http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-819---maryland-funding-accountability-and-transparency-act-of-2008 Chairman Currie, and members of the Budget and Taxation Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today. My name is Johanna Neumann and I am the state director for Maryland PIRG, the Maryland Public Interest Research Group. Maryland PIRG is a statewide non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization. I am here today in support of Senate Bill 819, and in particular to speak to the benefits of disclosing information about state financial assistance and expenditures through an easy to use searchable online database. We live in an era where Americans expect to be able to search their own bank accounts or cell phone bills online, in which we can verify information people tell us by googling it online. To restore public confidence in government, we also need to live in an era of “google-able government” when it comes to transparency and accountability for the public purse. Especially in these tough budget times, taxpayers should be able to track every taxpayer dollar spent and make sure we are getting the most ‘bang for our buck’ for any business subsidies. Regardless of what one thinks about whether there should be more or less business subsidies, our the residents of our state deserve to get the greatest results and accountability for each dollar. And taxpayers have a right to know whether their dollars are being used efficiently and effectively. During the special session, you were forced to make some tough decisions to balance a massive budget deficit. Some of these decisions cut funding for programs and raised taxes for many Marylanders. The Maryland Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2008 will create an important tool for Maryland’s citizens to better understand the decisions that were made. Many other states have taken important steps in providing accessible information to their citizens regarding government spending. Missouri and Texas have already created websites with detailed information about state spending that is searchable by agency, category, contract, or vendor. Oklahoma, Hawaii, Kansas, and Minnesota also passed transparency laws this past year. Minnesota, for example, reports total subsidy amount, wage and benefits data for the jobs created by subsidies, a summary of the goals in the subsidy agreement, outcomes until goals are attained, and (when applicable) a company’s former location within the state and the reason for relocation. This data allows Minnesotans to know which subsidies are creating new upwardly jobs, as opposed to just promoting relocation from one town to another with worse jobs. Maryland deserves no less. Accessibility and formatting of the disclosure reports are also important. We all know that having data somewhere on the web is not the same as true accessibility and usability. For example, the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity has a specially designated corporate accountability website created pursuant to the 2003 Corporate Accountability in Tax Expenditures Act. All compliance reports are available there in an easy-to-use database searchable by report year, award year, and program type. Maryland deserves no less. The companion bill to SB 819 in the House of Delegates, House Bill 358, has already passed through the Health and Government Operations Committee with unanimous bi-partisan support. Sen. Mooney and Sen. Raskin have worked together on this bill to give Maryland a bi-partisan approach to good government and citizen’s right-to-know. Our government should have a website that shows how every public dollar gets spent. People can have better confidence in public officials when people can hold them accountable. We look forward to working with you and the legislature to increase transparency and accountability. Together we can maintain our proud tradition of open government in Maryland, and build public trust in the investments made with taxpayer money. We urge you to vote favorably for SB 819. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-819---maryland-funding-accountability-and-transparency-act-of-2008 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:47:51 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/lowering-textbook-costs http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/lowering-textbook-costs Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:54:09 -0600 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-785cigarette-fire-safety-and-firefighter-protection-act Testimony of Johanna Neumann of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group (Maryland PIRG) Position: FAVORABLE The Maryland Public Interest Research Group (Maryland PIRG) requests a favorable report on House Bill 785, requiring cigarettes sold in Maryland to self-extinguish when not in use. Cigarette-started fires are the most fatal type of fire. While no cigarette is truly fire safe, reduced ignition cigarettes are significantly less likely to start fires, saving the lives of citizens, reducing the risk to our firefighters, and saving millions of dollars in property damage each year. Cigarette caused fires are the leading cause of fire death in our state, responsible for an average of 20% of all of the civilian fire deaths in any given year. From 2000-2005, cigarette caused fires in Maryland killed 100 people and directly caused a total of $36.1 million in property