to
streamline our regulatory burden into a reality, we need to
take the responsibility of clearing out all regulations away
from the bureaucrats who keep failing at the job. That is why I
have introduced the SCRUB Act, which uses the successful model
of the independent BRAC Commission and applies it to get rid of
a big chunk of regulatory overreach and burden.
I just wonder if you agree with me that, far from providing
small businesses with relief from our crushing regulatory
burden, the Obama administration's regulations have made the
business environment much more challenging, especially for
minority-owned businesses. Do you agree with me that simply
relying on Washington bureaucrats to get rid of their own bad
regulation is like asking the proverbial bunch of foxes to
guard the chicken coop?
Mr. Barrera. Thank you for your question, Senator. I think
what most minority businesses and businesses in general--you
know, we used to talk about--my dad used to like to talk about
this. He goes, you know, ``When you work with Government, I do
not want your handout. I am not even concerned about your hand
up. I do not even want your handshake when it comes to
regulators. I just really want you to get out of my way because
I want to have the freedom to do business the best way I can.''
Regulators, like we talked about, for every law passed, they
pass 16 new regulations for every law passed. How can people do
that? They keep piling on one and the other. I can almost
guarantee you that any law that we have now, it is already
there. We do not need to go do more and do not need any more
new regulations, because I can guarantee you, it is already
there.
I do agree that we need to go in and see what we have so we
know what we have got to get rid of. I think one of the best
quotes I ever heard is from Colorado. You know, it is all fine
and great when we pass new laws, but come and tell me what you
got rid of, because the more you get rid of, that gives me more
freedom to do business.
I think everybody on this panel would agree we are not
against regulation. We want clean air. We want safe food.
Nobody is against that. It is the overregulation that is really
depressing the freedom and spirit and ingenuity and hard work,
attitudes of true Americans to prosper. We have talked about
some of the other things going on here. A lot of the problems
that we have here are due to poverty. Poverty occurs because
there is no economic ability to get out of poverty. If you keep
depressing businesses, particularly small businesses, to
prosper, you are only going to hurt poverty, and we need to
work on that.
Senator Hatch. Thank you. Mr. Sandefur, we have heard
extensive testimony about the explosive growth of Federal
regulations and their troubling effect on economic opportunity,
especially in minority communities. Despite these harmful
effects, regulations keep piling up, as both Mr. Barrera and I
have been saying, making the situation worse and worse with
each passing year.
This massive accumulation of regulations is due in large
part to the fact that the current process by which agencies
make regulations is utterly broken, from curtailing the
opportunity for meaningful input by the public to flouting the
legal requirements for transparency and accountability.
Given this mess, the courts are often the only practical
means of holding this out-of-control bureaucracy accountable.
Doesn't excessive deference by courts to agencies critically
limit that opportunity to hold the agencies accountable?
Instead, hasn't this deference allowed the agencies to expand
the scope of their power dramatically, allowing them to pile up
more and more damaging regulations?
Mr. Sandefur. Oh, yes, Senator, absolutely. The problem is
that courts defer so excessively to the administrative agencies
that agencies have become basically a fourth branch of
Government, unelected, hired--many of these administrative
agencies are staffed by members of Government unions so you
cannot even fire them if you have to--who write regulations,
investigate potential violations of those regulations, and then
punish people for violating those regulations in violation of
the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Courts
not only defer to their decision-making in general, but they
defer to their findings in ways that violate basic rules of due
process.
For example, a lot of the time administrative agencies will
hold informal hearings, and the evidence that they are allowed
to receive--they are not bound by the Federal Rules of
Evidence, and so they can receive evidence like hearsay, for
instance, which would be barred from a courtroom. Then when you
challenge, when you appeal from the administrative agency--and
you are always going to lose in front of the administrative
agency because the prosecutor is paying the judge, right? When
you appeal to the court, a lot of the time--this is especially
true of State courts--the courts are locked. They are not
allowed to receive any more evidence than what the
administrative agency already received. Evidence that would
never have been admitted in a courtroom, like hearsay evidence,
becomes the only evidence that the judge is later able to
consider when he considers the appeal. That is in violation of
basic principles of due process.
