U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–887 2012

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2309, CONSUMER 

CREDIT PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT ACT; AND 

H.R. 2190, MERCURY POLLUTION REDUCTION 

ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 12, 2009 

Serial No. 111–38 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chair 

JOHN SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 23 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 24 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 25 

Hon. John P. Sarbanes, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Maryland, opening statement ............................................................................. 26 

Hon. John Barrow, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 27 

Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 27 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, prepared statement ...................................................................................... 211 

WITNESSES

Eileen Harrington, Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission ............................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 172 

Kathleen Keest, Senior Policy Counsel, Center for Responsible Lending ........... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

John Beisner, Managing Partner, O’Meleveny & Myers, on Behalf of the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce ................................................................................ 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Catherine O’Neill, Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of 

Law, Member Scholar, Center for Progressive Reform ..................................... 115 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 118 

Answers to submitted questions 1

Lynn Goldman, M.D., M.P.H., Professor, Johns Hopkins School of Public 

Health, Principal Investigator, Johns Hopkins National Children’s Study 

(Former EPA Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic 

Substances, Administration of President William Jefferson Clinton) ............. 125 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 127 

Answers to submitted questions 2

Richard Jackson, Executive Vice President of Operations, Ashta Chemicals 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 132 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 134 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 178 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

H.R. 2309 .................................................................................................................. 2 

H.R. 2190 .................................................................................................................. 10 

Letter of May 12, 2009, from Ms. Matsui to the GAO, submitted by Ms. 

Matsui ................................................................................................................... 92 

Statement of the American Financial Services Association ................................. 99 

Statement of the National Automobile Dealers Association ................................ 106 

Statement of Bill McCollum, Florida Attorney General ....................................... 112 

Letter of May 12, 2009, from 43 environmental groups supporting H.R. 2190 .. 148 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

Letter of May 11, 2009, from The Chlorine Institute to Messrs. Rush and 

Radanovich ........................................................................................................... 155 

Report entitled ‘‘Assessment of Test Results for Mercury in High Fructose 

Corn Syrup,’’ by Dr. Woodhall Stopford ............................................................. 161 

Report entitled ‘‘Normal Mercury Levels in Food and Beverages,’’ by Dr. 

Woodhall Stopford ................................................................................................ 163 

News release from the Corn Refiners Association, dated March 18, 2009 ......... 166 

News release from ChemRisk, dated January 30, 2009 ....................................... 169 

1 Ms. O’Neill did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 2 Ms. Goldman did not respond to submitted questions for the record. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2309, CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION IMPROVEMENT ACT; AND H.R. 2190, MERCURY POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in Room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Rush, Schakowsky, Sarbanes, Barrow, 

Matsui, Radanovich, Gingrey, Scalise and Barton (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Christian Tanotsu Fjeld, Counsel; Anna Laitin, 

Professional Staff; Robin Appleberry, Counsel; Valerie Baron, Legislative Clerk; Michelle Ash, Counsel; Shannon Weinberg, Minority 

Counsel; Brian McCullough, Minority Senior Professional Staff; 

Jerry Couri, Minority Professional Staff; Will Carty, Minority Professional Staff; and Sam Costello, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is a legislative hearing. It is on two bills, H.R. 

2309 and H.R. 2190. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 72887A.001
3 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 72887A.002
4 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 72887A.003
5 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 72887A.004
6 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 72887A.005
7 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 72887A.006
8 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 72887A.007
9 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 72887A.008
10 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 72887A.009
11 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 72887A.010
12 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 72887A.011
13 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 72887A.012
14 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 72887A.013
15 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 72887A.014
16 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 72887A.015
17 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 72887A.016
18 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 72887A.017
19 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for the 

purposes of opening statements. 

Today, as I said before, the subcommittee is conducting yet another legislative hearing on two more bills, H.R. 2309, the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act, and H.R. 2190, the Mercury 

Pollution Reduction Act. This hearing continues our trend to hold 

legislative hearings with the intent of moving bills towards eventually becoming law. 

H.R. 2390, the Mercury and Pollution Reduction Act, was introduced by the Vice Chair of the subcommittee, my friend and colleague from Chicago Ms. Schakowsky. The bill effectively bans the 

use of mercury in the production of chlorine and caustic soda and 

prohibits the export of mercury effective immediately. 

Mercury is well known to cause neurological damage, especially 

to children. The toxin is also found in fish, and when people eat 

contaminated fish, they also consume the mercury. Pregnant 

women who ingest the mercury in fish pass the toxic effects along 

to their developing fetus, which can lead to long-term neurological 

harm. 

Furthermore, studies indicate that unsafe mercury levels are 

more prominent in people of color and in poor communities, and 

this disparate impact along ethnic and racial lines is likely the result of fish and seafood consumption. 

It is my understanding that only four manufacturing plants still 

use mercury in the production of chlorine. It is also my understanding that the chlorine industry has made the transition away 

from mercury as a result of increased efficiency in alternative 

methods of manufacturing. As such, I am interested to know why 

Ms. Schakowsky’s bill shouldn’t become law as soon as possible due 

to the harmful effects of mercury and the cost savings associated 

with producing chlorine from other methods. I want to commend 

Ms. Schakowsky for her work on this bill. 

I am the author of the second bill we are considering today. H.R. 

2309, the Consumer Credit and Protection Act, is a result of two 

oversight hearings this subcommittee has held on consumer credit 

issues this year. The bill provides the Federal Trade Commission 

with normal rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedures Act, for all consumer credit and debt-related issues as opposed to its current cumbersome rulemaking authority under the 

Magnuson-Moss Act. This authority will empower the Commission 

to nimbly respond to current and future abuses perpetrated on consumers. 

My bill also directs the Commission to specifically address current abuses in the automobile and debt consolidation industries. It 

is my intent, during an eventual markup, to also add a directive 

rulemaking on pending legislation as well. 

I hope the witnesses will provide the information the subcommittee needs on how effective H.R. 2309 would be in protecting 

consumers not only from the credit and debt scams of today, but 

the scams of tomorrow, also. 

It is important that the FTC have the requisite flexibility and 

authority to address numerous credit fraud that plagues conVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 May 25, 2012 Jkt 072887 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A887.XXX A887

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
20 

sumers. Moreover, I believe it is extremely important that the 

Commission retain this aggressive posture of consumer credit and 

debt regardless of the political leadership at the top. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of being asleep at the switch, and 

difficulties in the financial and housing market have shown us that 

we can no longer afford this type of political negligence. It is vital 

that we revitalize the Federal Trade Commission’s work on behalf 

of consumers in order to prevent the types of widespread abuses 

that weren’t addressed in the past. 

Today I hope to have an informative legislative hearing on these 

two bills and work with all of the affected stakeholders and my 

friends on the other side of the aisle. We may end up disagreeing, 

but as always, I believe in disagreeing in a civil and politically honest manner. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
21 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 72887A.018
22 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 72887A.019
23 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the 

subcommittee Mr. Radanovich for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much. 

Today we examine two pieces of legislation under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. The first bill is H.R. 2309, addressing credit and 

debt issues under the Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction. 

As I have stated previously, I support cracking down on anybody 

who breaks the law or takes unfair advantage of others for their 

own gain. Mortgage and foreclosure problems have revealed deception, lying and stealing at all levels of the homebuying process from 

consumers falsely stating their income to mortgage companies deceiving consumers about their loans. There should be no tolerance 

for these practices, practices that have devastated many consumers 

with foreclosures and have put all taxpayers on the hook for these 

bad actors’ deeds. 

Similarly, the economic downturn has caused many to find themselves over their heads with nonmortgage debt. I support the markets’ creation of third-party entities who negotiate on these individuals’ behalves, but I also see opportunities where abuse and fraud 

may arise. Therefore, I support the legislation’s direction to the 

FTC to examine debt settlement practices and promulgate rules as 

necessary. However, my question within these proposed rules is 

what is lacking in the current law? Is there a problem so widespread that it requires an industrywide solution; and, finally, will 

the proposed rule solve the problem? 

My primary concern is that the examination be thorough and the 

evidence substantial before any rules are proposed. Industrywide 

rules impose costs on innocent, law-abiding citizens and, therefore, 

need to be thoroughly vetted to ensure they are justified and the 

best solution for the problem. 

This leads me to a larger concern with the bill’s authorization of 

the general APA rulemaking authority with credit and debt practices. Congress imposed the more rigorous Magnuson-Moss rulemaking procedures on the FTC for a reason. Providing a blank 

check for more rules is a change Congress should not contemplate 

lightly, particularly when the impact will be sweeping. The benefit 

must outweigh the costs. 

The two provisions which I am concerned with are the grants of 

civil penalty authority in cases of implied knowledge, and the broad 

State attorneys general enforcement provision. The FTC may currently seek civil penalties only in a case where the defendant was 

on notice that their conduct was wrongful. This bill would make 

people liable without their knowledge that they are engaged in 

wrongful conduct. 

My second concern is the breathtaking extent of the proposed 

State attorney general’s enforcement power. It would apply to an 

FTC-enforced statute regulating consumer credit or debt without 

transparency or checks and balances on that power. Additionally, 

because most suits prosecuting unfair, deceptive acts are not based 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
24 

on hard and fast rules, this authority will yield many inconsistent 

interpretations and outcomes. 

The second bill we are examining today, H.R. 2190, would ban 

the use of mercury cell technology to produce chlorine and caustic 

soda. I think we need to look carefully not just at the bill itself, 

but also at the other legal and regulatory actions at the Federal 

level on this matter. This legislation only addresses four plants in 

the United States. We should neither be cavalier about the bill’s 

impact because it affects four plants, nor should we fully ignore its 

effects on policy. 

For starters, the last Congress took great care to overwhelmingly 

pass bipartisan legislation that banned export of elemental mercury beginning in 2013. This law represents a collaborative effort 

among diverse stakeholders and created an orderly transition for 

management and storage of mercury held by both public and private interests. I fear the provisions of this bill will unnecessarily 

undo our thoughtful work and make mercury repositories of chlorine factories for several years. 

In addition, I am concerned that parts of the bill unnecessarily 

duplicate existing reporting requirements on these facilities. I have 

problems requiring reports for the sake of requiring them, and I 

hope that at least one of our witnesses can point out to me both 

the practical need for and the legal gap being plugged by each of 

these mandates. 

From a larger policy perspective, I am concerned that this bill 

continues the trend of selectively deciding which products, technologies, and substances are OK for the public to have, and, in my 

view, some of the proponents of this bill are inconsistently applying 

their concerns about mercury depending on the technology or the 

product. 

Let me give you an example. H.R. 2190 states that the U.S. 

should develop policies that reduce exposure to mercury, particularly the exposure of child-bearing-aged women and young children. 

