    [Senate Hearing 117-551]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-551

     A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 1345, THE COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL
    MERCURY MONITORING ACT; S. 2476, THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AIR QUALITY
      MONITORING ACT OF 2021, AND S.__, THE PUBLIC HEALTH AIR QUALITY ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 13, 2022

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    50-404 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JULY 13, 2022
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     3
    Markey, Hon. Ed, U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts....     5
    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...    41
    Collins, Hon. Susan, U.S. Senator from the State of Maine........    42

                                   WITNESSES

    Blunt, Lisa, Hon. Rochester, U.S. Representative from the State
      of Delaware....................................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
    Gomez, Alfredo, J., Director, Natural Resources And Environment,
      U.S. Government Accountability Office..........................    54
        Prepared statement...........................................    57
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Cardin...........................................    77
            Senator Duckworth........................................    77
    Kathy, Fallon, Director of Land and Climate, Clean Air Task Force    86
        Prepared statement...........................................    89
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   107
    Isaac, Hon. Jason, Director, Life: Powered, A Project of the
      Texas Public Policy Foundation.................................   114
        Prepared statement...........................................   116
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   119
            Senator Capito...........................................   124
            Senator Inhofe...........................................   125
    Johnson, Dana, Senior Director of Strategy and Federal Policy, We
      Act for Environmental Justice..................................   126
        Prepared statement...........................................   129
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   141
            Senator Cardin...........................................   144
    Eklund, Bart, Senior Technical Expert, Haley And Aldrich.........   146
        Prepared statement...........................................   148
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   158
            Senator Capito...........................................   162
            Senator Inhofe...........................................   166

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Washington Post Article by Darryl Fears; Block-by-block data
      shows pollution's stark toll on people of color................     7
    Health Select Committee on the Climate Crisis; The Environmental
      Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act.............................    11
    Article on Disparities in Air Pollution in the United States by
      Race/Ethnicity and Income, 1990-2010...........................    14
    Article by Darryl Fears; Climate & Environment, Redlining means
      45 million Americans are breathing dirtier air, 50 years after
      it ended.......................................................    28
    Article by Public Health Now; Racial Deisparities in Air
      Pollutions Where Most Americans Live Worse Than Previously
      Understood.....................................................    36
    Written Statement of Kathy Caster, Chair House Select Committee
      on the Climate Crisis..........................................    39
    Bill S.1345......................................................   185
    Bill S. 2476.....................................................   197
    Bill S...........................................................   209

     A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 1345, THE COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL
    MERCURY MONITORING ACT; S. 2476, THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AIR QUALITY
     MONITORING ACT OF 2021, AND S.----, THE PUBLIC HEALTH AIR QUALITY ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2022

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Markey, Duckworth, Kelly, Padilla, Sullivan, Ernst.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone.
        Two of my favorite colleagues are here. Isn't this great?
    How wonderful to have my Congresswoman, Lisa Blunt Rochester
    here, one of my great mentors, and Susan Collins, who has been
    my collaborator on so many issues over the years. This is like
    dying and going to heaven. Could you come back every day? That
    probably wouldn't work. Anyway, on a serious note, we are happy
    to be here with you and are grateful for your service.
        I want to call this hearing to order. As you know, we are
    here today to examine three bills that are intended to improve
    our Nation's antiquated air quality monitoring system and
    better protect Americans from air pollution.
        Since enacting the Clean Air Act, I guess it has been a
    half century ago now, our Nation has made great progress in
    cleaning up the air that we breathe without harming economic
    growth. I like to say everything I do I know I can do better,
    and the same is true with respect to the quality of the air
    that we breathe.
        Soot and smog pollution in the United States have decreased
    since 1970 by 80 percent. We don't oftentimes reflect on the
    accomplishments we have made and the progress we have made.
    That is pretty good, an 80 percent reduction since 1970. Over
    that same period of time, our gross domestic product has grown
    by 250 percent.
        The question is, can we have cleaner air, cleaner water,
    and create jobs and economic opportunity? The answer is, I
    think, clear that we can.
        The benefits of clean air far outweigh the costs, and it is
    not hard to understand why. Clean air is good for human health;
    it is good for our planet, and as it turns out, it is good for
    our Nation's economy.