We need a judiciary that is more skeptical toward
administrative agencies that are unelected agencies, that enjoy
often extremely broad power to regulate in whatever they think
is the public interest without any checks and balances. That is
what the courts are supposed to provide, and, unfortunately,
they have fallen short many times.
Senator Hatch. I have gone over my time, but let me just
make one comment. You know, it is said by many people that the
D.C. Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals
are so pro-regulation--and they are the courts that hear these
matters more than almost any other.
Mr. Sandefur. Right.
Senator Hatch. Frankly, almost always find on the side of
the regulatory bodies. I think they have got to wake up and
start realizing that they are part of the problem as well. I am
very concerned about it because, you know, we see minorities--
not just minorities but minorities in particular--who are just
getting killed by this overregulatory nature of our society. I
am hoping we can get that SCRUB Act through. That would start
to peel through all these overregulatory approaches and allow
the good regulations to stay.
Mr. Sandefur. If I may agree with that, one of the big
problems is that we do not know the costs of regulation, and we
cannot assess those costs because the costs of regulation
typically take the form of the businesses that are never
started, the projects that are never begun, the people who look
at how difficult it is and say, ``Well, why should I even
bother?''
When we hear statistics that say, well, existing businesses
are fine with the regulatory burden, of course they are. They
are already in business. They can afford to absorb those costs.
Entrepreneurs, they cannot. Very often they give up, and then
we never see the wealth that they could have created but which
was stifled by the regulatory burdens.
Senator Hatch. Sometimes we justify this overregulatory
approach because of the ills of our society, but we have got to
have the guts to get involved and look at the stuff that we do
not need and get rid of it and save the trillions of dollars
that we are losing right now because of this overregulatory
nature of our society. I think it is very important for the
minority community throughout the country to take this on and
start realizing that, you know, the Federal Government is not
the last answer to everything. Frankly, in many ways it is the
impediment in our society because we do not get rid of the bad
stuff. Yet you still have to comply with a lot of bad things
that really tear up especially minority businesses.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also the
distinguished Senator from Delaware, for allowing me to go over
a little bit. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for being
here today. It has been very helpful.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, Senator Hatch. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Cruz. Mr. Narang, given
what your research as well as the research by OMB and other
independent organizations has found about some of the positive
effects of regulation on our economy, and, in particular,
protection and promotion of health and other concerns of the
minority community, how do you explain or respond to testimony
we have heard today from a number of witnesses that regulations
are principally responsible for killing jobs?
Mr. Narang. Thank you, Senator. I do want to make clear and
I know my testimony makes clear that regulation obviously does
provide benefits. I know a lot of the discussion so far has not
centered on that. It is very true that there are opportunity
costs, if you will, of not regulating. I think we saw that very
clearly in the Wall Street crash. Deregulation led to many of
the economic woes that we are currently experiencing now, and
it is clear that numbers dating back from 2010 do track the
severe damage that was caused to our economy.
Let me also just back up and say in terms of setting policy
priorities, in terms of determining what are good regulations
that are worthwhile, it is very important to keep regulatory
benefits in mind and to make decisions based on regulatory
benefits as well as costs. I think a simple analogy probably
shows how intuitive this is.
When you go to a grocery store, you are not just looking at
the cost of the food as the only determining factor as to
whether you would buy food. Of course, in that instance you
would not buy any food. It is a little bit difficult to
determine sometimes, just as with the regulatory State, what
the benefit of that food is, but clearly it is a critical
benefit with respect to livelihood.
You know, if you look at the macro level, the same thing
applies when making policy decisions on regulatory policy. The
benefits have to be taken into consideration.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Narang. Mr. Mair, can you
just elaborate on that point with respect to environmental
regulations and how they affect minority communities and how we
should do the cost-benefit analysis?
Mr. Mair. Yes, Senator Coons. In our 40-year history of the
Clean Air Act, public health safeguards in the economy have
actually prospered with regards to cleaning up air and water.