Yet in the last Congress, the Democrat Majority insisted on legislation forcing daycare centers, hospitals, schools, and nursing homes 

to use mercury-laced compact fluorescent light bulbs. If we are serious about this issue, Congress cannot send mixed signals to the 

American public about these public health threats. 

I want to thank today all of our witnesses for being here, and I 

want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and know that I am eager to 

work in a bipartisan manner to address the concerns on both sides 

of the aisle on these issues. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the sponsor of one of the bills that we 

are considering today, H.R. 2190. My friend from Chicago Ms. 

Schakowsky is recognized for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you for holding this hearing today. I 

congratulate you on this legislation. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
25 

Right now I want to focus my remarks on H.R. 2190, the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act, a bill that protects the public health 

by ending the hazardous use of mercury cell technology at chloralkali plants in the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, the dangers associated with exposure to mercury 

are well documented, and you mentioned some. According to the 

EPA, mercury pollution can do irreparable damage to cognitive 

functioning in adults and to an infant’s developing nervous system. 

It is so dangerous that the Federal Government has warned pregnant women and those who may become pregnant not to eat fish 

with high levels of mercury, such as swordfish, and to severely 

limit their consumption of others, such as tuna. 

While H.R. 2190 only addresses mercury pollution from four remaining chlor-alkali plants that use mercury, it must be emphasized that the impact these plants have on surrounding communities is severe, and, even worse, unnecessary. Unlike coal-fired 

power plants, there are readily available alternatives that could 

and should be used. In fact, converting from mercury cell technology to membrane cell has proven not only to be drastically better for the environment, but also wise business practice, saving 

companies millions of dollars in energy-efficiency costs. 

I introduced this legislation because I believe that Congress has 

a responsibility to minimize the public’s exposure to mercury pollution, especially when cleaner, safer alternatives exist. 

And I want to thank Oceana, an environmental organization, for 

their tireless efforts, and the committee staff for their diligent work 

on this bill. 

I urge my colleagues to support its passage, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia 

for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for calling this 

hearing today so we can hear testimony on H.R. 2190, the Mercury 

Pollution Reduction Act. It is my hope that moving forward on 

these two bills, including H.R. 2309, the Consumer Credit and Debt 

Protection Act, we can work in a bipartisan manner to accomplish 

our shared goal of increased and enhanced consumer protection. 

H.R. 2309 would expand the role of the Federal Trade Commission by changing the rulemaking authority that relates to consumer credit and debt from the established and rigorous Magnuson-Moss procedures to the authority under the administrative procedures at APA. 

Mr. Chairman, at a hearing on this topic on March the 24th, I 

urged my colleagues to take caution in making this change in rulemaking procedure. Magnuson-Moss was designed in the 1970s to be 

onerous so as to avoid whimsical changes in FTC regulations. 

While I think the end goal here is commendable, I still have concerns that a simple legislative change will open the door to future 

unraveling of the Magnuson-Moss procedures. 

H.R. 2190 bans the manufacturer of chlorine using the mercury 

cell process, including the export of any mercury, within 2 years. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
26 

As a physician for nearly 30 years, I believe it is critically important that we take proactive steps to ensure the health and safety 

of our citizens. 

During the 110th Congress, President Bush signed into law Senate bill 906, the Mercury Export Ban of 2008, that was introduced 

by then-Senator, now President, of course, Barack Obama. This legislation specifically outlawed the export of elemental mercury starting in 2013, similar, very much, to what is proposed in 2190. 

Therefore, given the duplicative nature of H.R. 2190 in regard to 

at least that section, I am concerned that we would be stretching 

our Federal resources too thinly on this important matter if the bill 

is enacted. 

Mr. Chairman, on both bills before us today, I urge my colleagues to exercise due caution, to consider the possible unintended 

consequences that we always should. 

I do look forward to hearing from our two panels today on these 

issues. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland Mr. Sarbanes for 2 minutes for the purposes of opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling a hearing on these two important bills. 

I want to congratulate Ms. Schakowsky for her efforts with respect to the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act. It sounds like it is 

a pretty focused measure to address what is a kind of loophole 

right now in terms of a major source of mercury pollution, and I 

hope we can move quickly forward on this. 

With respect to the Consumer Credit Debt and Protection Act, I 

participated in the hearing that you called previously. It was very 

eye-opening in viewing how this subprime culture that we addressed mostly in our discussions with respect to the housing sector 

has also infected auto financing and other sources of credit, and 

how these loopholes exist in a way that allows predators to enter 

that space. And so this proposes giving the FTC—which, of course, 

comes with an exclusive focus on consumer protection—a role in 

the designing of a new regulatory framework with respect to the 

financial services industry, and a very important role at that. 

One of the anxieties many of us have is that as we design that 

new framework, it will not be done in a strategic way. We will end 

up with loopholes in it that people can take advantage of. And I 

think having an agency at the table that has got this very keen 

focus on the consumer is part of making sure that that strategic 

framework is as robust as it can possibly be. 

So I thank you for calling the hearing so we can hear these proposals discussed. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes my friend from Georgia Mr. Barrow for 

2 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
27 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARROW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the Chair. 

I am going to limit my remarks to H.R. 2190, the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act. 

I am in a tough spot today because while I recognize the environmental benefits of banning chlor-alkali mercury technology, I am 

one of the few Members of Congress who actually represents one 

of the facilities that still uses that technology. While I am willing 

to acknowledge it is a good thing there are only four of these plants 

left in the country, I have to be sensitive and ask my colleagues 

to be sensitive to the 150 jobs and the multimillion-dollar impact 

this plant brings to my district. 

My colleagues have done a good job of highlighting environmental and health reasons to move this bill. I think they are obvious and compelling. I ask my colleagues to also be sensitive to the 

economic impacts, as I think those arguments are also obvious and 

compelling. 

The question is, can we serve both purposes and find a productive solution for all involved? I think we can. I respectfully suggest 

the bill, as written—and considering time and financial pressures, 

it is going to be very hard for the affected companies to comply 

with except to shut them down. It is not my goal to shut down an 

employer in my district. I won’t consider that a success. 

The ideal solution, in my mind, would be the plant which I represent have the opportunity and the ability to transition to the new 

technology and preserve the jobs there for a long time into the future. I hope that is the intention of the committee, and I look forward to working to find a solution that secures the jobs and protects the environment. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California. Ms. Matsui is recognized for 2 minutes for the purposes of 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. I want to thank you very much for calling today’s 

hearing. I would also like to thank our panelists for sharing their 

expertise with us. 

In today’s economic recession, many families in my home district 

of Sacramento are struggling to make ends meet. I have heard 

countless stories of people struggling to keep their homes, their 

jobs, and their way of life. Many of my constituents were victims 

of predatory lending and were steered into high-cost, bad loans. 

Now, many of these homeowners are seeking assistance in modifying their loans to more affordable terms, yet many of these individuals are now being tricked by scam artists posing as so-called 

‘‘foreclosure consultants’’ to save their homes. These scams are 

costing thousands of dollars and represent false promises to struggling homeowners. 

During last week’s debate on the mortgage reform bill, I offered 

an amendment that was included in the final bill that directs the 

GAO to conduct a study of the government’s current efforts to comVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 May 25, 2012 Jkt 072887 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A887.XXX A887

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
28 

bat foreclosure rescue scams. It is clear that consumers are not 

being properly protected from these shameful practices. 

It is also clear that we can do more to protect the American people from harmful exposure to mercury. Mercury is a known toxin, 

and we should do all in our power to ensure that it stays out of 

our newborns’ bodies. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses, particularly 

from Dr. Lynn Goldman, who is the principal investigator of the 

National Children’s Study, and who is an expert on mercury exposure. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing 

today. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

Now it is my honor and privilege to recognize this panel of experts that have taken time out from their busy schedules to participate in this hearing. They come from well-established institutions, 

and they are, indeed, highly esteemed individuals in their line of 

work. 

First of all, to my left is Ms. Eileen Harrington. Ms. Harrington 

has made a habit of coming before this committee, and you are always welcome. And she often appears before this subcommittee, 

and she is the Acting Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC. 

Next to Ms. Harrington is Ms. Kathleen Keest. She is the senior 

policy counsel for the Center for Responsible Lending. 

And our next witness and panelist is Mr. John Beisner. Mr. 

Beisner is the managing partner of the firm O’Meleveny & Myers. 

He is appearing on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

I want you to know, again, that you are welcome to this committee. And we are looking forward to your testimony. And you can 

please begin your testimony with 5 minutes of opening statements. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Harrington. 

STATEMENTS OF EILEEN HARRINGTON, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION; KATHLEEN KEEST, SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL, 

CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING; AND JOHN BEISNER, 

MANAGING PARTNER, O’MELEVENY & MYERS, ON BEHALF 

OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

STATEMENT OF EILEEN HARRINGTON 

Ms. HARRINGTON. Thank you, Chairman Rush. 

I am Eileen Harrington, the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here 

today to discuss the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act and 

the FTC’s role in protecting consumers of financial services. The 

Commission’s views are set forth in the written testimony that we 

have submitted. My oral presentation and answers to your questions represent my own views. 

As we know, the current economic crisis continues to have a devastating effect on many consumers. Many are struggling to pay 

their bills, keep their homes, deal with abusive debt collectors, and 

maintain their credit ratings. Two months ago you asked the FTC 

to tell you what it has been doing to help consumers through this 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
29 

difficult time. We told you about how we have been using our tools, 

law enforcement, consumer education policy and research, to help 

protect consumers in financial distress from being taken advantage 

of by those who flout the law. When we came before you then, we 

recognized that we needed to do more, however, and we asked for 

your help. 

Your response, the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act, is 

directly on point. In particular, this bill would build on the new authority we obtained under the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act by 

enabling us to issue rules targeting the practices that caused the 

most harm to consumers in the broader credit and debt marketplace. 

Historically, the Commission has relied heavily on its law enforcement experience to inform its rulemakings undertaken under 

the Administrative Procedures Act with the express consent of Congress. This approach has served us well in the past, and will continue to do so here. Thus, in deciding which practices in the credit 

and debt market to target, we would rely on our casework to help 

identify any industrywide problems and pervasive consumer injury. 

The Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act also would allow 

us to seek civil penalties against those who violate any such rules 

that the Commission issues in this area. This is significant because 

civil penalties deter would-be violators. The FTC strongly supports 

the enactment of this type of legislation. 

As you know, we are already using our new authority under the 

2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act to develop new consumer protection regulations in the mortgage context. We expect these rules to 

address unfair and deceptive practices in mortgage lending, mortgage foreclosure rescue, mortgage loan modification, and mortgage 

servicing. The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act enhanced the 

Commission’s ability to enforce these rules by allowing the FTC to 

obtain civil penalties against violators. Meanwhile, the Commission 

continues to vigorously enforce the FTC Act as well as other statutes and rules for which it has enforcement authority. 

