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-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/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