In fact, under Clean Air, we have actually seen these
safeguards improve and actually grow new businesses. In fact,
under the President's Clean Power Plan, it is projected that by
2020, under these low standards, modest standards, over 360,000
jobs will be created.
The real issue, I think, as has been pointed out on one
level, because there is a little bit of a bait-and-switch here,
is that while we are saying it is collapsing industry and, as
my colleague to my left has mentioned, that his business has to
go to Africa to implement a Clean Power Standard, the fact of
the matter is that the big coal and big carbon, big oil
industry is absolutely stifling that opportunity. We can
actually have that job creation here in the United States right
now. It was in the United States where we talk about the solar
and wind industry was born, but yet through the big cartels,
those opportunities have been pushed off.
We talk about real jobs lost and really repowering and
retooling America and getting America back on a green, clean
footing, while at the same time reducing ozone and greenhouse
gases and, as I say, improving our climate. Again, you know,
these are things that are under the control right now or heavy
influence of the big carbon and big oil industry. Blocking the
President's efforts under the Clean Power Plan I think actually
really is the real test of, as I say, doing real economic harm
to the average American community.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Mr. Narang, do you agree with the
claims that were just being debated there? Mr. Alford earlier
made claims that the Clean Power Plan will result in job loss
and increased energy costs and rising poverty among Hispanic
and African American communities?
Mr. Narang. Public Citizen strongly supports the Clean
Power Plan, and it is not just because it is a win for the
environment. It is also a win for consumers. We are doing
ground-breaking research right now looking State by State at
the actual benefits to consumers in terms of lower electricity
prices, partially including the energy efficiency measures in
the Clean Power Plan, not just the carbon regulation measures.
What you are seeing is that, across the board, consumers would
see lower electricity prices, and they would see higher
electricity prices, of course, in the absence of the Clean
Power Plan.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I also--well, my time has
expired. I will let you do another round, if you want. Are we
going to do a second round?
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, Senator Coons.
You know, it is rather striking. This is a hearing on
overregulation, and yet as I review both the written testimony
and the oral testimony of the three witnesses invited by the
Democrats--Mr. Narang, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Mair--none of the
three of you have identified even a single example of
overregulation. I am curious if it is your collective view that
every regulation is a good thing, that it never goes too far,
that more and more Government power over our lives is always
good. Is there not really one example of overregulation that
any of the Democratic witnesses here can point to.
Mr. Narang. Senator, I am sure there is. I would say that
those who are pushing for less regulation, it is incumbent upon
them to demonstrate those examples of overregulation. I will
say that I have been quite surprised that we hear in the
abstract instances of massive amounts of overregulation, but
there are very few examples that are offered, very few
detailed, technical regulations that folks are saying, you
know, justify massive reforms to the regulatory process that
would stop regulations----
Chairman Cruz. I take it that that answer is a no, then,
that you cannot identify a single example of overregulation.
Mr. Narang. I believe I can. I would have to get back to
you on that.
Chairman Cruz. As you sit here today you cannot. In
preparing your testimony, you did not. Is that correct?
Mr. Narang. Again, I think it is incumbent on those who
believe that overregulation is the current most pressing
problem in our regulatory system to demonstrate those examples.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you. That is a no.
You know, Mr. Mair, I found it very interesting, when you
took over at Sierra Club, you were quoted in a High Country
News interview as saying that it was your goal to change things
and to be a change agent, to make sure that ``when laws and
regulations are fashioned, they are not advantaging one group
over another,'' which was a very interesting statement. I am
curious which regulations in particular you were referring to
that were benefiting one group over another.
Mr. Mair. Right now the most pressing regulations
benefiting one group over another is the insistence by the
carbon industry, as I say, to maintain the status quo at the
expense of, say, opportunities with regard to the development
and advancement of clean power. I think that, you know, we have
a huge opportunity here, when we talk about regulation and our
transition from dirty power to clean power, to advance new
alternatives. We should not have to have African Americans
going to Africa to green and put in their smart grid and green
grid in Africa. We should be financing those incentives here
in, say, Detroit or here in New York. The opportunity of where
and how regulations are employed, you know, are very, very
critical and clear.