        As my colleagues know, I have already said it once today
    but I will say it again, everything I do, I know I can do
    better. We can do better still on this front, too. Despite our
    successes, we still have far too many people in this Country
    who are negatively impacted by the quality of the air that they
    breathe, and especially those from low-income and historically
    disadvantaged communities. According to the EPA, nonwhite
    children are much more likely to die from air pollution than
    white children in the United States today.
        Why are environmental justice communities at risk? One
    answer is proximity. More often than not, those in our Nation's
    environmental justice communities live near or downwind of
    facilities that emit harmful air pollution. These ``fenceline
    communities'' as they are known, bear the immediate impacts of
    exposure to harmful pollutants and the burdens of the
    cumulative health effects that can arise from repeated, long-
    term exposure to air pollution.
        But you don't have to live near a source of air pollution
    to suffer its consequences. When emitted into the air,
    persistent air toxics like mercury can fall into our waterways
    and bioaccumulate in fish over decades, long after a source may
    cleanup or close down. Many Americans today do not even know
    that they are being exposed to dangerous levels of air
    pollution. There are real gaps in what the Federal Government
    knows, as well.
        Today, the Government Accountability Office, which we
    affectionately call GAO, will testify on its troubling 2020
    study on the State of our Nation's air monitoring systems.
    Their report found that our air monitoring systems are woefully
    out of date and under-resourced.
        According to GAO's findings, these out-of-date systems have
    left our State air quality managers buying replacement parts on
    eBay. Why do they do that? They do that because the air
    monitoring technology that States are using today is no longer
    being manufactured. We continue to rely on yesterday's systems
    to address today's problems.
        GAO also found what we have long known, and that is while
    the health threats posed by air toxics are well-documented, the
    data we have on where, when, and how they are released into our
    air are not well-documented. That is just not acceptable. We
    can and we must do more to support Federal, State, and local
    officials who are tasked with maintaining and improving our air
    monitoring systems.
        That brings us to the legislation that we are considering
    here today. For more than a decade now, I have had the
    privilege of working alongside Senator Collins on a bunch of
    issues, but in particular, on the one that is before us today,
    and that is the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act.
    She has been a leader on this for more than a dozen years, and
    we are grateful for that. I am grateful for her letting me be
    her wingman on this issue and others.
        Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that is especially
    dangerous to pregnant women and developing children. An
    estimated 100,000 to 200,000 children born in our Country each
    year are exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high
    enough to impair neurological development.
        Congresswoman Rochester, I don't know exactly how many
    children we have in Delaware under the age of 18, but we
    probably have about 200,000. So how many is 200,000? Every
    child in our State is really what it is comparable to.
        In the last decade, we have known that there have been more
    mercury consumption fish advisories in U.S. lakes and rivers
    than all other pollutants combined. However, we still have data
    gaps on where mercury persists in our environment.
        Our legislation fills in the gaps by establishing a first-
    ever National Mercury Monitoring Network to track long-term
    trends in mercury concentrations in communities and ecosystems
    across our Country. Under our legislation, the public would
    have free access to the network's findings, empowering
    communities with the information that they need to better
    protect themselves from mercury pollution. I am grateful that
    my partner in this effort, Senator Collins, is joining us today
    to speak further on this legislation, which she leads.
        We will also examine Senator Duckworth's and Congresswoman
    Lisa Blunt Rochester's legislation, the Public Health Air
    Quality Act, of which I am also a cosponsor. This legislation
    would upgrade and expand our Nation's outdated air quality
    monitoring networks, which includes providing immediate
    monitoring for air toxics in fenceline communities experiencing
    high cancer rates and other health impacts.
        Finally, we will review the Environmental Justice Air
    Quality Monitoring Act, sponsored by Senator Markey, a member
    of this committee. His legislation would help ensure that
    communities have access to relevant, local air quality
    information. Our current air monitoring systems do not always
    provide accurate, localized data, which makes it harder for
    communities to assess their exposure to certain toxics.
        All three bills are intended to help Americans understand
    who is being exposed to air pollutants and who is not. These
    investments in our air quality monitoring systems are
    investments in healthier communities and a stronger economy.
    Where I come from, that is a win-win situation.
        We look forward to hearing more from our colleagues and our
    witnesses on the benefits of these important pieces of
    legislation.
        Before we do, I am pleased to turn to our Ranking Member,
    Senator Capito, for her opening statement. Senator Capito,
    please.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and welcome to
    Representative Rochester and Senator Collins, my friend. We are
    happy to have all of the witnesses joining us here today.