In response to the current economic crisis, the FTC has intensified its focus on protecting consumers of financial services and has 

targeted particular illegal practices in mortgage advertising, lending and servicing. Let me give you two examples. This past Friday 

the Commission announced an enforcement action against Golden 

Empire Mortgage and its individual owner for alleged violations of 

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B. The Commission alleged that the defendants charged Hispanic consumers higher prices for mortgage loans than non-Hispanic white consumers. 

The FTC alleged that the credit characteristics or underwriting 

risk of the company’s customers could not explain the differences 

in the prices charged. 

A second example. On April 6th, also since the last time we were 

here, the FTC joined with Treasury, HUD, the Department of Justice, and the Illinois attorney general to announce a coordinated 

crackdown on mortgage foreclosure rescue fraud. The Federal law 

enforcement component of that crackdown was done by the FTC. 

Although vigorous law enforcement is essential in providing more 

effective Federal oversight of the financial services sector, a broader legislative response may be appropriate here. Several bills have 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

been introduced and proposals offered under which there would be 

some type of overall Federal regulator of financial services. There 

are differences in these bills and proposals to rationalize the oversight system, and there are numerous challenging issues that 

would have to be resolved to implement those concepts. Because of 

its unequaled comprehensive focus on consumer protection, its 

independence from providers of financial services, and its emphasis 

on vigorous law enforcement, we ask Congress to ensure that the 

FTC is considered as Congress moves forward in determining how 

to modify Federal consumer financial services. The Commission 

would be pleased to work with Congress and the subcommittee in 

developing and defining a new role for the FTC. 

Thank you for inviting the Commission to testify at this hearing. 

I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harrington follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
31 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 72887A.020
32 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 72887A.021
33 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 72887A.022
34 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 72887A.023
35 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 72887A.024
36 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 72887A.025
37 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 72887A.026
38 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 72887A.027
39 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 72887A.028
40 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 72887A.029
41 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 72887A.030
42 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 72887A.031
43 

Mr. RUSH. Our next witness is Ms. Keest. 

Ms. Keest, you are recognized for 5 minutes for the purposes of 

opening statements. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN KEEST 

Ms. KEEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much 

for inviting me to testify. In my remarks today, I am only going to 

focus, I think, on a couple of points, primarily the Magnuson-Moss 

rulemaking, and I may add a couple of remarks about the Attorney 

General’s enforcement authority, as I used to be in the Attorney 

General’s office myself. And I would refer the committee to my 

written testimony for the specifics. 

While we are not talking so much about mortgages today, I think 

since we are talking about consumer credit, we have an object lesson that we can learn from in what happened there. And the FTC’s 

jurisdiction over consumer credit covers a lot of the same subject 

matter area that the Federal banking agencies did. And what we 

know is that from a regulatory perspective, that there are three 

tools that are needed to make sure that there are clear rules to the 

game, and that there is a referee on site to enforce those rules. 

We know, now, that the banking agencies, much to our dismay, 

didn’t use any of them. The FTC, by contrast, really, it functionally 

only had one of those tools, and that was the tool that allows the 

referee to call a foul after it has already happened, and it is an important tool, but it is not sufficient. 

What are those three tools? One of them is to set the rules of the 

game that everybody has to play. And I am a strong believer in the 

fact that that is as important for ethical and honest business competition as it is for consumers. I do not believe it is a zero-sum 

game, and I think that has been part of the problem of thinking 

of it in that way. 

The second is the right to sort of keep an ongoing monitoring system where you can do prevention through monitoring. That is a 

tool that the banking industries have that the FTC doesn’t, which 

leaves just the law enforcement, and that was the only tool the 

FTC had in practice. In theory, it had the rulemaking authority, 

but Magnuson-Moss, I understand—I am sorry Congressman 

Gingrey isn’t here—I understand the purpose of it originally, but 

I can tell you that I have got gray hair now. 

The first year, my first year in practice, was when the last time 

the Magnuson-Moss rule was used by the FTC. The credit practices 

rule was started in 1975 when I was a brand new lawyer. That 

process took 10 years. I testified at one of the hearings; I was part 

of that two-book record that it took to get that rule in place. It was 

10 years later when that rule finally went into effect. The amount 

of credit out there went from something like $190 billion to almost 

$500 billion in that time, and the market had already started to 

change. 

Now, that rule was very important, and it did a lot of things, but 

we were so far behind the eight ball by the time it happened—and 

in an agency that has got the breadth of jurisdiction this one does, 

devoting time and resources to a process that could take 10 years 

is a march down into a long, dark tunnel that they simply could 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

not afford, and neither could consumers, because too much damage 

happens along that way. 

By contrast, the Federal banking agencies, once they got on the 

dime, they proposed their credit card rules. The OTS, the Federal 

Reserve Board and the NCUA proposed their credit card rules. It 

was proposed, there was input, there was a lot of discussion, and 

it was promulgated within less than a year; and now there is a 

year-and-a-half lead time for the issuers who are affected by that 

rule to gear up and do it, but they know what those rules are going 

to be, and they have got that time to do it. 

So I think the APA rulemaking is a critical, critical part of this. 

And I would just like to make a pitch for—Congressman, you 

mentioned sort of perhaps wanting to consider paydays along the 

way. In our testimony that we had suggested—that is, this credit 

practices rule, the last one that the FTC used, this Magnuson-Moss 

provision that had a delivery period that would make an elephant 

weep, it was a really good rule that took care of some of the most 

egregious abuses that were in the consumer credit market that 

day. It took care of the wage assignments that basically had people’s paychecks going first to a creditor before it went to the groceries. It took care of the confession of judgment clauses that prevented people from raising a defense, which I can tell you as an 

old legal aid lawyer where a lot of people had them, and it took 

care of the in terrorem use of some of the tactics. 

My first client—the reason I spent 35 years doing this, it was my 

very first client who in my very first case, a loan company wanted 

to come in and clean out her house, the furniture in a 72-year-old 

widow’s house, everything down to the two gray washtubs. And the 

credit practices rule got rid of that. 

And we have some segments of the market today that use practices which are a modern-day electronic equivalent of that, holding 

checks or the key to somebody’s bank account. And they can do everything that credit practices rule took care of by the abuses with 

that check hold. And so we have suggested that now that we are 

approaching the silver anniversary of that credit practices rule, 

that the FTC review that to see if, perhaps, we can update that 

and take care of some of those abuses again. 

And if I still have a couple of minutes left. 

Mr. RUSH. No. Sorry. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Keest follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 72887A.032
46 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 72887A.033
47 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 72887A.034
48 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 72887A.035
49 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 72887A.036
50 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 72887A.037
51 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 72887A.038
52 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 72887A.039
53 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 72887A.040
54 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 72887A.041
55 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 72887A.042
56 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 72887A.043
57 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 72887A.044
58 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 72887A.045
59 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 72887A.046
60 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 72887A.047
61 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 72887A.048
62 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 72887A.049
63 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 72887A.050
64 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 72887A.051
65 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 72887A.052
66 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 72887A.053
67 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 72887A.054
68 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 72887A.055
69 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 72887A.056
70 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 72887A.057
71 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 72887A.058
72 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 72887A.059
73 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 72887A.060
74 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 72887A.061
75 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 72887A.062
76 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 72887A.063
77 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 72887A.064
78 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 72887A.065
79 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 72887A.066
80 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 72887A.067
81 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 72887A.068
82 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Beisner for 5 minutes 

for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BEISNER 

Mr. BEISNER. Good afternoon, Chairman Rush and Ranking 

Member Radanovich. I am John Beisner. I am a partner at 

O’Meleveny & Myers, and I am appearing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform. 

My focus today is a narrow one. It is on section 4 of the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act, which would expand the authority of the States attorneys general to enforce Federal credit 

laws. Under section 4, as I understand it, States would be empowered to bring civil lawsuits whenever they believe their residents 

are harmed by a violation of a regulation promulgated under the 

bill or any FTC regulation related to consumer credit or debt. This 

legislation is part of a recent trend to expand State AG authority 

to enforce Federal laws. 

Obviously, protecting consumers from unfair trade practices is an 

important legislative goal, but giving State AGs broader authority 

to bring civil lawsuits can create some potential for litigation 

abuse. The problem is that when State AGs are authorized to bring 

lawsuits, the State officials and their staffs may not be the ones 

who actually handle the litigation. Some officials like to hire private attorneys to handle such cases. Having private attorneys enforce Federal law can create some problems. 

First, when State AGs hire private attorneys, they frequently do 

so on a contingency fee basis. In other words, even though they are 

working for the States, the private lawyers are promised a percentage of whatever they win in court. That makes these contracts very 

attractive. The private attorneys get to go into court as a representative of the State, which gives them instant credibility with the 

courts; and if they win, they get to keep a substantial portion of 

the money. This is where things get troubling. 

Private attorneys are not bound by the same ethical rules as 

Federal enforcement officials. As a result, people make political 

contributions in the hopes of landing lucrative legal contracts with 

the States. 

Federal officials are subject to ethics rules that ensure that decisions to hire private attorneys are not based on political contributions. Federal officials must also follow Executive Order 13433, 

which limits the Federal Government’s ability to hire private attorneys under contingent fee arrangements. But these laws do not 

apply when State AGs contract with private attorneys. The safeguards that protect the integrity of the Federal enforcement efforts 

presently do not apply to the State AGs, even though they may be 

enforcing Federal law. 

Now, I want to be very clear that the vast majority of State attorneys general exercise enforcement powers very responsibly, but 

there have been some troubling media reports of State officials 

handing over large cases to private lawyers who contributed to 

their campaigns. 

In Mississippi, Attorney General James Hood has been criticized 

for hiring friends and contributors on a contingency fee basis. In 

Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell faced criticism for hiring a camVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 May 25, 2012 Jkt 072887 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A887.XXX A887

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
83 

paign contributor to sue on behalf of the State; and Rhode Island 

State officials have been criticized for hiring a prominent contributor to State officials to lead the State’s litigation against lead 

paint companies. 

A second problem with contingency fee arrangements is they can 

create an incentive for lawyers to pursue cases most likely to bring 

them the most money. But when it comes to enforcing public laws, 

the most lucrative cases may not be the most important. Public 

prosecutors must use their discretion every day to decide which 

cases they should pursue in the public interest, but when attorneys 

with their own financial interests are making that decision or participating in those decisions, public interest considerations may be 

ignored. 