From the point of justice, when we talk about justice, in
other words, regulations or what we call ``safeguards,'' it is
about the equal protection and enforcement of the law. The
question is--so when we talk about regulations and regulatory
reform, in this case safeguards that are protective of human
health, we need to look at some of the communities that are
being----
Chairman Cruz. Mr. Mair, I want to keep the focus of the
hearing on the topic of the hearing, which is, in particular,
the burdens on the minority community of overregulation. You
mentioned that your organization disagrees with the Black
National Chamber of Commerce's conclusion about the impact of
the Obama administration's climate change rules on jobs. In
your view, how----
Mr. Mair. No, I did not say that, sir.
Chairman Cruz. You do not disagree with this study?
Mr. Mair. I disagree with this study.
Chairman Cruz. Right. That is what I just said.
Mr. Mair. Yes, Okay.
Chairman Cruz. You mentioned you disagree with that study.
Mr. Mair. Yes, sir.
Chairman Cruz. In your judgment, how many jobs will those
new regulations cost?
Mr. Mair. The answer is it will not cost. The opportunity--
it will create jobs. I think that one of the things that we
need to look at is the data that are supplied by an independent
study that was done by the EPA using Department of Labor data,
and, in fact, what it showed that by 2020, we will actually
have a net increase of 360,000 jobs.
Chairman Cruz. How much will it drive up the electricity
bill of the average consumer to put these massive new
regulations on the generation of electric power?
Mr. Mair. Actually, sir, it will not drive up the cost of
the average consumer. In fact, the Clean Power Plan would
reduce cost.
Chairman Cruz. I am curious. Is it your position that over
the last 6\1/2\ years the average consumer's electric bill has
gone up or down?
Mr. Mair. Sir, the Clean Power Plan, the proposals and
safeguards under it have just been promulgated.
Chairman Cruz. You said a minute ago, when I asked is there
any regulation that is bad, you could not point to a single
regulation in 175,000 pages. My question is: The last 6\1/2\--
we have had 6\1/2\ years of this administration putting
oppressive environmental regulations in place, and you said,
well, this new wave of regulations, it is not going to impact
any jobs, it is not going to impact electricity bills. My
question is simple: Have consumers' electric bills gone up or
gone down in the last 6\1/2\ years?
Mr. Mair. Sir, the test is in the pudding. When we see the
Clean Power Plan fully implemented----
Chairman Cruz. I am asking about the pudding today, though,
not the future pudding, because I am willing to bet 6\1/2\
years ago you made the same predictions that the onerous
regulations being put in place then were not going to cost any
jobs, were not going to raise electric bills. Were you right?
Mr. Mair. Senator, when we talk about existing status quo,
right now, doing nothing is costing jobs. Doing nothing is
poisoning our economy. Doing nothing is taking human health.
When we talk about the Clean Power Plan and, as I say, the new
policies that are moving forward, shifting to this new clean,
green economy will actually create jobs, not reduce them, sir.
Chairman Cruz. I think the record will reflect and the
facts will reflect that the average consumer's electric bills
have gone up dramatically, despite promises that that would not
happen.
Mr. Mair. Under the existing old regime, sir.
Chairman Cruz. You are right, under the existing Obama
EPA----
Mr. Mair. Old--no, not--sir, under the existing carbon
regime, sir.
Chairman Cruz. The existing Obama EPA has driven up
electric bills dramatically and has cost already vast numbers
of jobs.
A final question. Mr. Sandefur, you talked quite powerfully
about occupational licensing in a host of areas. I want to ask
you the same question I asked Ms. Loving. Who gets hurt by
these laws? Who do they benefit? Why are they put in place?