        As we consider the topic of air quality monitoring today,
    it is important, as Senator Carper began his statement, just
    how much air pollution in the United States has fallen in the
    past few decades.
        With environmental issues, sometimes there is a tendency to
    just fixate on the negative, but I am an optimist and believe,
    while there is always room for improvement, we need to
    recognize and applaud what the U.S. has accomplished.
        Looking forward, we must also bear in mind that costs rise
    and benefits diminish as emission targets approach the limits
    of what our technology can actually measure and mitigate.
        According to the EPA data, between 1970 and 2021, the
    combined emissions of particulate material, carbon monoxide,
    lead, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic
    compounds were reduced by 78 percent. From 1990 to 2017,
    emissions of hazardous air pollutants declined by 74 percent.
    On top of that, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have also
    decreased, thanks primarily to the shale revolution and
    American ingenuity, not our regulatory policies.
        While our emissions have been decreasing, this has not been
    the case around the world. According to the World Air Quality
    Report for 2021, using particulate matter as a proxy for air
    quality, Central and South Asia are home to 46 of the world's
    most polluted cities, and the trends there are dire.
        Given the fact that we are seeing continual air quality
    improvements under current authorities in the U.S., it is
    unclear to me why the EPA needs new air quality authorities. I
    especially question granting EPA new powers given the agency's
    reaction to last month's decision by the Supreme Court in West
    Virginia v. EPA. That decision should have been a clear signal
    to the EPA that its planned regulatory overreach needs to be
    reigned in, but the Administration's immediate reaction to the
    West Virginia decision has been quite the opposite, doubling
    down on plants to serve the interests of progressive
    environmental groups and the trial bar, no matter what the law
    says, what the costs are to society, or even if there are
    meaningful environmental benefits as a result.
        As Administrator Regan said following the decision, ``We
    are going to continue to use every tool in our toolbox because
    it is under our legal authority and it is our obligation to
    protect communities, reduce pollution that is driving climate
    change, and provide certainty and transparency for the energy
    sector to grow the clean energy economy.''
        EPA clearly wants to force wholesale changes on our economy
    based on overly expansive readings of existing law, regardless
    of what the Supreme Court has said. This mission means reducing
    affordable, reliable sources of baseload energy generations and
    slamming manufacturing with an onslaught of new regulation.
        If EPA is going to continue to read existing statutes well
    beyond Congress's intent and pursue regulations beyond the
    scope of the law, only to continue losing in court, then I have
    concerns about giving EPA new authorities to abuse, much less
    delegate those supposed authorities to illogically favored
    advocacy groups to feed fundraising drives and frivolous
    lawsuits.
        For example, EPA stated in its proposed methane rule that
    the agency plans to allow third-party monitoring in an upcoming
    supplemental proposal. Congress never intended to empower
    environmental groups to use taxpayer dollars to purchase and
    use potentially unreliable monitoring equipment with no
    oversight and report that data back to the agency, and then
    they have that data, which they use to empower the trial bar to
    pursue their sue-and-settle lawsuits.
        Congress provides funding for air quality management
    activities, including air quality monitoring, through the
    annual appropriations process. EPA typically receives that
    funding through State and Tribal Assistance Grants under two
    primary authorities: Section 103 and Section 105 of the Clean
    Air Act. EPA provides that funding to States and local air
    agencies, which in turn, they decide where and how to spend
    their funding on a range of air quality management activities.
        While the GAO did provide suggestions for EPA to improve
    implementation in a 2020 report, improvements in implementation
    of existing authority are not the same as granting new
    authorities. Indeed, if GAO has concerns about implementation
    of existing authorities, it begs the question what problem
    adding new authorities would actually solve.
        I am interested in hearing from our witnesses their views
    on these questions and how monitoring is actually conducted in
    the field under existing law as they react to the legislative
    proposals before them.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        We are now being joined by Senator Markey. He is just
    settling into his seat, and just 2 days after his birthday. I
    sent him a text message, and I said the president, Senator
    Capito is president host, as you know, of the Annual
    congressional Picnic yesterday, and somehow they didn't put it
    on Eddy's birthday. It was a day late.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. So today we are 2 days late. We are having
    this hearing to honor your birthday.