A third problem with contingency fee arrangements in enforcement actions is that they can shortchange taxpayers. When government lawyers prevail in litigation, the State gets all the money. In 

the contingency fee arrangement, the private attorneys get a significant percentage, reducing the amount going to taxpayers. 

For these reasons, the Chamber respectfully suggests that in any 

legislation expanding State AG authority to enforce Federal laws, 

you should consider including safeguards to protect the public interests and guard against abuses. The first suggestion would be to 

require disclosure of private attorney retention agreements. When 

State officials hire private attorneys to enforce Federal law, they 

should disclose the arrangements to the U.S. Attorney General for 

publication in the Federal Register. Such transparency will help 

ensure that Federal laws are implemented consistently and fairly. 

Secondly, it is suggested that State officials be barred from rewarding large campaign contributors with potentially lucrative contracts to enforce Federal laws. 

Finally, it is suggested that the applicability of Executive Order 

13433 be expanded. That order puts limitations on Federal officials 

from hiring private lawyers on a contingency fee basis. The same 

standard should apply to State officials enforcing Federal law. 

These safeguards would help ensure the transparent, proper use of 

authority to enforce Federal law in a manner wholly consistent 

with the goals of this legislation. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beisner follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
84 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 72887A.069
85 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 72887A.070
86 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 72887A.071
87 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 72887A.072
88 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman and all of the witnesses. 

The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of 

asking questions of these witnesses. 

In the subcommittee’s last hearing on consumer credit issues, I 

asked the FTC Chairman, John Leibovitz, about the Commission’s 

record in protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices 

in the past several years. I noted that the FTC arguably didn’t do 

enough to stop the mortgage lending practices during the housing 

era or housing boom, I might add. The Chairman argued that the 

FTC argued that the FTC is ‘‘hamstrung’’ by the burdensome rulemaking process under Magnuson-Moss, and he assured me that if 

Congress gave the FTC the authority to issue rules under the 

Standard Administrative Procedures Act, the FTC would indeed be 

more effective in this particular area. Today we are considering legislation that would give to FTC this authority that Chairman 

Leibovitz requested at one of our hearings. 

My question to Ms. Keest—and I would also like to get a response from Ms. Harrington—Ms. Keest, Congress has duly given 

the FTC streamlined rulemaking authority on a case-by-case basis. 

We have taken another approach in this bill. The Chairman has requested we give the FTC broad APA authority to issue rulings on 

anything involving consumer credit or debt. 

My question is should we trust the FTC’s discretion to essentially 

use this authority, or will we be better off sticking with direct rulemaking? 

Ms. KEEST. I think it is extremely important to give them discretion for the simple reason that the velocity at which the market 

changes is far too fast to have to come back and make a record 

every single time. 

For example, the last time before Congress passed the H.R.—the 

predecessor of H.R. 72, 1728, last week, it had been 15 years before 

Congress acted on consumer mortgage issues. And there is a lot 

that goes on, and there is a lot that the FTC has on its plate. There 

is a lot that Congress has on its plate. And in the meantime, the 

markets develop and move, and I don’t really think it is feasible 

to wait for specific direction as every problem comes up one by one. 

Mr. RUSH. Ms. Harrington, do you want to comment briefly on 

this? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. You can trust us. 

And let me just tell you, let me give you some examples of how 

we used the Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking that the 

Congress has given us on a case-by-case basis. 

In the area of telemarketing, the Commission issued the rules 

that the statute required, and then it went back several years later 

and did the ‘‘do not call’’ amendment. It took us less than a year 

to do that, and I was managing that project. And at the same time 

I was managing that project, I was managing amendments to the 

FTC’s franchise rule, a very important rule that protects investors 

in franchises by requiring that they be given itemized disclosure 

statements. 

It took us 8 years to do that amendment. It took us less than a 

year to create ‘‘do not call.’’ And that is the way that we have used 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
89 

our discretionary authority under the Administrative Procedures 

Act rulemaking that we have been given on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. RUSH. I know that payday loans play a necessary role in the 

economy. Payday loans are available to poor people when no one 

else will lend to them. This is especially true of the type of shortterm loans that poor consumers need to get by in emergencies. And 

I don’t like the fact that people have to take out payday loans, but 

it is the reality of where I come from. I also recognize that there 

are some extreme and multiple abuses in the industry, and reform 

is needed. And I have been a long-time champion in the Congress 

of cracking down on this abusive payday lending. 

My question is, how do we regulate the payday loan industry 

without destroying it? 

Ms. KEEST. I think that is one of the areas that we can take an 

incremental approach on. There is a lot of controversy, and there 

is a lot of experimentation going on with States that have regulated by different means, ranging from do whatever you want to 

prohibition and everything in between. And as time comes in, we 

will have a better sense of what works and what doesn’t work. 

And in the meantime, I think that the proposal or that the recommendation that we have made to look at one tactic which I 

think is kind of the—it is sort of one of the tools that really makes 

things not work so well for consumers is the check-hold system. So 

I would very much welcome—and we did, in fact, recommend that 

that be one thing that the FTC look at. And if we could start incrementally there, then we can kind of work and see what is happening and see what is working out in the States. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member Mr. 

Radanovich for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I did want to have a discussion 

on the States and the attorney generals on the enforcement of this. 

Ms. Harrington, welcome to the committee. 

Does the Commission take a position on the State attorney general enforcement of these laws? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. The Commission has favored the scheme under 

which Congress has enacted statutes giving the FTC rulemaking 

authority and providing the States with enforcement authority in 

Federal courts of the rules that are promulgated by the FTC. We 

are very supportive of that arrangement. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you worry about inconsistencies and confusion concerning a broad array of industries if the rulemaking authorities are given the authority for the attorney generals to weigh 

in? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. The protection that the Congress has put into 

the statutes to make sure that we can guard against that is the 

provision that the States notify the FTC before filing so that we 

have an opportunity to talk with them and to take a look at complaints before they are filed. And the FTC also has the authority, 

under the statutory provisions that have been used, to intervene in 

actions in the event that there is some concerns about inconsistency. 

So I think that the Congress has fairly anticipated that. And 

what we have seen now in probably a half a dozen or more instances in which the Congress has given the FTC specific APA 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
90 

rulemaking authority is an absence of that kind of inconsistency. 

This has worked very well. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Now, in your opinion, if this bill does include 

giving State AGs the enforcement authority, can you define how it 

might be given, as narrowly as possible? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. If the States are given the authority to enforce 

rules issued by the FTC under the statute, then that would be 

their authority. It would be very much like telemarketing, 900 

numbers, certain other credit rules that the States are able to enforce. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. The legislation contains a provision for any 

State AG to notify the Commission 60 days in advance of filing an 

action, if feasible. Otherwise, it can proceed without notifying the 

Commission. Is that a concern for you? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. What I would be concerned about is 60 days 

is probably way too soon. We do these cases, the States do these 

cases. Sometimes it takes fewer than 60 days to work up the whole 

case, work up the complaint and be ready to file. So I think that 

60 days is probably unreasonable. And several of the other statutes 

provide for notice if feasible, or there is some term like that. 

We haven’t had a problem. We work very closely with the States 

in consumer protection. We have different working groups on different subject areas: telemarketing, payment systems, whatever, 

their monthly phone calls. Everybody knows what everybody is 

doing here. There aren’t many surprises in this area because there 

is an awful lot of work to do in consumer protection, and there 

aren’t that many resources at the Federal and the State level to 

do it with. So we need to work closely together, and the left hand 

needs to know what the right hand is doing. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Beisner, welcome to the committee. I do have a question regarding the State AGs as well. 

Were there no rules promulgated, we could have 52 interpretations of what is fair and deceptive, and that, of course, would be 

by 51 attorneys general and the FTC. What is the likelihood of inconsistent interpretation of the FTC’s standard that it would create 

confusion and concern in a broad array of industries, and how 

could this impact industry at large? 

Mr. BEISNER. I should make clear at the outset of responding to 

the question that the Chamber has no position on the delegation 

of authority to the AGs to enforce. 

But I think there is some possibility of inconsistency just in the 

decisionmaking about where to enforce the priorities that would be 

given to certain areas, enforcement by certain State attorneys general. So I think there is some possibility of inconsistency on that 

just in the enforcement decisions that would be made when you 

have got that many people making decisions about where the enforcement resources should be devoted. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. How do we make sure that the primacy of 

FTC’s interpretations of the standard? How do we ensure that the 

FTC has primacy? 

Mr. BEISNER. I think that a methodology for doing that is 

through the agency itself making clear its interpretations of what 

rules it wishes to enforce on that, and to ensure that the notice 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
91 

provisions in here and so on are such that the agency does have 

the opportunity to participate in making decisions about enforcement. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, the wonderful coast of California, Ms. Matsui for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, a government effort has been initiated by the 

Treasury Department, HUD, Justice Department, and the FTC to 

combat mortgage foreclosure rescue scams and loan modification 

fraud. As I mentioned in my opening statement, during debate on 

mortgage reform on the Anti-Predatory Lending Act, I offered an 

amendment that was included in the final bill to direct the GAO 

to evaluate ongoing government actions to combat foreclosure rescue fraud and to educate consumers about the risk of these scams. 

In addition, I want to thank Chairman Rush for joining me in 

sending a letter today to the GAO Comptroller General to urge him 

to begin reviewing the administration’s efforts to combat foreclosure rescue scams. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into 

the record. 

Mr. RUSH. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
92 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 72887A.073
93 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 72887A.074
94 

Ms. MATSUI. Ms. Keest, your organization prides itself on preventing mortgage fraud and providing consumer protection for the 

consumer in the marketplace. How big a threat are these foreclosure scams to the American homeowner today? 

Ms. KEEST. They are a huge threat. 

First, I want to thank you, Congresswoman Matsui, for your 

leadership on the issue of foreclosures. 

It is a chronic problem. And every time the foreclosure rates rise, 

they come out of the woodwork. And the best way to get rid of 

them is to bring the foreclosure rates down. So hopefully we can 

do that. But that being said, they are going to be a presence. 

And so I think it is one of the things that the State AGs and the 

States and the FTC I know have all taken to heart and put it at 

the top of the priority list, because right now that is the biggest 

equity-skimming scam out in there. And so it is number one right 

now, I would say. 

Ms. MATSUI. How would the U.S. actually assess the current efforts of the government to educate and to get the word out to the 

homeowners of these scams? 

Ms. KEEST. I will say that every time I go on a government Web 

site, I see it on its front page, so I recognize that they are really 

trying to do things. I don’t know how many homeowners look to the 

Web pages of government agencies first when they are faced with 

that, so I am not sure what the outcomes would be. I would hope 

that one of the things that GAO would do would be to look at and 

evaluate those kinds of efforts. 

Ms. MATSUI. Is there a particular area that you believe that the 

government or FTC should focus on to combat these scams during 

its rulemaking process? 