Mr. Sandefur. Laws like these typically go in place because
entrenched industry, which has influence with the regulatory
agencies, is able to flex its muscle and excuse what it is
doing as, oh, well, we are protecting the public. Force an
interior decorator to get a 2-year college degree before they
are allowed to decorate houses, and that is good for the
public. I guess it would be a better thing if interior
decorators had a college degree than if they did not. Those
interior decorators who do have a college degree and so they
get licenses, they will report, ``Oh, we are perfectly fine
with the regulations. We have no problem with the
regulations.'' Then you will have witnesses up here saying,
``Existing businesses have no problem with the regulations,''
right? It is the entrepreneurs who wanted to get jobs in that
industry who are blocked from doing so, who have to go get a
job somewhere else or get no job at all, those are the unseen
costs of the regulation, and that factors into the increased
costs to the consumer, which raises prices, as you mentioned.
Of course, therefore, that is--and that is what Ms. Loving
said. It harms consumers because they have less choice and they
pay more.
I am much more focused on the rights of entrepreneurs, the
wealth--the people who create the wealth that you people all
redistribute, they are the people whose rights I am concerned
with, and they are very often blocked from the opportunity that
this country is supposed to promise by laws that require a
third of them to get Government permission before they can do
their job for things as simple as floristry. Louisiana has a
law that says you have to have a license to be a florist. That
is obviously absurd. It is so absurd, no other State has a law
like that. It does not protect the consumer. It protects
entrenched industries against legitimate competition from
entrepreneurs.
Chairman Cruz. Mr. Sandefur, are there successful American
businesses that began with humble beginnings long ago that
would be illegal today or impossible based on this current wall
of regulations?
Mr. Sandefur. Oh, of course. A hundred years ago, an
immigrant or a Black entrepreneur could paint the word ``Taxi''
on the side of his car, and there you go, right? As long as he
is insured, as long as he does not run somebody over--and if he
does, he is going to get punished for that by the existing
regulations, and those are safety regulations everybody on this
panel would agree with. Under today's laws, in most States and
metropolitan areas, they would have to get permission from
their own competition before they can startup a taxi business.
We have all read the headlines about Uber, but it is not just
Uber that is an example of this. My client, Maurice Underwood,
wants to start a moving business. How harmless can you get, a
moving business? He should be allowed to paint the word
``Mover'' on the side of his truck and go into business.
Instead, he has to get approved to--hire a lawyer, go to a
hearing, and prove to Government bureaucrats that his business
would ``foster sound economic conditions,'' which nobody knows
what that means.
These businesses stifle entrepreneurship, and to hear
people--these witnesses say, ``Oh, well, everything is fine.
Industry is fine. We do not see any job loss,'' it reminds me
of the story of the man who jumped off the 100-story building,
and as he passes the 50th floor says, ``Well, so far, so
good.'' That is the problem that we have got when it comes to
the economy in this country. We have a healthy economy that
could recover if we would let it. Too many rules mean that we
cannot let it. I could spend the entire day listing the bad
regulations that these other witnesses have somehow been unable
to identify, but we all have time to worry about.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you very much, Mr. Sandefur. Senator
Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Cruz. If I might, Mr.
Mair, Mr. Alford testified earlier that the new EPA ozone
regulations will harm minority communities and that the Clean
Power Plan will harm minority communities. Do you agree with
that? What evidence do you point to? Frankly, Mr. Alford cited
a study by the Black Chamber of Commerce, and I am wondering if
the Sierra Club has any competing sources of information that
they would like to point to?
Mr. Mair. Yes. One of the things that we definitely rely
upon is the EPA data, and according to our studies, actually,
you know, the ozone studies are one of the critical pieces
whereby, you know, our human health would be greatly impacted
and affected, sir. Specifically--
[Pause.]
Senator Coons. Mr. Mair, if I might give you a minute to
sort of work through any answer to that, I am going to move on
to other witnesses, if I might.
Mr. Mair. Please.
Senator Coons. Mr. Scott--let me just--Mr. Alford, you have
said that on behalf of 2 million African-American owned
businesses you oppose environmental regulations, the ACA, Dodd-
Frank, a range of things--and I may be mischaracterizing your
testimony, so feel free to correct me--because they have
largely caused job loss at minority-owned businesses rather
than creating opportunities.