        As Eddy knows and Lisa and others know, Senator Capito and
    Senator Collins, I love to call my colleagues on their
    birthdays if I don't see them, and if I don't reach them, I
    send them a text message or whatever.
        We hope you had a great birthday, and we are delighted to
    be here today to listen to your comments, please, on the
    legislation that you have proposed. I think it is called the
    Environmental Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act, and we are
    pleased today to be examining it today. Senator Markey, you are
    recognized for your statement.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED MARKEY,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your birthday wishes.
        Senator Carper. One of the people I love to call, we have
    three or four Senators who are 88 or 89, and I called Chuck
    Grassley when he turned 88, and he was in Iowa, and I called
    him to wish him a happy birthday. I said to him, Chuck, you are
    amazing. I think he just announced he is running for re-
    election, I think. I said, I don't think I am going to be
    running for re-election when I am 88. I just hope I know who I
    am and where I am. He said, I hope you do too.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. Satchel Paige, the great baseball player,
    when asked how could he still be pitching in the major leagues
    when he was 48 years old, he said, well, let me ask you this
    question. If you didn't know how old you were, how old would
    you be?
        That is a good question. For me, and I think for you as
    well, that I think I am still 40 years old, because I don't
    really know how old I am unless people call me to remind me on
    my birthday. But other than that, every day, including this
    hearing, 40 years old. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When it comes to Federal efforts to improve air quality in
    the United States, we must first acknowledge the deep-rooted
    injustices of air pollution in communities across our Country.
    Black, brown, and low-income families are historically more
    likely to be located near pollution sources. As a result, they
    have been overburdened by the dirtiest air, yet they have not
    been given enough Federal support to address it or even
    understand the risks.
        Some pilot studies have found that concentrations of air
    pollutants can vary by as much as 800 percent between one block
    and another. That exposure makes a big difference for people as
    they go through their daily lives, and that knowledge could
    make a big difference as we try to help limit public health
    challenges.
        I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record three articles about this block-by-block disparity and
    the correlation between race and redlining of neighborhoods on
    air quality.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Let me also use this as an opportunity to
    ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a congressional
    Research Service Report released on July 12th, 2022 on the West
    Virginia v. EPA decision, which states, and I quote, ``on that
    decision, EPA retains the ability to regulate greenhouse gas
    emissions from power plants and other sources.'' Without
    objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Back to you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Formerly redlined
    communities experience as much as double the amount of air
    pollution as non-redlined communities, and race plays a big
    role, even within the same communities. We can't accept that,
    and we have to do a better job of understanding it. We can't
    properly manage what we don't measure.
        This is why I partnered with health experts and advocates,
    including the Clean Air Task Force and WE ACT, who are
    represented by some of our esteemed witnesses here with us
    today, to write and to introduce the Environmental Justice Air
    Quality Monitoring Act of 2021, which is co-sponsored by
    several members of this committee, including Senators Padilla
    and Sanders and Duckworth.
        This legislation would authorize $100 million annually to
    establish a 5-year pilot program for hyper-local air quality
    monitoring projects in environmental justice communities. Under
    this program, State, local, and tribal air agencies would be
    able to partner with local nonprofit organizations or air
    quality data providers to identify block level hotspots for
    multiple pollutants, increased community engagement, informed
    air pollution management decisions, and recommend action for
    reducing pollution burden in identified hotspots.
        While our current network of traditional monitors is sparse
    and often misses areas of poor air quality, hyper-local air
    quality monitors can better detect air pollution in the
    specific areas in which people live and work and go about their
    daily lives. When it comes to approaches to improve air
    quality, one size does not fit all from block to block all
    across our Country. With more air quality monitors to capture
    hyper-local data and better inform ways to cut down pollution
    exposure in hotspots, we can make sure that healthy air is no
    longer determined by ZIP code.
        I would also like to submit a statement of support from
    House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Chair, Kathy
    Castor, who introduced the Environmental Justice Air Quality
    Monitoring Act in the House of Representatives along with the
    support and statements from stakeholders.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Markey. Thank you. I want to thank Chairman Carper
    and Ranking Member Capito for including my Environmental
    Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act of 2021 in today's hearing.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much. Before we turn to Senator
    Duckworth, who I think is going to join us remotely to make a
    statement about her legislation, the Public Health Air Quality
    Act, one last word from Satchel Paige.