damage. For decades, the government has created standards and regulations to make all sorts of consumer products safer. The adoption of fire retardant pajamas, fire standards for lamps and space heaters, and child safety locks on lighters have all prevented fires and saved lives. The manufacturers of cigarettes should be held to the same basic fire safety standards as manufacturers of other consumer products that pose potential fire hazards. Reduced ignition propensity cigarettes are designed to self-extinguish if not drawn on within a period of time. This is accomplished through paper bands, which act like a speed bump and slow down the burn rate of the cigarette. Unattended, the cigarette will extinguish itself when it reaches the band. New York, California, Vermont, and Canada all mandate the sale of these cigarettes, and Massachusetts and New Hampshire are currently considering similar legislation. These cigarettes are proven to work – since New York enacted their law, not a single fire has been started by a reduced ignition cigarette. Tobacco lobbyists argue that fire safer cigarettes are more harmful to smokers and cost more than cigarettes without the fire safety standard. Both arguments are untrue. First, Harvard School of Public Health research showed a 10% increase of carbon monoxide in fire safe cigarettes compared to the regular cigarettes in the same brands. Yet this variation is actually quite low, considering that the variation in carbon monoxide between cigarettes within the Marlboro family alone ranges up to 500%. Cigarettes are extremely lethal in terms of health outcomes, and there is no evidence to show that a 10% increase or decrease in carbon monoxide alters the already high risk of disease. Second, in New York, the tobacco industry has easily complied with recently adopted reduced ignition propensity regulations set there. Fire safer cigarettes sold in New York since the adoption of the standards have not increased cigarette costs. The Harvard study analyzed eight months of cigarette sales using excise tax revenue data available since June 28, 2004, when the New York standard came into effect. Statistical analysis demonstrated no significant effect on cigarette sales since the introduction of the standard. Enacting this law will not change consumption habits by smokers. In consumer tests, smokers could not tell the difference between reduced ignition propensity cigarettes and the regular cigarette of the same brand. The only difference between fire safer cigarettes and regular ones is the ability to save lives. Requiring cigarette companies to sell only a fire safe product in Maryland will significantly reduce the casualty rate and save millions of dollars each year in property damage, fire and rescue costs and health care expenses resulting from cigarette caused fires. Maryland PIRG respectfully requests a favorable report on HB785. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-785cigarette-fire-safety-and-firefighter-protection-act Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:00:08 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-359--clean-indoor-air-act-of-2007 Testimony of Johanna Neumann on behalf of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group (Maryland PIRG) Position: FAVORABLE Smoking is a hazard to people’s health. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides – combined. Of all the illnesses and deaths that occur throughout the state, smoking-related occurrences are the most preventable. Tobacco companies make a product that kills 440,000 Americans a year, which is 1,200 Americans a day. Not only does the tobacco industry produce a lethal substance that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans a year, but it also purposefully spikes tobacco with specific ingredients in order to make tobacco so addictive that people will struggle for years, even their entire lives, to give up the deadly habit without success. Additionally, the industry spends billions of dollars every year on advertising that targets young people. By targeting a young population, the tobacco industry ensures that these youngsters will be tobacco customers for life. Second hand smoke leads to 53,000 deaths a year and the Centers for Disease Control has concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, the third leading cause of preventable death in America. As a result, over 1,000 cities and 17 states have taken action to protect its citizens by banning smoking inside of all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Maryland ’s restaurant and bar workers are most at risk. Many of Maryland workers can't avoid the second hand smoke and have to spend 8 hours a day breathing in second hand smoke. In a smoke filled room for one shift of 8 hours the workers are smoking the equivalent of 1 to 2 packs a day. Restaurant and bar workers are the only remaining unprotected work force in the state of Maryland. Maryland can and has used local laws to beat big tobacco. Howard, Prince George’s Montgomery and Talbot Counties, along with Baltimore City have passed comprehensive smoke-free workplace laws. Now the time has come for Maryland to pass a comprehensive smoke-free workplace law statewide. Maryland PIRG respectfully urges a favorable report on HB 359. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-359--clean-indoor-air-act-of-2007 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:05:41 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-833-public-healthphthalates-and-bisphenol-a-prohibitions--toys-child-care-articles-and-cosmetics Position: FAVORABLE Phthalates are chemical substances that make PVC plastic soft and flexible. They are widely used in products such as food wrappings, vinyl shower curtains, and cosmetics. They are also used in soft plastic toys and other baby products, such as teething rings and rattles. Phthalates can leach out of plastic over time. Children, who have a natural tendency to suck on objects and put things in their mouths, are particularly vulnerable to phthalates. Bisphenol-A is an industrial chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic – a type of plastic that is popular due to properties such as shatter-resistance and high heat resistance. It is used in water bottles, baby feeding bottles, microwave ovenware and eating utensils. Like phthalates, bisphenol-A can leach out these products and enter our bodies. Both phthalates and bisphenol-A are found in just about every part of our bodies — blood, urine, even amniotic fluid. Exposure is widespread and involuntary. That is indisputable. What you will hear today is mixed scientific evidence about the effects of phthalates and bisphenol-A on developing children. Industry experts will say evidence is lacking, while public health advocates will say it is mounting. We believe the latter. Evidence has been mounting that phthalates and bisphenol-A could be altering the hormones and harming the reproductive systems of babies. The compounds have been shown in hundreds of laboratory studies to mimic estrogen or block testosterone and feminize animals. Exposure to pregnant mothers carrying boys is particularly worrisome. In animal studies, a single dose of one phthalate at the wrong time leaves "permanent and profound effects" on the embryo. Phthalates block male hormones, causing feminization of reproductive tracts in laboratory animals. Dozens of studies on lab animals show evidence of this. Several human studies have linked phthalates with changes in sperm, genitals and hormone production. Exposure to phthalates has been linked to undescended testicles and malformed urinary tracts, conditions which have doubled in baby boys in the U.S. from 1970-1993. A recent study looked at phthalate levels in the urine of 85 pregnant women, then studied the genital development of their babies. The boys from the most highly exposed mothers were ten times more likely to have impaired genital development than boys from the least exposed mothers. Studies involving bisphenol-A are showing similar findings. A review published in 2004 found that, of 152 studies looking for some harm as a result of low-dose exposure to bisphenol-A, 129 found some adverse effect. Only 33 found none, including all 12 industry-funded studies. Some phthalates are banned or restricted by the European Union and at least 11 other nations. Several leading toy manufacturers, including Tyco, Mattel, Fisher Price and Gerber, have already begun to take the responsible path and phase out phthalates in certain toys. We applaud these steps. When you hear from industry experts, I hope that you will ask them directly if phthalates and bisphenol-A are safe. What you will hear will likely include: “Most likely,” “I believe so,” “We have no reason to believe otherwise,” “The evidence seems to indicate that,” etc. etc. You will not hear from their mouths these words: “These chemicals are completely safe.” You will not hear that today, and shouldn’t hear that because evidence shows otherwise. But we need to know that something is completely safe when it comes to the health and well-being of our children. You will not hear that these chemicals are completely safe and that should cause you great concern. We urge you to err on the side of caution and vote in favor of HB 833. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-833-public-healthphthalates-and-bisphenol-a-prohibitions--toys-child-care-articles-and-cosmetics Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:01:49 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-488statewide-electronics-recycling-program Testimony on Behalf of Johanna Neumann, Maryland PIRG Position: FAVORABLE Toxic waste from consumer electronics is an enormous problem. Computers contain more than 1,000 materials, including lead and cadmium in computer circuit boards, lead oxide and barium in computer monitors' cathode ray tubes, mercury in switches and flat screens, and brominated flame retardants on printed circuit boards, cables and plastic casing. Computers are sold in vast quantities, and as dead computers pile up, we hardly have any infrastructure to handle them properly. Some counties have voluntarily set up limited collection activities, but most have not. Consumers have no good options. Many computers go to landfills and incinerators. At best, they are piling up in garages and attics. Maryland PIRG was honored to be a part of a workgroup in 2004 to study options for boosting recycling of consumer electronics. The workgroup contained diverse interests that had strikingly different views on the issue. It was clear that consensus would not be possible between different parts of the industry, local governments, and environmental organizations. Del. Morhaim took the opportunity to step forward and passed HB 575 in 2005, which established a statewide computer recycling pilot program. That pilot program is in effect and working, and this bill would codify the program in state law. It would also expand the scope of the project to a broad range of consumer electronic devices. Local governments will obtain funding for collection events and the toxicity of our wastestream would be reduced. Maryland PIRG respectfully urges the committee to report favorably on HB 488. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-488statewide-electronics-recycling-program Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:58:40 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-562energy-efficiency-and-conservation-measures-and-services Position: FAVORABLE Producing energy carries high environmental costs as well as high costs to consumers of electricity. It is prudent to use this important resource wisely, especially in light of local and national trends in the electric market. The future of electricity costs looks anything but rosy for consumers. In the United States, average residential rates increased in 2001 for the first time in nearly 20 years and increased in 2003 as well. System reliability problems have been on a steady upward trajectory. In Maryland, rate caps that had shielded consumers from price volatility came off last summer for over 1.2 million customers, resulting in a dramatic rate increase which consumers are still not facing the full brunt of. Demand for electricity is increasing and the massive investments in transmission capacity or new generation proposed by many in the electric industry could saddle consumers with higher rates for years, if not decades, to come. Maryland used to lead the country in energy efficiency programs, investing $13 per person in energy efficiency programs annually. After Maryland restructured its electric utility industry in 1999, all of the efficiency programs were halted by Maryland’s major utilities, and we currently invest less than $1 per person annually in reducing our collective energy use. As a result, our yearly increase in demand for electricity tripled from a modest 0.8% annual growth rate from 1992 through 1998 to a 2.4% annual growth rate from 1998 through 2004. This unchecked demand for electricity leaves us vulnerable to spikes in electric prices, could leave consumers paying high costs for new transmission or generating capacity and could lead to supply shortfalls in the coming years. The good news is that we don’t need to build new transmission lines or power plants to meet our energy needs. Virtually every aspect of our lives has the potential to be more energy efficient— often in ways that not only reduce pollution, but that save money as well. SB 562 is a powerful step that will decrease our demand for new electricity. If passed, ten years from now we will have reduced our energy usage by 12 percent of 2006 levels, and the electricity saved in 2016 alone will be enough to supply over 200,000 typical Maryland households. SB 562 accomplishes these savings by requiring all regulated utilities to invest in energy saving measures that save about 1 % of residential sales each year for each of the next 10 years. It would also remove financial disincentives for electric companies to save energy, by decoupling the utility’s profits from the amount of energy sold. SB 562 gives the regulated utilities discretion to implement the programs that will help them reach the specific targets and timetables for implementation best. This legislation is good for the environment and good for consumers and Maryland PIRG urges the committee to issue a favorable report on SB 562. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-562energy-efficiency-and-conservation-measures-and-services Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:03:05 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-674maryland-energy-efficiency-standards-act-of-2007 Position: FAVORABLE Energy efficiency can be designed into new products and equipment as they enter the marketplace. When energy-saving features cost less than the energy they save, everybody wins -- the manufacturer, the consumer, and the environment. The energy efficiency of several products (i.e., cars, refrigerators) is regulated exclusively by the federal government, but states are free to establish efficiency standards for most other products. Maryland has been a leader among the states, enacting the first wave of efficiency standards for a number of products in 2004 over the veto of Governor Ehrlich. The following year the federal government enacted Maryland’s standards nationwide, clearly demonstrating how statewide policy can drive national policy. Energy efficiency technology is constantly advancing and the time has come for Maryland to pass the next wave of efficiency standards. SB 674 contains efficiency standards for 9 types of new products sold or installed in the state. While the up-front cost of more efficient appliances may be higher than less efficient models, the energy savings pay for the difference early in the life of the product. In fact, by 2020, consumers will save $171 million in energy use if this bill is passed. Maryland would be the first state to pass standards for all 9 products included in this bill, but the individual appliance standards have all been passed in other states. In fact, California, the world’s sixth largest economy, has passed standards for all of the products except gas furnaces, so availability shortages for the energy efficient products are unlikely. SB 674 also sets a requirement for the Public Service Commission to adopt a rule