Ms. KEEST. I think I would have to say part of the—one of the 

things that they need to do is to make sure that there is some substantive practices that are prohibited as opposed to dealing with 

disclosures, because the disclosures pretty much can always be 

worked around. So I would hope they would take stock of what 

some of the most common techniques are, the deed theft issues, 

that sort of thing, and consider substantively declaring them to be 

unfair, which is going to take care of the inconsistent enforcement 

problems and level the playing field for everybody. 

Ms. MATSUI. That said, I would like to hear more on the government’s efforts to prevent foreclosure rescue and loan modification 

scams. 

What specific role, Ms. Harrington, does the FTC play in joining 

with other government agencies in combating foreclosure rescue 

scams? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. Multiple roles. 

First of all, the FTC operates the Consumer Complaint Center. 

It is Consumer Response Center and Consumer Sentinel, which is 

the complaint database. So we are the place where people complain 

to. And if you go to the Treasury Web site, 

makinghomeaffordable.gov, and need to make a complaint, that 

will come over to the FTC. So we collect the complaints, number 

one. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
95 

Number two, we do law enforcement work. In the last year, we 

have brought 11 cases against mortgage foreclosure rescue scams, 

and we have more in our pipeline. 

Number three, we do consumer education. We do it in our Web 

site, but also there are a lot of other ways. In the initiative that 

we announced on April 6th, we announced that we had recruited 

and enlisted some of the largest mortgage servicers, including 

Chase, and, I think, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo and others, 

to put right in the delinquency notices that go out to homeowners 

when they are first behind on their mortgage payment a warning 

sheet from us about mortgage foreclosure rescue scams and how to 

spot them. 

We also made audio recordings, and we gave them to all of the 

mortgage-servicing companies to play when people call them and 

are put on hold. We have really—and they are good. They are not 

like—they are interesting. But they warn people about what to 

watch out for. 

So we are doing education. We are trying to reach consumers 

who are most at risk right at the point of where they are at risk. 

And we continue to work. For example, FinCEN, which is the 

Department of Treasury data center where banks and financial institutions make suspicious activity reports to, the FinCEN people 

are working with us. They have created a special team of analysts 

to analyze suspicious activity reports concerning entities that we 

are watching as possible parties to mortgage foreclosure fraud. So 

there is a lot of criminal/civil/cross-government cooperation on this 

issue, better than I have ever seen. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the 

full committee Mr. Barton of Texas for 5 minutes—or for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. I won’t take the 5 minutes. 

I have looked—of course, this panel is talking about the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act. The next panel will talk 

about the mercury bill. I think it is a good thing to have these legislative hearings. 

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the Republicans on the subcommittee are on board on moving these bills, but we certainly 

think we should take a look at them. 

My only question on the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection 

Act would be to Mr. Beisner. Your testimony talks about the potential abuse of giving the attorneys general the authority to enforce 

a Federal statute. Is there anything you would care to elaborate 

about that? 

Mr. BEISNER. I think fundamentally the view that we are trying 

to express is that when Federal enforcement officials go about enforcing a law they are subject to a series of ethical requirements 

in the way they go about doing that; and what is being suggested 

here is that if that authority to enforce Federal law is being given 

to State Attorneys General there ought to be a similar set of safeguards with respect to enforcement of that law. Not interfering at 

all with whatever decisions may be made about enforcing State 

laws, but the Federal principles ought to be the same so that there 

can be good efforts made to ensure the integrity of that law enVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 May 25, 2012 Jkt 072887 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A887.XXX A887

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
96 

forcement process. And it is just to ensure that that integrity will 

be there. 

I don’t mean, as I said earlier, to suggest that there is any suggestion that the vast majority of the State Attorneys General are 

going off on the wrong track with these enforcement decisions. But 

when you give, as some of them do—certainly not all of them, but 

some of them do give that enforcement authority to private attorneys. There is a special need to ensure that ethical considerations 

are being observed in that circumstance. Because they are not government officials, and they are not subject to the same requirements as a Federal office of enforcing the law is. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, that is my only question. We certainly don’t oppose the intent of H.R. 2309. If staff and members 

could work on some of the concerns that have just been raised, I 

think we could probably reach an accommodation. 

But, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member, and the 

Chair would like to emphasize it is the Chair’s intention to work 

with the Republicans so that we can come up with a bipartisan bill. 

So I think there is a lot of—if we all say—— 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes—or 2 minutes, rather—5 minutes, 5 minutes 

for purposes of questioning the witnesses. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am wondering—and maybe you said this already. I am sorry. 

I had to leave. If you could walk us through how a single rulemaking under Magnuson-Moss procedures could take 10 years and 

how the new procedures then would make the agency more effective in protecting consumers. 

Ms. HARRINGTON. Certainly. There are a variety of mandatory 

provisions in Magnuson-Moss rulemaking that aren’t found in Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking. For a Magnuson-Moss 

rulemaking, there must be an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Under APA 553 rulemaking, that is not required. The 

NPR not only must be issued but it must address certain matters, 

and it must be submitted to Congress in advance so that the Congress—and the Congress can essentially veto the rulemaking. That 

is not true with Administrative Procedures Act rulemaking. 

At the notice of proposed rulemaking stage there are also very 

significant differences. Under Magnuson-Moss—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Excuse me. Did you already do this for the 

committee? 

Ms. HARRINGTON. No. 

The proposed rule must be based on a Commission determination 

that the practice is to be deemed unfair and deceptive are prevalent. That is, if cease and desist has been issued against an act or 

practice or other information indicates a widespread pattern. There 

is a requirement of a showing of prevalence before the notice of 

proposed rulemaking can go or has to be included with a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. There are no findings of that type required 

under the Administrative Procedures Act before an NPR may be 

issued. 

There is also a requirement that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking be submitted to Congress 30 days before it is published in 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
97 

the Federal Register. There is no similar requirement under the 

Administrative Procedures Act. 

There is a requirement under Magnuson-Moss for a public comment period. That is not always required under APA rulemaking. 

Generally, it is not a public comment period under an APA rulemaking when there is some sort of emergency rule that an agency 

is issuing. 

There are express ex parte restrictions under Magnuson-Moss 

rulemaking. There aren’t under the Administrative Procedures Act. 

Although I can tell you as a matter of practice at the FTC when 

we do APA rulemaking in the notice, we include ex parte restrictions. So that is pretty much the same. 

OK, here is where it really gets bogged down. Under MagnusonMoss, there has to be an opportunity for a public oral hearing. And 

if a hearing is requested by anyone—anyone can request a hearing 

in a Magnuson-Moss rulemaking—then there has to be a presiding 

officer appointed. And there has to be a supplementary NPR published before any hearing that outlines the hearing issues which 

may lead to addition or deletion of issues based on public comment 

to the notice of the hearing. 

Then there is a process that is required for the identification of 

interested parties and their representatives to attend this hearing. 

Interested parties have to be given the opportunity to do direct and 

cross examination of other interested parties. So in some of the 

rulemakings, for example, the one that Ms. Keest mentioned that 

went on for 10 years, interests that did not want this rule to be 

issued engaged in perpetual rounds of examination and cross examination. 

Then there is a requirement that all of this be prescribed—transcribed verbatim. And just getting the stenographer to transcribe, 

you know, days and weeks and months of Kathleen cross examining Eileen and Eileen cross examining Kathleen, this is what is 

required, that takes time. 

Then the staff has to issue a staff report at the end of all of these 

hearings, and the presiding officer has to issue a recommendation 

or a decision. And then there is a public comment period required 

on all of this. That is just at the NPR stage. 

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, generally comments 

are submitted in writing. There is no requirement for a public 

hearing. At the FTC when we do APA rulemaking, we always do 

public workshops. We want to be very transparent. But it doesn’t 

take very long. 

And then at the final rule stage for a Magnuson-Moss rule there 

has to be a statement of basis and purpose issued to accompany the 

rule; and it must state the prevalence of acts or practices that are 

treated by the rule, the manner and context in which they are unfair or deceptive and the economic effect of the rule, taking into account small businesses and consumers. 

And specifically on the economic analysis there has to be a costbenefit analysis of each of the rules provisions. The statement of 

basis and purpose needs to address all of the comments and explain why the Commission did not adopt any particular—I see you 

looking at this and I am going on and on. And this is just describing it. You know, living it and doing it takes 10 years. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
98 

The Administrative Procedures Act, at the conclusion of the comment period, a rule can be issued. It needs to contain a concise and 

general statement of basis and purpose, not this really detailed. 

And then, finally, the standard for judicial review is different. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I know the chairman is giving me extra time, 

but the time is up. I see even just by how long it takes to explain 

it how it is. But I am really encouraged by the notion that we can 

reach some agreement here, Mr. Chairman; and I really appreciate 

that explanation. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

The Chair really thanks these witnesses. You have been extraordinary in your sharing with the members of the subcommittee your 

thoughts, and they are really going to be taken into much great 

consideration as we proceed. I just again want to thank you for 

taking the time off of your schedule, and you will be contacted for 

further input as we proceed. 

Let me just ask, if you would, we will keep the record open for 

72 hours, and so within the 72-hour period you may or may not be 

getting written questions from members of the subcommittee, those 

who are present and those who are not present. And if you would 

be really timely in your responses that certainly would be a benefit 

to the subcommittee. 

Thank you very much, and we will dismiss the first panel. Thank 

you so much. It was good. In a respectful manner. Thank you so 

much. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I request unanimous consent that three items be included in the 

record. That would be a statement of the American Financial Services Association, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and 

the Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum. 

Mr. RUSH. Hearing no objection so ordered. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
99 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 72887A.075
100 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 72887A.076
101 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 72887A.077
102 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 72887A.078
103 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 72887A.079
104 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 72887A.080
105 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 72887A.081
106 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 72887A.082
107 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 72887A.083
108 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 72887A.084
109 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 72887A.085
110 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 72887A.086
111 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 72887A.087
112 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 72887A.088
113 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 72887A.089
114 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 72887A.090
115 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now calls the second panel, panel number 

II. 

The Chair wants to welcome this distinguished panel of experts 

who are here to provide input and testify on the bill, H.R. 2190, 

the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act; and I will introduce the panel 

starting from my left to my right. 

First of all, I want to make sure that everybody recognizes Ms. 

Catherine O’Neill. She is an Associate Professor of Law in the Seattle University School of Law. 

Next to Ms. O’Neill is Ms. Lynn Goldman, who is a medical doctor. 

Dr. Goldman is a Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. 

And seated next to Ms. Goldman is Mr. Richard Jackson. He is 

the Executive Vice President of Operations for ASHTA, A–S-H–TA, Chemicals. 