        Not only did Satchel Paige break into the majors in his
    early 40's, as Senator Markey has said, he used to, when he
    pitched in the Negro Leagues, he was so good, that when he
    would take the mound, his infield, he would call his infielders
    and tell them to sit down. They would sit down in the outfield
    grass, and he would strike out the team, game after game, week
    after week, he was that good.
        He broke into the majors in his early 40's, and made the
    All-Star team, pitched for another half-dozen years or so. Eddy
    gave at the beginning of the quote about how old you are. He
    also said, the rest of that quote goes something like this:
    work like you don't need the money, dance like nobody is
    looking, love like you have never been hurt, live each day like
    it is your last, and someday, you will be right.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. With that introduction, here is a Senator
    who needs no introduction, Senator Tammy Duckworth.
        Senator, it was great to be with you and your kids last
    night at the picnic, and you are recognized to speak about your
    legislation, the Public Health Air Quality Act. I am proud to
    be one of your co-sponsors.
        You are recognized to speak. Please proceed.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. That
    was a great quote. It was great to see everybody at the White
    House yesterday.
        Thank you also to Ranking Member Capito for holding this
    important hearing to examine important legislative proposals to
    improve air quality and monitoring, including the Public Health
    Air Quality Monitoring Act of 2022. I was very proud to partner
    with Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester in developing our
    legislation, and I am very pleased that the Congresswoman is
    testifying this morning as the author of the House version of
    our bill.
        Protecting our Nation's public health requires achieving
    clean air for all Americans, yet our current air monitoring
    system is woefully deficient, both in terms of capacity and
    capability. This is simply unacceptable status quo. It inflicts
    devastating and disproportionate harm on low-income communities
    and communities of color that suffer from higher rates of
    cancer, asthma, and other diseases just because of where they
    happen to live. It is outrageous that in the wealthiest Country
    in the world, communities of color are exposed to 63 percent
    more air pollution than they create.
        Last month, I had the opportunity to tour Altgeld Gardens,
    a public housing community just outside of Chicago, that is
    known as the birthplace of environmental justice. Their
    community leader and activist, Cheryl Johnson, explained the
    environmental justice challenges her community faces and
    finished the tour by showing me the Altgeld Gardens cancer
    memorial wall.
        On the wall, one can see name after name after name of
    community members who have fallen to cancer and respiratory
    illnesses resulting from the cumulative impacts of a variety of
    sources, creating poor air quality that has plagued the area
    for decades. This harrowing physical representation of the
    devastating effects of cumulative air pollution should inspire
    us all to act. No community, no community should have a wall of
    fallen mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers because they
    were denied one of the most fundamental human rights: clean air
    to breathe.
        That is why this committee must swiftly advance the Public
    Health Air Quality Monitoring Act and other air quality
    monitoring legislation. Our bill doesn't seek to reinvent the
    wheel. Instead, we propose building upon existing monitoring
    framework to require EPA to implement immediate fenceline
    monitoring for toxic air pollutants at facilities contributing
    to high local cancer rates and other health rates from
    dangerous pollutants. This increased mapping will help support
    local communities on further actions to confront air pollution,
    better inform local government and agencies on permit
    decisions, and illustrate where Federal investments will have
    the largest benefits to health and equity.
        By increasing our air monitoring network, updating our
    existing regulations and methods, and improving our data
    collection and public engagements, we can help to close the
    gaping holes in our air monitoring systems. Advancing my Public
    Health Air Quality Monitoring Act is an important first step
    toward clean air for all.
        I look forward to today's discussion. I also want to thank
    the Chairman for helping me introduce this bill as an original
    co-sponsor, along with Senators Durbin, Booker, Markey, and
    Warren.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        Now, it is time to hear from our first panel of witnesses.
    We are fortunate to have Senator Collins with us today. She is
    the lead sponsor of the third and final piece of legislation we
    are examining today, the Comprehensive National Mercury
    Monitoring Act.
        I am grateful to co-sponsor, to work with you on this
    legislation and so many other bills in the past. You are
    recognized and warmly welcomed. Thank you.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN COLLINS,
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

        Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capito, I want to begin by
    thanking you for holding today's hearing and to also say what a
    pleasure it is to share the witness table with my friend from
    the House, Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester. It is great to
    have you over on the Senate side.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the
    Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act, which I have
    introduced with the distinguished Chairman. Chairman Carper
    mentioned it in his opening comments that this is the 50th
    anniversary of the Clean Air Act, and it is a point of pride
    for me that that landmark law was authored by Maine Senator
    Edmund Muskie. Earlier this summer, I participated in an event
    in Senator Muskie's hometown of Rumford with his son, Ned
    Muskie, where we commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Clean
    Air Act.