to ensure that electric utilities will purchase more efficient liquid-immersed distribution transformers. Transformers reduce electricity voltage from the high levels at which power is sent over utility transmission lines to the lower voltage levels required to power equipment and machinery. Transformers often last 30-40 years and by requiring utilities to use life-cycle cost rather than up-front cost in their purchasing, less energy will be lost and Maryland consumers will save over $17 million by 2020. Furthermore, SB 674 gives the Maryland Energy Administration authority to adopt regulations to establish minimum energy efficiency standards for new products sold in the State. This provision eliminates the need to pass new legislation each time advances in technology warrant an adjustment in appliance standards. If enacted, this bill will reduce peak summer electric use by over 150 megawatts in 2020 and save consumers over $170 million dollars in energy costs. The electricity saved in 2020 alone will be enough to meet the needs of over 75,000 typical Maryland households. In light of the savings to consumers and the reduced demand on our strained electric system, Maryland PIRG urges the committee to issue a favorable report on SB 674. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-674maryland-energy-efficiency-standards-act-of-2007 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:04:20 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-56-phthalates-and-bisphenol-a---prohibitions---toys-and-child-care-articles Position: FAVORABLE Chairman Hammen, Delegate Hubbard, and members of the Health and Government Operations Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of House Bill 56 on behalf of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group. Phthalates are chemical substances that make PVC plastic soft and flexible. They are widely used in products such as food wrappings, vinyl shower curtains, and cosmetics. They are also used in soft plastic toys and other baby products, such as teething rings and rattles. Phthalates can leach out of plastic over time. Children, who have a natural tendency to suck on object and put things in their mouths, are particularly vulnerable to phthalates because of their delicate developmental stage. Bisphenol-A is an industrial chemical used to make polycarbonate plastic – a type of plastic that is popular due to properties such as shatter-resistance and high heat resistance. It is used in water bottles, baby feeding bottles, microwave ovenware and eating utensils. Like phthalates, bisphenol-A can leach out of these products and enter children’s bodies. Both phthalates and bisphenol-A are found in just about every part of our bodies – blood, urine, even amniotic fluid. Exposure is widespread and involuntary. That is indisputable. What you will hear today is mixed scientific evidence about the effects of phthalates and bisphenol-A on developing children. Industry experts will say evidence is lacking, while public health advocates will say it is mounting. We believe the latter. Evidence continues to mount that phthalates and bisphenol-A could be altering the hormones and harming the reproductive systems of babies. The compounds have been shown in hundreds of laboratory studies to mimic estrogen or block testosterone and feminize animals. Exposure to pregnant mothers carrying boys is particularly worrisome. In animal studies, a single dose of one phthalates at the wrong time leaves “permanent and profound effects” on the embryo. Phthalates block male hormones, causing feminization of reproductive tracts in laboratory animals. Dozens of studies on lab animals show evidence of this. Several human studies have linked phthalates with changes in sperm, genitals and hormone production. Exposure to phthalates has been linked to undescended testicles and malformed urinary tracts, conditions which have doubled in baby boys in the U.S. from 1970-1993. A study looked at phthalates levels in the urine of 85 pregnant women, then studied the genital development of their babies. The boys from the most highly exposed mothers were ten times more likely to have impaired genital development than boys from the least exposed mothers. Studies involving bisphenol-A are showing similar findings. A review published in 2004 found that, of 152 studies looking for some harm as a result of low-dose exposure to bisphenol-A, 129 found some adverse effect. Only 33 found none, including all 12 industry-funded studies. In 2007, 38 experts reviewed the body of scientific evidence related to bisphenol-A and agreed that low-dose exposure to BPA is of concern and “the commonly reported circulating levels in humans exceed the circulating levels… from acute exposure studies in laboratory animals.” Many phthalates have been banned or restricted by the European Union and at least 11 other nations. California has already passed legislation restricting the use of phthalates in child care articles, and 12 other states are pursuing similar legislation. Several leading toy manufacturers, including Tyco, Mattel, Fisher Price and Gerber, have already begun to take the responsible path and phase out phthalates in certain toys. We applaud these steps. When you hear from industry experts, I hope that you will ask them directly if phthalates and bisphenol-A are safe. What you will hear will likely include: “Most likely,” “I believe so,” “We have no reason to believe otherwise,” “The evidence seems to indicate that,” etc. etc. You will not hear from their mouths these words: “These chemicals are completely safe.” You will not hear that today, and shouldn’t hear that because evidence shows otherwise. But we need to know that something is completely safe when it comes to the health and well-being of our children. You will not hear that these chemicals are completely safe and that should cause you great concern. We urge you to err on the side of caution, to protect our children’s health, and vote in favor of HB 56. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-56-phthalates-and-bisphenol-a---prohibitions---toys-and-child-care-articles Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:57:56 -0600 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-366--mercury-switch-removal-from-vehicles Testimony on Behalf of the Maryland Public Interest Research Group (Maryland PIRG) Position: FAVORABLE Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can contaminate groundwater, lakes, and streams, as well as the fish and wildlife that rely on these waters. Automobile switches represent the largest manufacturing source of mercury. Automakers use mercury in switches for convenience lighting, anti-locking brake systems and other control systems, even though mercury-free alternatives exist. Instead of reducing the applications in which mercury is used for vehicles, many automakers are introducing new automotive uses of mercury, including high intensity discharge (HID) headlights and display lighting. Unfortunately, when vehicles reach the end of their useful lives, they are often dismantled for scrap and component recycling, which can include crushing and remelting of steel. If mercury is not removed prior to car dismantling and processing, mercury can be released into soils and water resources from crushing or into the air when steel is processed for recycling. Senate Bill 366 would require the removal and recycling of mercury-containing switches from vehicles, and it establishes a capture rate of 90%. SB 366 would require vehicle manufacturers that sell vehicles in Maryland to develop “Mercury Minimization Plans” by December 2007 detailing where mercury-containing switches are located and how they can be effectively recycled. These plans also require the manufacturer to finance collection efforts on the part of vehicle and steel recyclers, as well as the costs for mercury storage, handling, transport and recycling incurred by the recyclers. A dozen other states have taken similar steps to ensure that mercury from automobiles is collected and removed from the waste stream. Maine, Arkansas, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Illinois, Iowa, Vermont, Utah, Massachusetts, Louisiana, and South Carolina have passed legislation requiring automakers to pay for mercury switch collection. Several other states are currently pursuing legislation this year. Voluntary statewide auto switch collection programs have been inconsistent, reporting low single-digit percentage collection of mercury switches. In the fall of 2006 the U.S. EPA established a voluntary national program, and there is no reason to believe that participation rates will be higher through the national program than the voluntary state programs that have failed to capture a significant market-share in the past. The reclamation process proposed in SB 366 will codify an effective reclamation process and ensure that mercury switches are collected. This bill would prevent the escape of thousands of pounds of toxic mercury into our environment. Maryland PIRG respectfully urges a favorable report on SB 366. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-366--mercury-switch-removal-from-vehicles Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:07:01 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-140--campaign-finance MaryPIRG http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-140--campaign-finance Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:10:03 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb2-tax-reform-act-of-2007 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb2-tax-reform-act-of-2007 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:19:57 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1-----environment---brominated-flame-retardants---decabrominated-diphenyl-ether---prohibition http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1-----environment---brominated-flame-retardants---decabrominated-diphenyl-ether---prohibition Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:20:25 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1185-maryland-transit-administration--annual-efficiency-and-performance-standards http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1185-maryland-transit-administration--annual-efficiency-and-performance-standards Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:25:33 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-947/sb-646-credit-regulation---debt-management-services http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-947/sb-646-credit-regulation---debt-management-services Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:07:21 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1246-transition-costs--return-to-baltimore-gas-and-electric-company-customers--condition-of-approval-to-construct-a-nuclear-reactor