Mr. Alford. I did not mention Dodd-Frank, but it certainly
is an example. It dried up money on the street. The SBA will
not even print their numbers of 7(a) loans to Black businesses
because they are so ashamed. They have locked it up. The
Export-Import Bank wanted our help because they were being de-
authorized. I asked them to give me one loan they have made to
a Black business anywhere in this world. I have been waiting 6
months for that answer. They do not do it. We are on our own.
We have no small business government, and we are finding other
ways.
The San Francisco chapter has put in a $200 million
development with Shanghai money through EB-5 visas. We had to
get creative. Our own banks are not going to do it, so we will
find a way.
In terms of asthma, there is no source to say how asthma is
formed. There is no cure for asthma. Asthma has increased as
the ozone has gone down. I grew up in Los Angeles. Let me tell
you, we have improved the air a whole lot. When you are playing
football on Saturday afternoon in L.A. in 90-degree weather, we
have improved a whole lot. Asthma has gotten worse. There is no
correlation between ozone and asthma.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Alford. Mr. Scott, as a
minority business owner yourself and someone who works
regularly with minority business entrepreneurs, do the
positions Mr. Alford is taking and his characterization of the
impact on regulation represent you fairly as a minority
business owner?
Mr. Scott. I would say that it does not, and the reason I
say that is that I think that one thing that we have been able
to do through businesses that I have worked along with and also
with Small Business Development Centers across this Nation that
are available is to use more of a cooperative approach of
businesses working together to find people maybe who have
actually went through the system and may have became--followed
regulations, became qualified, and bringing them in as an
expert, and then sharing that knowledge to work as a team to
make sure that we can help businesses that want to get
certified or go through regulations of that nature. That was a
way that I think that we was able to avoid some things maybe
other people worked through, because we tried to communicate
and work together. I think that when businesses work together
as a team, just like the same rules of playing sports, when you
work together as a team and we all have rules, you use those
rules to your advantage toward making things work instead of
fighting against the rules that are in place. Rules are not
there.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Scott. If I might, Mr.
Chairman, just noting the passage of time, I would just like to
put into the record a letter from the U.S. Black Chambers, an
African-American-led business organization with over 100 self-
sustaining Black Chamber members around the country----
Mr. Alford. That is not true. That has been proven in a
court of law. That is not true.
Senator Coons. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. Yes, sir.
Senator Coons. I am speaking. Thank you very much.
Mr. Alford. Sorry.
Senator Coons. Forgive me. The letter that I am going to
enter into the record from the president, Mr. Busby, says,
among other things, that studies have shown African Americans
are suffering an increase in asthma and respiratory issues in
no small part because many Black families live near power
plants and areas with unhealthy ozone levels. It goes on to
support the Clean Power Plan as the solution that will reduce
health-related respiratory risks, and that strikes me as just a
point in counterpoint that is worth raising.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Coons. If I might, Mr. Mair, did you want to make a
closing point before I run out of time?
Mr. Mair. Yes, I think that the blanket statement that
there is no correlation between ozone and asthma, it just flies
in the face of the studies by the American Lung Association, as
well as our research, the CDC. These are some of the biggest
triggers with regards to asthma, you know, with regards to air
quality. I think that one of the big--as I say, the big dirty
dozen, greenhouse gas, but also by the same token, it is one of
those areas where, you know, if you look at the studies and the
areas where populations have high asthma risk in ozone levels,
the studies are there to support that.
Senator Coons. If I might, in closing, the Union of
Concerned Scientists, which was not represented here today, has
also raised some questions and concerns.
Mr. Chairman, if I might enter into the record a post from
the Union of Concerned Scientists that raises issues based on
the EPA's own cost-benefit analysis, studies from the NAACP
about the racially disparate impact of pollution on minorities,
cites a recent study by the University of Maryland, that all
conclude that the Clean Power Plan may, in fact, have a net
positive impact on minority communities and raises some serious
questions about the Black Chamber of Commerce of study that was
relied upon by Mr. Alford in his testimony.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Senator Coons. I think this is a subject of active dispute.