Again, I want to welcome the witnesses. I want to thank you for 

taking the time off of your busy schedules to share with the subcommittee today. 

STATEMENTS OF CATHERINE O’NEILL, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW, SEATTLE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, 

MEMBER SCHOLAR, CENTER FOR PROGRESSIVE REFORM; 

LYNN GOLDMAN, M.D., M.P.H., PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, 

JOHNS HOPKINS NATIONAL CHILDREN’S STUDY (FORMER 

EPA ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ADMINISTRATION OF 

PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON); AND RICHARD 

JACKSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, 

ASHTA CHEMICALS INC. 

Mr. RUSH. We will begin by testimony from Ms. O’Neill. 

Ms. O’Neill, we ask that you pull the mike close to you, that you 

turn it on, and that you restrict your comments, please, to 5 minutes. Thank you and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE O’NEILL 

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. 

My testimony makes four points today. First, mercury contamination poses a grave threat to the neurological health of children 

in the United States. The danger for mercury pollution is particularly acute for groups that rely heavily on fish as a food source and 

so raises environmental justice concerns. 

Second, the chlor-alkali industry presents an easy case for eliminating this toxic pollutant. One simply doesn’t need mercury to 

produce chlorine and caustic soda. In fact, alternative technologies 

that don’t use any mercury at all have been used by the industry 

for 30 years. Yet four plants in the U.S. still refuse to update the 

processes. 

Third, the cost of delaying action on these outmoded plants are 

large in economic terms and unconscionable in human terms. For 

each year of delay, another cohort of children will be born with 

neurological damage due to mercury contamination. This damage is 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
116 

irreversible. While chlor-alkaliplants contribute only a portion of 

the mercury releases, it is a portion that is entirely preventible. 

Fourth, H.R. 2190 ensures the long-term viability of the chlor-alkali plants in the communities they support. Facilities that convert 

to the newer, more efficient mercury free technology are likely to 

remain competitive and provide jobs for years to come. 

We have long known that mercury is a potent neurotoxin threatening those exposed in utero and during childhood to even very 

small amounts of methylmercury. We have also come to appreciate 

that the harms of mercury contamination aren’t distributed equally. Rather, they are borne disproportionately by groups that rely 

heavily on fish, including Native Americans, African Americans, 

other communities of color and low-income fishers. 

It is not acceptable simply to tell women and children to stop eating fish for several decades of their lives, yet that is basically the 

regulatory strategy we are using. Tennessee, for example, has recently issued such an advisory for the stretch of the Hiwassee 

River adjacent to the Olin chlor-alkali plant there, warning women 

and children to eat no fish from the river due to mercury. 

The good news is that mercury releases from the chlor-alkali industry at least are entirely unnecessary. The industry developed alternative mercury free technologies years ago. 

The phaseout called for by H.R. 2190 very sensibly capitalizes on 

this opportunity to eliminate thousands of pounds of mercury releases each year, while leaving intact the industry’s ability to bring 

its products to market. Even if, as the industry suggests, the plants 

that currently use mercury can reduce some fraction of their emissions, the point remains that no mercury releases are necessary for 

this industry. Given mercury’s potency, even a tiny amount can be 

harmful. An oft-quoted illustration is that it takes just a teaspoon 

of mercury to contaminate a 25-acre lake. We should therefore be 

looking for every opportunity to eliminate mercury releases. 

An additional advantage of the newer mercury free technologies 

is that they are as much as 37 percent more energy efficient. While 

it might seem tempting simply to wait for the chlor-alkali industry 

to convert to these more efficient processes of its own accord, that 

would be a mistake. 

The cost of delaying action on these outmoded plants are not 

trivial. For each year of delay, another cohort of children will be 

born with neurological damage. Researchers have estimated that, 

in fact, as many as 630,000 children are born each year with neurological damage caused by anthropogenic sources of mercury. This 

damage will affect the intelligence and life prospects of these children for their entire lives. It is unacceptable to stand by for even 

a few years and permit this harm to more children for what 

amounts to the chlor-alkali industry’s convenience. 

Finally, H.R. 2190 takes a long-term perspective on the viability 

of the chlor-alkali facilities in the communities they support. Evidence suggests that plants that use mercury cell technology merely 

be able to sustain operations for a few more years. Plants that have 

controverted to the more efficient membrane health technology, by 

contrast, are likely to be remain competitive and provide jobs for 

decades. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
117 

In addition, H.R. 2190 functions to stimulate the new jobs required for the conversion. Recent chlor-alkali plant conversions 

have created some 250 such jobs for architects, designers, plumbers, electricians, and mechanics. 

In sum, H.R. 2190 overcomes our current myopia to ensure the 

environmental health and economic well-being for all those affected 

for the long haul. 

Thank you, and I welcome any questions. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks Ms. O’Neill. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Neill follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
118 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 72887A.091
119 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 72887A.092
120 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 72887A.093
121 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 72887A.094
122 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 72887A.095
123 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 72887A.096
124 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 72887A.097
125 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes Ms. Goldman for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN GOLDMAN, M.D., M.P.H. 

Dr. GOLDMAN. Thank you very much Mr. Rush, and also thank 

you to Mr. Radanovich for the opportunity to testify before you 

today about H.R. 2190. 

My name is Lynn Goldman, and I am a pediatrician and environmental health scientist and a professor at the Johns Hopkins 

School of Public Health who formerly served at the U.S. EPA as 

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances. And I have done research on mercury and 

its health effects on children. These comments that I have represent my point of view and not any point of view of Hopkins or 

any other organization I have ever been associated with. 

As you know very well, mercury is a toxic metal; and it exerts 

its toxicity on children through formation of methylmercury in 

water. And this transformation is almost inevitable. When there is 

release of mercury into the environment, unfortunately, that mercury then contaminates fish. 

There has been a lot of research that has demonstrated the toxic 

effects of mercury on the health of children, especially with in utero 

exposure; and, in fact, in the year 2000 the National Academies of 

Sciences released a report called Toxicological Effects of 

Methylmercury that not only documented these effects but also recommended a limit on exposure, that is, only 0.1 microgram per 

kilogram of body weight per day. Or if you had a 22-pound child 

we are talking about only 35 billionths of an ounce each day that 

is allowable. So you can understand why even what might appear 

to be small releases of mercury can amount to quite a bit when it 

comes to toxicity. 

As has already been mentioned, EPA has estimated that 630,000 

children every year are born with mercury levels in their blood that 

are above this. And in fact in my own research at Hopkins we can 

validate this with children in Baltimore. They are born with too 

much mercury in their blood. 

In the past, there used to be controversy about this. There was 

a time when we thought, well, some studies showed the effects of 

mercury and others did not. But even studies that in the past appeared to be negative have now shown to be positive. Because what 

happened is that the benefits from eating fish can blur the effects 

of mercury. 

So very, very tedious and careful methods have been needed in 

order to show that, despite the benefits of fish eating, that mercury 

itself is hazardous. In fact, over the last few years after the publication of the National Academy study, we have three new studies— 

one in Oswego, New York; one in New York City after the World 

Trade Center; and one in Boston—that all show these effects. I 

don’t think that the effects are at all disputable in terms of the 

neurotoxicity of mercury on babies. 

So what do we do? To manage the risk, we tell women of childbearing age to eat less fish, even though we know that there are 

actually benefits of eating fish. Well, then we can say, only eat the 

fish that have lower levels of mercury. But to do that we need to 

keep the mercury out of the environment. Because we have the 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
126 

threat of not having fish that women will find safe to eat if we keep 

polluting the environment with mercury. This is a very important 

issue. It must be addressed. 

We know that the ‘‘mercury cell’’ chlor-alkali manufacturing process is not an essential use of mercury. We know that Japan has 

phased this out. We know that Europe has phased this out. We 

know that we have almost succeeded through voluntary means of 

phasing this out in the United States. But, unfortunately, minus a 

mandate, we are not going to get to zero with this issue. We have 

found that there continue to be a handful of companies that use the 

mercury cell process and even though their production is less than 

5 percent of the total production of chlorine and of caustic soda production that it continues. 

What is the problem with that? 

Well, first, it creates the demand for mercury, which means that 

there is continued upstream pollution of mercury from mining, 

from manufacturing of the mercury. 

Second, there are then continued releases of mercury so that 

there are downstream releases either through fugitive emissions 

from these plants and perhaps in the bodies of the workers in these 

plants, certainly demonstrated around the environment of these 

plants, and even in the product that is coming from these plants 

there are minute amounts of mercury. 

So, in conclusion, elimination of mercury cell manufacture for 

chlorine and caustic soda will reduce the U.S. emissions of mercury. It also will contribute to our efforts to reduce mercury pollution globally. And in my experience with this issue we have too 

long taken positions that would say, on the one hand, let’s not take 

care of this problem in the U.S. until they take care of it globally 

and then, on the other hand, for the current administration walking into global negotiations and saying we are not going to take 

care of it globally because it is basically a domestic problem. 

We need to attack this problem on both fronts, and I do urge support of H.R. 2190. It is in the best interest of our children. Thank 

you. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you very much, Dr. Goldman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Goldman follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
127 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 72887A.098
128 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 72887A.099
129 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 72887A.100
130 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 72887A.101
131 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 72887A.102
132 

Mr. RUSH. Our final witness is Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD JACKSON 

Mr. JACKSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today concerning H.R. 2190, the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act 

of 2009. 

My name is Richard Jackson. I am the Vice President of Operations at ASHTA Chemicals in Ashtabula, Ohio. My testimony is 

on behalf of ASHTA and is intended to address the impact that this 

bill may have on our company and on the environment. While others in the chlor-alkali industry may be impacted by this proposed 

legislation, we do not intend to speak for them. 

ASHTA is a privately held company with offices and its only production facility in Ashtabula County, Ohio. Our plant has been in 

operation since 1964. We currently employ nearly 100 people, with 

an annual payroll of approximately $7 million in an economically 

depressed part of northeast Ohio. We support local businesses and 

contractors with close to $2 million in annual capital investments 

and over $3 million in annual expenditures on maintenance, operating supplies, and contracted services. 

While domestic mercury cell production may represent less than 

5 percent of all chlorine caustic soda in the United States, production of chlorine and potassium hydroxide, or KOH, using the same 

mercury cell process represents about 50 percent of the total production in the United States; and it represents 100 percent of our 

production. KOH is used as the principal source of alkalinity in 

many critical operations, including cleaning and disinfecting water 

treatment, liquid fertilizers, alkaline batteries, photo processing, 

herbicides, and runway de-icers, to name just a few. In many of 

these applications, there is simply no substitute for KOH. 