        Senator Carper. Boy, it doesn't get much better than that.
        Senator Collins. It doesn't. So, your hearing is
    particularly timely.
        Our bipartisan mercury monitoring bill would help ensure
    that we have accurate, scientifically based data about mercury
    pollution in our Country.
        As this committee well knows, mercury is a potent
    neurotoxin. Exposure can lead to significant health problems,
    especially in children and pregnant women. Mercury exposure has
    gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however,
    levels remain unacceptably high, and in some cases, we really
    don't know how much mercury is in our environment.
        In Maine, some of our lands and bodies of water face higher
    mercury pollution compared to the national average. That is
    because of Maine's location. It is sometimes called the
    tailpipe of the Nation.
        Senator Carper. Delaware is oftentimes, we refer to us as
    the tailpipe, right at the tailpipe, just like you.
        Senator Collins. It is the same concept, that the winds
    from the west are blowing pollution into the pristine air of my
    beautiful State.
        A system for collecting information, such as we have
    already for acid rain and other pollution, does not currently
    exist for mercury, despite its dangers. A comprehensive
    national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human
    health, safeguard our fisheries, and track the effect of
    reduced emissions. This monitoring network would also help
    policymakers, scientists, and the public better understand the
    sources, consequences, and trends in mercury pollution.
        Specifically, our legislation would do the following.
    First, it would direct the EPA, in conjunction with other
    agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to
    measure and monitor levels in the air and watersheds, water and
    soil chemistry, and in marine, freshwater, and land organisms
    at multiple sites across our Country.
        Second, it would establish a scientific advisory panel to
    make recommendations for the establishment, site selection,
    measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the
    monitoring program.
        Third, our bill would establish a centralized data base for
    existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that
    could be accessed easily on the internet. These data would be
    compatible with similar international efforts.
        Fourth, the reporting requirements in our bill will help
    Congress assess the mercury pollution reduction levels that are
    needed in order to help prevent adverse human and ecological
    effects.
        Finally, our bill would authorize a modest $95 million over
    3 years to carry out these important activities.
        A robust national mercury monitoring network is needed to
    provide the data to help Congress and others make informed
    decisions to protect the people of our Nation. I would ask
    unanimous consent that two endorsement letters, one from the
    American Lung Association and another from the American
    Geophysical Union, be entered into the hearing record, which
    further explain the need for this legislation.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not received at the time of
    print.]
        Senator Collins. The Chairman mentioned that he and I have
    worked together to try to get up this monitoring system so that
    we have accurate data nationwide, for many years. I hope that
    this can be the year where we finally enact it into law.
        I hope the committee will favorably report our bill for
    consideration by the full Senate, and I thank you both for the
    opportunity to testify before the committee today. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. From your lips to God's ears. Thanks so
    much for joining us today. I know you got a lot on your
    schedule this morning. Feel free to leave us when you need to
    go. Thank you so much for joining us, for your testimony, and
    for your leadership for so long on this issue and so many other
    issues. Thank you.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Senator Carper. Now, it is a special privilege to introduce
    a woman who has not only served as Cabinet Secretary and
    administration-wise, privileged to be the Governor and the
    subsequent Governor as well, she has led several major
    departments in the State of Delaware for many, many years. Not
    only the first African American to serve in the House of
    Representatives from Delaware, the first woman to be elected
    and to serve in the House of Representatives from Delaware, and
    someone we are just extremely proud of and have great respect
    and affection for.
        Thank you for coming to our committee today to discuss your
    legislation with us. You may proceed with your statement at
    this time. Thank you.

                STATEMENT OF HON. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER,
             U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Ms. Rochester. Good morning, Chairman Carper and Ranking
    Member Capito and members of the committee, and also our fellow
    witnesses. A special thank-you. It was good to be with Senator
    Collins, who was one of the great supporters of me in my
    freshman term. Thank you, Senator, for all of your years of
    service, as well, for Delaware and our Nation.