I do, in the interest of time, want to thank all the witnesses
who testified here today, and I look forward to further
hearings with the Chairman.
Chairman Cruz. Thank you, Senator Coons, and I would like
to go back briefly to Mr. Mair.
In your written testimony, you said that the science behind
climate change and its effect on minority communities quote,
``should not be up for debate.'' I am curious. Is the Sierra
Club--is this a frequent practice to declare areas of science
not up for debate, not up for consideration of what the
evidence and data show?
Mr. Mair. If you are relying on the evidence and data, you
know, the science, the preponderance of the evidence are there.
Chairman Cruz. That is a different thing than saying we
should not debate a question, that the Sierra Club has declared
this scientific issue resolved and there should be no debate?
Mr. Mair. Based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the
science is settled. The thing is that anything is up for
debate, Senator. We can debate anything.
Chairman Cruz. You know, I would note that even the phrase
``preponderance of the evidence,'' having been a practicing
lawyer for many years, means 51 percent. That means that 49--at
least 51 percent is what the preponderance means. You know, I
would ask, for example, if you want to end debate, you do not
want to address the facts, how do you address the fact that in
the last 18 years the satellite data show no demonstrable
warming whatsoever?
Mr. Mair. Sir, I would rely upon the Union of Concerned
Scientists, and I would rely upon the evidence, again, from our
own NOAA officials. The data are there.
Chairman Cruz. Is it correct that the satellite data over
the last 18 years demonstrate no significant warming?
Mr. Mair. No.
Chairman Cruz. How is it incorrect?
Mr. Mair. Based upon our experts, it has been refuted long
ago, and there is no long--it is not up for scientific debate.
Chairman Cruz. I am curious. It is--I want to understand
this. I do find it highly interesting that the president of the
Sierra Club, when asked what the satellite data demonstrate
about warming, apparently is relying on staff, so--the nice
thing about the satellite data is these are objective numbers.
Mr. Mair. Correct.
Chairman Cruz. The numbers over the last 18 years---are you
familiar with the phrase ``the pause''?
[Pause.]
Mr. Mair. The answer is yes, and essentially we rest on our
position.
Chairman Cruz. To what you said, you are familiar with the
pause, so to what does the phrase ``the pause'' refer? I am
sorry. You said you were familiar with that term, so I asked to
what does it refer.
Mr. Mair. Essentially, it is the slowing of global warming
during the 1940's, sir.
Chairman Cruz. During the 1940's. Is it not the term that
global warming alarmists have used to explain the inconvenient
truth, to use a phrase popularized by former Vice President Al
Gore, that the satellite data over the last 18 years
demonstrate no significant warming whatsoever? Global warming
alarmists call that ``the pause'' because the computer models
say there should be dramatic warming, and yet the actual
satellites taking the measurement do not show any significant
warming.
Mr. Mair. Senator, 97 percent of the scientists concur and
agree that there is global warming, an anthropogenic impact
with regard to----
Chairman Cruz. The problem with that statistic that gets
cited a lot is it is based on one bogus study--and, indeed,
your response--I would point to your response--is quite
striking. I asked about the science and the evidence, the
actual data. We have satellites. They are measuring
temperature. That should be relevant. Your answer was, ``Pay no
attention to your lying eyes and the numbers that the
satellites show. Instead, listen to the scientists who are
receiving massive grants who tell us do not debate the
science.''
Mr. Mair. Sir, this is one of the national pastimes in
America, and while we are debating what 97 percent of
scientists have already settled, the 3 percent that we, as I
say, have invested in with regards to the carbon industry, you
know, our planet is cooking and heating up and warming. This is
one of the reasons why with regards----
Chairman Cruz. Hold on a second. It is the Sierra Club's
position that right now the Earth is cooking up and heating and
warming? Is that the Sierra Club's--I mean, I just want to
quote you and understand your----
Mr. Mair. I am saying I concur with 97 percent of our--as I
say, of the world's scientists with regards to global warming
and the anthropogenic effects of mankind with regards to
climate.