http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1246-transition-costs--return-to-baltimore-gas-and-electric-company-customers--condition-of-approval-to-construct-a-nuclear-reactor Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:24:16 -0500 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1314-electric-restructuring--purposes-and-duties-of-the-public-service-commission http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1314-electric-restructuring--purposes-and-duties-of-the-public-service-commission Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:09:09 -0600 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1096-hb-1107-hb-1109-hb-1113 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-1096-hb-1107-hb-1109-hb-1113 Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:50:45 -0600 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-205/hb-374---empower-maryland-energy-efficiency-act-of-2008 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-205/hb-374---empower-maryland-energy-efficiency-act-of-2008 Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:48:43 -0600 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-268/hb-368-maryland-strategic-energy-investment-fund http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/sb-268/hb-368-maryland-strategic-energy-investment-fund Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:51:04 -0600 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/energy-efficiency http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/energy-efficiency Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:55:27 -0600 http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-62/sb-97---lead-containing-products---prohibition Position: FAVORABLE Chairman Middleton, and members of the Finance Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Maryland PIRG in support of Senate Bill 97. My name is David Kosmos and I’m a program associate at the Maryland Public Interest Research Group which is a non-profit, non-partisan consumer advocacy group dedicated to serving the public interest. We urge you to vote in favor of SB 97 to protect the children of Maryland from the harmful effects of lead poisoning. Lead is a powerful neurotoxin that has threatened the health and safety of multiple generations of children over the past decades. It has been banned in paint since 1977, and in gasoline for nearly as long. Faced with the growing epidemic of lead poisoning in Maryland, this committee and the Maryland General Assembly have taken some very important steps to protect Maryland’s children since 1994. By ensuring that lead-tainted toxic toys are not manufactured, imported, or distributed to anybody in Maryland, SB 97 is another critical stride in removing lead from the stream of commerce and combating childhood lead poisoning. Children face an increased risk to the dangers of lead poisoning since young children often put their hands and other objects in their mouths; their growing bodies absorb more lead; and children’s developing brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging effects of lead. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, exposure to low doses of lead can cause IQ deficits, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and deficits in vocabulary, fine motor skills, reaction times, and hand-eye coordination. While the Consumer Product Safety Commission only takes action on lead-tainted toys when levels are detected above 600ppm, the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended lowering that allowable level to 40ppm. 40ppm is recommended because it is the upper range of lead in uncontaminated soil. SB 97 establishes a ‘bright-line’ level of 200ppm immediately upon passage. This ‘bright-line’ standard is important because the federal legislation is restricted to “accessible” lead, which is more subjective than the total lead contained in a product. A child who swallows a metal pendant could be exposed to all of the lead in the item. Furthermore, the current CPSC policy only applies to components instead of the item as a whole. For example, each charm on a bracelet with multiple charms could contain up to 175 micrograms of accessible lead without triggering any agency action, but still expose a child to dangerous levels of lead. Legislation is moving in Congress to ultimately lower lead standards to 100ppm. Even if passed, that standard won’t be reached for another six years, and Maryland must move quicker. By passing SB 97, the Maryland General Assembly will accelerate the proposed federal timeline to give Maryland’s children the protection they need right now. While we commend Congress for initiating action on a federal lead standard, the job isn’t done yet. While the House of Representatives has already passed HR 4040, the CPSC Reform Act establishing a 100ppm lead limit, President Bush didn’t mention the CPSC or toy safety once in his State of the Union. Maryland deserves stronger lead limits, but since the federal government is too slow to protect us, SB 97 allows us to protect ourselves. When it comes to protecting our children, every step must be taken to ensure proper development, health and safety. The dangers that lead poisoning poses are evident and well documented. There is no reason to allow lead in children’s toys, and Maryland PIRG urges the passage of SB 97 to remove toxic toys from store shelves. http://www.marylandpirg.org/advocacy/testimony/archive/testimony-archive/hb-62/sb-97---lead-containing-products---prohibition Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:54:53 -0600