        I want to start by thanking you and the Ranking Member for
    calling this important hearing today and giving me the
    opportunity to speak about the need to protect the health and
    wellbeing of all Americans by expanding our air quality
    monitoring system. I also want to thank Senator Duckworth for
    her leadership and partnership on this important issue.
        ``Living with a time bomb.'' That was the headline
    emblazoned across the front page of Delaware's largest
    newspaper, the News Journal, earlier this year. The story
    underneath the headline went on to describe the fear and
    anxiety that residents of New Castle County's Route 9 corridor
    feel every day as they live in the shadow of chemical and
    industrial plants. Communities such as Newport, Belvedere, and
    Southbridge have lived with this reality, with this time bomb,
    for decades and suffer from higher cancer rates and respiratory
    hazards as a result.
        This is an issue of health, education, but more
    importantly, justice, both environmental and racial. The
    justice cannot come as an afterthought. It has to be at the
    center of our response.
        We know that decades of discrimination and environmental
    racism have resulted in disproportionate numbers of communities
    of color at the frontlines where they risk significant
    disparities in health outcomes. These disparities are then
    passed on from generation to generation. It is past time we
    break the cycle.
        Communities like the ones I described in New Castle County
    aren't an anomaly. Communities across the Country that neighbor
    industrial and chemical facilities are more likely to suffer
    from higher rates of cancer and respiratory disease.
        In these communities, it is often the most vulnerable,
    including children and the elderly, that suffer the most from
    air pollution health emergencies. For example, exposure to
    toxic pollutants during a child's development phase has been
    shown to cause lifelong health and education problems, and
    ongoing exposure to toxic pollutants may cause premature death
    in the elderly population, often due to existing comorbidities.
        We need to work together to address these health
    disparities and the impacts. Our first step in protecting these
    communities is to use our air quality monitors in each
    neighborhood to identify the pollutants of greatest concern. We
    cannot address the issue without addressing the problem, which
    is why we need to have a more robust air monitoring system
    across the Country.
        That is why, today, I am proud to join Senator Duckworth
    and other House and Senate environmental justice leaders in
    reintroducing the Public Health Air Quality Act, and why I am
    also proud to partner with Representatives Castor and Torres
    and Senator Markey on the Environmental Justice Air Quality
    Monitoring Act.
        The Public Health Air Quality Monitoring Act will better
    inform and protect communities by requiring EPA to enhance and
    expand its air quality monitoring network and will ensure that
    EPA has the resources they need to do it well. Beyond
    collecting the data, this legislation will help the community
    access and understand the data.
        All too often, the communities that live closest to
    polluting facilities are the last to find out what toxic
    pollutants are in their air and how these toxic pollutants
    impact their health. With the Public Health Air Quality Act,
    they will be one of the first to know.
        From enhancing air monitoring systems at the highest-
    polluting facilities to supporting pilot program for hyper-
    local air monitoring project in under-resourced communities and
    communities of color, we need to work together to expand our
    environmental protection infrastructure.
        Too many communities throughout our Country are living with
    that time bomb, wondering when or if their government will be
    there to protect their health. Well, today, let's come together
    to say that we are here to give them the protection they
    deserve. We are here to hold polluters accountable, and here to
    make our communities safer and healthier. Health care costs are
    impacted, education costs are impacted, but the ultimate cost
    is the cost of life.
        Thank you so much for this opportunity, and I look forward
    to working with the Senate to pass these important pieces of
    legislation. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rochester follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. We look forward to it as well. Thank you so
    much for joining us today.
        I understand the House is not doing anything today, so you
    can stay with us for the whole hearing, but if that is not
    true, feel free to leave when you have to go. Great to see you.
    Thanks for your leadership on this and so many other issues.
        Ms. Rochester. Thank you so much, Senator.
        Senator Carper. See you soon. It was a great pleasure with
    your mom and dad yesterday at the White House, along with your
    sister.
        Ms. Rochester. Thank you so much. I also have to join in
    your conversation about birthdays and say that I broke into
    Congress in the mid-50's, and I am happy this year to turn 60,
    so I am proud of that 60. Thanks, and thanks for all the happy
    birthdays over the past 30 years.
        Senator Carper. You keep having them, I will keep calling.
        I now get to call the witness for our second panel. As
    Congresswoman Rochester leaves, our next witness is Alfredo
    Gomez.
        I am going to go ahead and give a brief introduction, Mr.