Chairman Cruz. Sir, would you answer the question? Is it
the Sierra Club's position, as you just testified, that the
Earth is cooking up and heating and warming right now? Is that
the Sierra Club's position?
Mr. Mair. Global temperatures are on the rise, sir.
Chairman Cruz. I assume the Sierra Club would issue a
public retraction if confronted with the facts that the data
are precisely as I described, that over the last 18 years there
has been no significant warming, and, indeed, that is why
global warming alarmists invented the term ``the pause'' to
explain what they call ``the pause in global warming'' because
the data demonstrate what you just said, that the Earth is
cooking and warming, is not back up by the data?
Mr. Mair. We are concurring with 97 percent of the
scientists that absolutely say the opposite, sir.
Chairman Cruz. If the data are contrary to your testimony,
would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?
Mr. Mair. Sir, we concur with the 97 percent scientific
consensus with regards to global warming.
Chairman Cruz. I would like to----
Senator Coons. Mr. Chairman, if i----
Chairman Cruz. Certainly in a moment, but I would like to
repeat the question and get an answer. If the data are contrary
to your testimony, would the Sierra Club issue a retraction?
Mr. Mair. We concur with 97 percent of the scientists that
believe that the anthropogenic impacts of mankind with regards
to global warming are true.
Chairman Cruz. Does that mean you are not willing to answer
the question?
Mr. Mair. We concur with the preponderance of the evidence
and the science that 97 percent--you are asking me if we would
take the three percent over the 97 percent----
Chairman Cruz. No, I am actually not asking about a survey
among scientists. I am asking about the objective data, the
numbers.
Mr. Mair. The scientists rely upon their objective data and
their analysis, and 97 percent have concurred and conclude that
global warming is indeed a fact.
Chairman Cruz. You know, Mr. Mair, I find it striking that
for a public policy organization that purports to focus
exclusively on environmental issues that you are not willing to
tell this Committee that you would issue a retraction if your
testimony is objectively false under scientific data. That
undermines the credibility of any organization if you will
persist in a political position regardless of what the science
shows, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence, and
regardless of the data. That is not consistent, I would
suggest, with sound public policy.
Mr. Mair. Sir, you can pick whatever and cherrypick
whatever data you wish, but I concur with the 97 percent of
scientists who concur that global warming is a fact.
Chairman Cruz. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just simply
wanted to observe that we have a broadly representative and
qualified group of folks who were brought here to talk about
overregulation and its impact on minority communities, and I do
not speak for the Sierra Club, obviously, but it is my hope and
expectation that if you want to pursue that line of inquiry
with them further, they would be happy to. My assumption is
that we will continue to focus on the subject of the hearing at
hand.
Chairman Cruz. I certainly concur with Senator Coons, and I
would note that Mr. Mair's written testimony and oral testimony
focused in significant part on the Obama administration's new
global warming regulations that could cost up to 10 million
jobs and impose massive costs on American consumers. He argued
that the data support causing millions of Americans to lose
their jobs, including millions of African Americans and
Hispanics, and I was pressing on what the data was that he was
testifying about. I would note that that is not only relevant
to his testimony, it was almost the entire subject of his
testimony. Yet apparently the testimony is not based on the
data or the evidence, or he is not prepared to discuss the data
or evidence beyond asserting that we should take the word--to
take their word for it.
With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for being
here. Thank you for joining us. We will be keeping the hearing
record open for an additional 5 business days, which means the
record will be closed at the end of the business day on
Tuesday, October 13, 2015.
Thank you very much to each of the witnesses. The hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Miscellaneous submissons:
American Society of Interior Designers, letter................... 114
American Thoracic Society (ATS), letter.......................... 118
Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020........ 197
CASAC Consensus Responses........................................ 130
Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.................. 195
National Medical Organizations, letter........................... 435
Union of Concerned Scientists.................................... 451
United States Black Chambers Incorporated Inc., (USBC)........... 453
United States Environmental Protection Agency.................... 123
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]