In our process, mercury is contained in closed electrolytic cells 

where it serves as a flowing cathode to extract potassium from potassium chloride. Strict safety procedures and process controls are 

followed to prevent workplace exposure and to minimize mercury 

emissions. Today, less than 1/10th of 1 percent of total global mercury emissions comes from the U.S. chlor-alkali industry; and less 

than 1/10,000th of 1 percent comes from ASHTA, as illustrated in 

Exhibit 1 of our testimony. 

ASHTA does not propose to challenge the bill’s findings regarding the effects of mercury on human health in the environment. 

However, ASHTA strongly disagrees with the findings that mercury cell production is obsolete and, most importantly, that the 

elimination of mercury cell production by ASHTA will materially 

impact the presence of mercury in the environment. 

ASHTA has an excellent environmental health and safety record 

and a long history of working in cooperation with regulatory agencies such as the United States EPA and the Ohio EPA. We are and 

have consistently operated within our permits and in compliance 

with the regulations that govern our site. 

ASHTA has also aggressively improved our environmental performance by making substantial financial investments to minimize 

mercury in water, air, and waste. We have eliminated the release 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
133 

of storm water and process water from our process areas in support 

of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, and we achieved early 

compliance with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or 

MACT, under the mercury cell chlor-alkali NESHAP regulations. 

ASHTA has also completed additional environmental projects to 

minimize fugitive emissions from our chlor-alkali process and work 

areas. This resulted in a significant reduction in our air emissions 

of mercury to less than 1/10th of one gram per day, which is less 

than 1/10th of one pound per year. 

With the substantial reductions in mercury emissions achieved 

by ASHTA we believe that there are no human health or environmental issues that justify mandating this phaseout of mercury cell 

technology. Forced conversion or closure of ASHTA’s facility will 

have no measurable effect on the global or local mercury emissions, 

human health, or the environment of the United States, the State 

of Ohio, or the city of Ashtabula, where most of our employees live 

and work. It would, however, have a substantial adverse effect on 

the KOH supply in the United States in those businesses which 

rely on it. 

It could also result in the closure of ASHTA’s only production facility and the loss of nearly 100 high-paying jobs. This in turn 

would negatively impact many of our customers and would also result in a large increase in the number of railcar shipments of chlorine across our Nation’s mainline railroads in order to serve the 

needs of our adjacent customer who buys 100 percent of the chlorine we produce. 

ASHTA has repeatedly evaluated the economics of converting our 

plant to membrane cell technology, and each time we have concluded that the economic risk to our company did not justify conversion. Particularly considering our long-standing record of environmental compliance and at a time when our country and local 

community are in the worst economic condition since the Great Depression, requiring us to make further significant and financial investment to convert to membrane technology is unwarranted, it is 

confiscatory, and it is bad public policy. Therefore, we urge you to 

consider the broader impact the adoption of this bill would have; 

and we urge you to defeat the proposed legislation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

your valuable time; and I will gladly answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
134 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 72887A.103
135 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 72887A.104
136 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 72887A.105
137 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 72887A.106
138 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 72887A.107
139 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 72887A.108
140 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 72887A.109
141 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 72887A.110
142 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 72887A.111
143 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks all of the witnesses, and the Chair 

recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning the 

witnesses. 

According to the EPA, concentrations of mercury in blood and 

hair are higher in African Americans than other ethnic groups. In 

2004, a study found in its survey samples that African American 

and Mexican American children have higher mercury hair concentrations than White children; and this study further linked 

higher mercury levels with the consumption of fish. 

In her written testimony, Professor O’Neill cites a study that 

found that 27.4 percent of women who are Native Americans, Asian 

Americans or from the Pacific or Caribbean Islands have mercury 

levels that pose a risk to developing fetuses. This is nearly three 

times the national average. 

My question to both Dr. Goldman and Professor O’Neill, can you 

explain the disparate impact on mercury on people of color and on 

poor communities? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. I can tell you what we know, and that is—and our 

research, by the way, shows the same thing—with higher levels in 

African American babies at birth and also Asian babies have higher levels. And what we know is that people who are poor, in immigrant communities as well are more likely to fish for subsistence, 

to go and to get fish in places that have mercury pollution and 

where the fish are accumulating that pollution. 

And that is also why—one of the other statistics that you cited 

about Native Americans, that is also why often those populations 

have more exposure. And we think that that is the most important 

reason. 

Mr. RUSH. Would you care to add some additional comments, Ms. 

O’Neill? 

Ms. O’NEILL. Yes, thank you. 

This finding is backed up by the National Environmental Justice 

Advisory Council, who in 2002 found the issue of exposure via fish 

consumption—because this is the primary route of exposure to mercury and a number of other pollutants—to warrant a full-blown 

study on just this issue. So this study—and I served as a member 

of the work group that drafted it—made just these findings. 

And the studies show—and these studies were conducted in Detroit, Michigan, studies in the south, studies in the northeast and 

really all around the country and certainly in the Pacific Northwest—that when we are talking about these communities of color, 

whether we are talking Asian American communities, African 

American communities, certainly Native American communities, 

that the place of fish, whether both culturally and economically in 

their diets and in their lives is such that they are going to be the 

ones who are most exposed and the most harmed by contamination. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson, in your testimony I believe I heard you say that 

your company did not alter its production methods because of the 

economic impact on your company, that there were alternatives but 

you chose not to use alternatives because it would have an adverse 

economic impact on your company. Is that correct? 

Mr. JACKSON. Had we gone and done some of the conversions 

and so forth and put ourselves at financial risk through the financVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:56 May 25, 2012 Jkt 072887 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A887.XXX A887

emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
144 

ing of these, it would have put us at way too great a risk from any 

reasonable business operation. Basically, we would have had to 

choose to put ourselves at such a risk that we could not effectively 

compete. And through the markets that we have been through, effectively it would have been the same result as what this bill as 

currently written. It would take us out of business. 

Mr. RUSH. So you are saying that you could not afford the transition from your current method to—— 

Mr. JACKSON. No, we were able to meet and beyond any of the 

regulations, all of the current regulations and previous regulations, 

regarding environmental compliance. Investment in those regulations, to meet those regulations, as laid out by the United States 

EPA and other regulatory bodies, we complied with every one and 

went beyond each one, as I noted in my testimony; and we saw no 

reason to take it beyond that level, because, clearly, we were meeting the objective of the environmental regulators at that time. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you. 

The Chair’s time has ended. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jackson, in the world of mercury, whatever you do is such 

a small part of that, it seems like. Of the four industries that this 

bill affects, it seems to be a small fraction of the number in the 

mercury world. Isn’t there other places to look for substantially 

more reductions than your industry? 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, there is still a number of places and sources 

of mercury. Europe continues to use more mercury cell technology 

than we do for the same process. 

Gold mining is one of the most horrific uses of mercury, especially artisanal miners in the Malaysian area as well as Brazil and 

so forth, rain forest areas, unfortunately. These areas have significant impact on the mercury in the environment, as well as the 

power industry through their continued additional Chinese power 

plants that go in and put high-level mercury that is deposited 

throughout the world, not just close to the stacks of the Chinese 

power industry but throughout the world and effectively hitting 

every water body in the world. That is really the source of the mercury. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Dr. Goldman, I want to ask you a question. 

It seems to me the trend right now—and people for energy purposes are encouraging compact fluorescent light bulbs which contain mercury. They are going into homes all over the country. It 

seems to me that that would be a bigger thing to go after than it 

would be something as small as this. What is your thought on that? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. First, to the chlor-alkali mercury cell technology, 

Europe is phasing them out by 2020. So they have a clear deadline 

for taking them out of production. Globally, it is a major source; 

and it is hard for us to tell developing countries not to do something that we continue to do. I think you understand that. 

But in terms of the compact fluorescents, there are lower mercury bulbs that have been developed; and I think that the market—EPA should be pushing the market toward those, as well as 

the new LED light bulbs and to move to LED technology that is 

a nonmercury technology, which at this point it is not quite at a 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
145 

place where you can replace light bulbs in your home but needs to 

be done. 

Because it is a problem, and it is beginning to contribute quite 

a bit to not only the potential for breakage in the home and having 

to deal with all of that but also that—just another set of items that 

we are disposing of that we have to segregate and so forth, and it 

is just kind of better to not create that. 

As a mom, for me it is just one more thing that I have to think 

about segregating and disposing of some special way; and I would 

really rather not have to deal with that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Isn’t it—I think this might be a case again 

that we experienced on lead poisoning, a hearing we did where it 

is either all or nothing. It seems like any presence of any mercury 

anywhere—say, for example, lead is used on a part of a handlebar 

on a bicycle, apparently where it needs some of that malleability 

to force the handlebars to stay on straight. And yet the probability 

of that getting into a child is—you know, I suppose there is a probability but very, very small. Isn’t this the case that we are seeing 

here with this, that nothing is good unless it is all gone? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. The thing about lead that is slightly easier than 

mercury is it is easier to immobilize. And the thing that is hard 

to understand about mercury is that when you see that little liquid 

stuff jiggling around that there is vapor coming off of it, unlike lead 

which does not vaporize at room temperature. 

Lead can also be a major problem. Kids have gotten lead poisoning from all kinds of weird things. I have seen a kid get lead 

poisoning from sucking on their baby monitor, which who would let 

their kid suck on a baby monitor, you know. But there is all kinds 

of weird things that can happen. But at least lead in waste, you 

can kind of immobilize it. 

It is very difficult to immobilize mercury. That is the major issue. 

Until it is converted to methylmercury, and then it doesn’t vaporize 

anymore, but then you have the toxic compound that is right there 

in the environment. So it is a very different kind of a metal. 

Even though you are right, in some ways, there are molecules of 

mercury that we could chase around forever and never be able to 

deal with. And I think you are right to be pointing to that because 

you aren’t going to be able to get rid of every molecule in mercury. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson, do you think by your company’s following the EPA 

rules that you follow right now, is that sufficient in your mind to 

control the release of mercury? 

Mr. JACKSON. We believe they are. We think that the EPA rules 

have been great guidance as far as our industry. We have seen 

much more stringent regulations in the last NESHAP through the 

maximum tubal control technology, which basically took our industry—and the Chlorine Institute has kept records of this over the 

last 11 years—has basically taken our industry and reduced the 

amount of mercury released from our industry by 94 percent. 

ASHTA itself has already taken more than that, down to 98 to 

99 percent. We believe fully that the little bit of mercury that we 

continue to put out in waste, it is well managed, it is controlled, 

it goes into restricted waste landfills, it is completely immobilized. 

The mercury in the water—we don’t release any water from our 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
146 

site, but there is no vapor pressure on the mercury from our product or water. So the idea of a child breathing mercury or being exposed to it through any of our products directly is just not really 

practical. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 

I appreciate all the witnesses, and I yield back. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 

Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Jackson, can you explain to me why the 

EPA issued a health advisory in March of this year warning residents that fish caught in the Ashtabula River were contaminated 

with mercury? 

Mr. JACKSON. I think if you look at fish advisories throughout 

the United States the location next to chlor-alkali industries has 

very little to do with where fish advisories are created. The fact is 

that the areas of which the fish advisory are I believe are well 

apart from any outfall that we have ever had. We currently do not 

release water at all from our facility, so we don’t feel like we would 

have impacted a fish advisory at all. 

The Midwest is a large burner of coal, and in coal fires that are 

in the releases from coal production energy is put into the upper 

atmosphere. It travels west to east. And as you can look at the 

Northeast corridor that is where your largest deposition of mercury 

has occurred. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you think your plant has nothing to do 

with it? I only have 5 minutes. So you are saying you don’t think 

you have anything to do with it. Aside from no water emissions, 

are you saying there is zero air emissions? 

Mr. JACKSON. No, we are not saying there is zero air emissions. 

Less than 1—.1 grams per day is what we have measured from our 

facility. Much—probably 10 times less than the EPA recommended 

standard. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Now, you cited an EPA 1997 report. That is 

where you got your numbers. About less than 1/10th of 1 percent 

of mercury emissions in the world. Are you aware of the United 

Nations Environmental Program study of December, 2008? 

Mr. JACKSON. I have been looking for that report. I have not seen 

the data from it yet. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, what it says is that, actually, the chloralkali industry is responsible for a significantly higher proportion 

of global mercury emissions, 2.43 percent. So given—and maybe we 

can get more information from Dr. Goldman, Ms. O’Neill—but, 

given those figures, do you still believe that eliminating the use of 

mercury and chlor-alkali production won’t make an impact on the 

presence of mercury in the environment? 

Mr. JACKSON. It will not make a measurable impact. You could 

take away—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Even if it were two point—— 

Mr. JACKSON. Even if you took all the chlor-alkali industry, mercury cell chlor-alkali industry I would say out of the world, clearly 

out of the United States, the impact on the lakes and rivers and 

streams and the amount of mercury in the fish would have virtually no impact. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
147 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me get a response to that from either one 

of you, or both. 

Dr. GOLDMAN. I think certainly that it would have an impact, 

and it would have an impact in the immediate time period just 

with the current existing production of these materials and also the 

associated mining and smelting that needs to be done in order to 

produce the mercury that is purchased. 

But, also, if you look for it into the future and with the rapid 

pace of economic development globally, which will increase the demand for these products of chlorine and alkali, that if the world 

continues using this method there will be even more increase in 

mercury production, more releases of mercury. And this is a cumulative, persistent problem. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Ms. O’Neill. 

Ms. O’NEILL. Thank you. 

I think it is certainly the case of the natural sources of mercury 

that we are not going to be able to control. But the fact is, and I 

think Dr. Goldman said it, that when there are nonessential uses, 

human made contributions that we can prevent, we should do so. 

The impact will be material from this industry. 

Mr. Jackson quoted the emissions of ASHTA, but, of course, we 

have to remember that H.R. 2190 would phase out the use from the 

entire mercury cell process within the chlor-alkali industry. And 

the Chlorine Institute’s numbers show releases from this group on 

the order of four tons, if you include releases to the environment 

and to end products that might end up in human food, as we have 

seen from the recent report in the Washington Post. And potentially as much as eight tons if you account for the unaccounted for 

mercury and the fugitive emissions which EPA still suggests are on 

the order of potentially to about half ton per source. So these are 

not needed for the processes. We can still bring all these products 

to market without the mercury, and as a nonessential source of 

mercury it is one that we can eliminate. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to submit for the record a letter 

from 43 environmental groups in support of H.R. 2190. 

Mr. RUSH. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
148 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 72887A.112
149 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 72887A.113
150 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 72887A.114
151 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 72887A.115
152 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Scalise from Louisiana for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, a question for Dr. O’Neill. 

Your testimony refers to allegations about mercury and high 

fructose corn syrup via caustic soda. Dr. Robert Stopford, a renowned expert on the health effects of mercury who graduated 

from Harvard Medical School and directs the toxicology program at 

Duke University Medical Center, has conducted research in this 

area, but he found that no quantifiable mercury was found in any 

of the sampled surveys, and high fructose corn syrup does not appear to be a measurable contributor in mercury food. Have you 

looked at Dr. Stopford’s research findings, and if you can just comment on what he reported. 

Ms. O’NEILL. And perhaps Dr. Goldman can speak to this as 

well. 

I am not familiar with that study; and the studies to which I am 

referring are the ones recently published in the Environmental 

Health Perspectives, where they found that 50 percent of the samples showed measurable quantities of mercury. 

My point is not that this is the primary route of contamination. 

In fact, we know that fish is the primary route of human exposure 

to mercury; and that is the graver source of concern, particularly 

given fish’s health benefits that we have to forego if they are contaminated with mercury. 

My point is to recognize that if we are using mercury by this 

process it ends up somewhere. We have to buy it. It ends up in the 

river. It ends up going out the stacks. It goes out as fugitive emissions into the environment and ends up in the water and ends up 

in product as a contaminant. And I think EPA and the industry 

and the textbook discussions of the process recognize that this is 

necessarily the case when you are using mercury cell technology. 

Mr. SCALISE. Dr. Goldman. 

Dr. GOLDMAN. I guess I should start by congratulating you, looking at the sticker on your jacket. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. I am operating on 3 hours of sleep, so 

I apologize. 

Dr. GOLDMAN. No, I understand. I have been there. 

I have read, actually, that study; and I think that it probably is 

true, that they can measure very minute amounts of mercury and 

the HFCS. And I also did not think that it was enough to be concerned about toxicologically. I mean, from the standpoint of whether you eat that or not, I would be more concerned for my child to 

be eating too much high fructose corn syrup just because it is not 

the best diet. It is basically the diet most kids want to eat, and we 

want them to eat vitamins and protein and other things. 

But I think it is indicative of just kind of the problem that we 

generally have probably contamination of mercury in the environment that is not only through emissions and from plants and fugitive emissions but possibly in a little bit that goes out in the product. But I would not want people to be worried about eating this 

product on that basis. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
153 

Mr. SCALISE. A recent U.S. geological survey report found that 

methylmercury emissions from around the world, primarily in Asia, 

end up in the North Pacific, contaminating 40 percent of tuna as 

well as other seafood. Considering the vast expansion of coal-fired 

power plants in China and India, how much do you think that is 

contributing to some of the things that you are looking at? 

Dr. GOLDMAN. I think it is a major concern. I think there is pretty good evidence that a large fraction of the mercury that we are 

exposed to is local, and another large fraction is from global emissions, and then there is a lot of it that is just from reentrainment. 

Some of the mercury is just deposited and then reentrains and 

comes back. So there is recirculation of mercury that has already 

been released. 

So all of those have to be addressed on different fronts, and the 

global emissions I think need to be addressed through the UNEP 

and actions to try to get everybody in the world to take action to 

reduce mercury emissions. And the fact that there are many new 

coal-fired power plants being built in China every week is a great 

concern and not just from the standpoint of mercury but also from 

the standpoint of global warming that things need to be done in 

order to turn that around. You were talking about 6 billion people 

in the world, all of whom want to live just like we do; and we have 

got to take action to make sure that the things that seem to be little things—— 

Mr. SCALISE. A lot of them criticize—— 

Dr. GOLDMAN (continuing). Things that seem to be little, but if 

we multiply it times 6 billion, it is not a little, it is a lot. 

Mr. SCALISE. Let me ask Mr. Jackson, because it looks like on 

the solid waste reporting requirements in Subsection C of the bill 

that relate to nonhazard waste—I don’t know if you have looked at 

that. Would there be any value in your company actually having 

to report on its lunchroom trash contents? 

Mr. JACKSON. We don’t see this as any benefit whatsoever. We 

see it as onerous upon us. We have no—the idea of our office waste 

or food waste from employees, we don’t even know how to manifest 

it or send it off. 

The other thing I think the committee should recognize is that 

all even nonhazardous waste landfills are regulated so that the 

waste that goes in there, hazardous or nonhazardous, is basically 

treated the same as if it were hazardous. So the release of any potential mercury that could have slipped into the trash can with an 

office paper, which is just totally impractical—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I see I am out of time. I yield back. Thanks. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

This concludes this portion of this hearing. And, again, the Chair 

thanks all the participants for your involvement, for the sacrifice 

of your very important time. We really appreciate your contribution 

to the deliberation of this subcommittee on these very important 

issues. Thank you so very much and safe travels. Thank you. God 

bless. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. RUSH. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member for a 

unanimous consent request. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
154 

I ask unanimous consent that the following documents be included in the printed record: a letter to you and I from Arthur 

Dungan of the Chlorine Institute dated May 11, 2009; a report titled the Assessment of Test Results for Mercury in High Fructose 

Corn Syrup by Dr. Woodhall Stopford; a report titled Normal Mercury Levels in Food and Beverages by Dr. Woodhall Stopford; a 

statement from the Corn Refiners Association dated February 3, 

2009; a news release from the Corn Refiners Association dated 

March 18, 2009; and a news release from ChemRisk dated January 

30, 2009. 

Mr. RUSH. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
155 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 72887A.116
156 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 72887A.117
157 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 72887A.118
158 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 72887A.119
159 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 72887A.120
160 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 72887A.121
161 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 72887A.122
162 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 72887A.123
163 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 72887A.124
164 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 72887A.125
165 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 72887A.126
166 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 72887A.127
167 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 72887A.128
168 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 72887A.129
169 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 72887A.130
170 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 72887A.131
171 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 72887A.132
172 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 72887A.133
173 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 72887A.134
174 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 72887A.135
175 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 72887A.136
176 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 72887A.137
177 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 72887A.138
178 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 72887A.139
179 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 72887A.140
180 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 72887A.141
181 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 72887A.142
182 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 72887A.143
183 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 72887A.144
184 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 72887A.145
185 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 72887A.146
186 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 72887A.147
187 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 72887A.148
188 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 72887A.149
189 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 72887A.150
190 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 72887A.151
191 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 72887A.152
192 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 72887A.153
193 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 72887A.154
194 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 72887A.155
195 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 72887A.156
196 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 72887A.157
197 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 72887A.158
198 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 72887A.159
199 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 72887A.160
200 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 72887A.161
201 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 72887A.162
202 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 72887A.163
203 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 72887A.164
204 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 72887A.165
205 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 72887A.166
206 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 72887A.167
207 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 72887A.168
208 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 72887A.169
209 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 72887A.170
210 

Mr. RUSH. The subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARING
211 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 72887A.171