    Gomez. Welcome. I got to say hello to you before we started. It
    is good of you to come and join us today. Alfredo Gomez is the
    Director for Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, or GAO. I just spoke with
    Gene Dodaro yesterday, the Comptroller General, which is always
    a pleasure.
        You are, I understand, a leader on GAO's recent
    comprehensive study on the State of our Nation's air quality
    monitoring system. Mr. Gomez, we welcome you. Thank you for
    being here today to discuss your agency's important findings.
    You may begin your statement at this time.
        Welcome. Thank you.

    STATEMENT OF J. ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
           ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Gomez. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
    members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. I hope that GAO's work helps
    inform the committee as it considers legislation related to air
    quality monitoring.
        Mr. Chairman, as you noted, while the U.S. has made
    significant progress in reducing air pollution levels since the
    1970's, air pollution continues to harm public health and the
    environment in certain locations. Concerns remain about the
    health effects of air toxics and wildfire smoke and
    concentrations of air pollutants in local areas.
        The air quality monitoring system includes thousands of
    monitoring sites across the Country that measure specific air
    pollutants. The EPA is responsible for ensuring that this
    system produces information that is needed to manage air
    quality. EPA sets the requirements for the system's design, and
    State and local agencies are the ones that operate the majority
    of monitoring sites, ensure that data are accurate, and report
    the data to EPA and the public. EPA, State, and local agencies
    provide funding for the system.
        I would like to focus today on two areas covered in our
    2020 Air Quality Monitoring Report. The first is the need for
    additional air quality monitoring information, and the second
    is challenges that EPA and selected States and local agencies
    face in meeting these needs.
        Regarding information, in November 2020, we reported that
    more information was needed in several areas. The first is the
    need for information about local-scale air quality in real
    time. This information would help identify air pollution
    hotspots and provide insights into air quality in rural areas.
        The second is the need for information about the
    concentrations of air toxics in key areas. This information
    would help EPA and other understand hotspots like cancer
    clusters. It could also help promote environmental justice by
    highlighting where pollutants are concentrated.
        The third is information about the quality and performance
    of low-cost sensors. While low-cost sensors are increasingly
    available to measure air quality and offer much promise, some
    officials express concerns about the quality of the data they
    produce. Having this information could help give insights about
    the reliability and accepted uses of low-cost sensors.
        Moving now to the topic of challenges that EPA and States
    face in providing this information, the challenges include
    establishing priorities for air toxics monitoring, developing
    and improving air quality monitoring methods, integrating
    emerging technology such as low-cost sensors, and managing and
    integrating additional monitoring data. EPA, State, and local
    officials told us that they have incomplete information about
    the public health risk associated with air toxics, making it
    difficult to understand which present the highest risks and
    should be priorities for monitoring.
        With regard to challenges with air quality monitoring
    methods, some existing methods were not sufficiently cost-
    effective, timely, or sensitive, meaning that they did not
    detect pollution at low enough levels needed to understand
    health effects.
        With the third challenge of integrating emerging
    technologies, EPA has worked with State and local agencies to
    study low-cost sensors, but performance issues with low-cost
    sensor measurements have persisted.
        While EPA has strategies aimed at better meeting needs for
    additional information on air quality, we found that these
    strategies were outdated and incomplete. For example, these
    strategies did not reflect needs for additional information or
    changes in the agency's approaches and resources.
        To address these challenges, we recommended that one, EPA
    develop and implement an asset management framework so that
    limited resources are directed toward the highest priorities,
    and two, to develop an air quality monitoring modernization
    plan that aligns with leading practices. Such a plan can help
    EPA provide information needed to understand and address
    changing air quality issues, such as wildfire smoke and air
    toxics, and to make better use of new technologies. EPA agreed
    with our recommendations and has begun implementing them.
        Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, members of the
    committee, this completes my statement, and I am happy to
    answer questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Great, thanks so much for doing that. From
    time to time, I say to my staff when we are dealing with a
    particular issue or challenge, I ask them to help make me or a
    committee or the Senate a guided missile, as opposed to an
    unguided missile. What I think I read in listening to your
    testimony and preparing for this hearing, my sense is that what
    you are trying to do, what GAO is trying to do here, is help
    make us a guided missile as we face what is a real challenge,
    but an opportunity as well.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, GAO found that some
    of the air monitoring technology in use in our Country is so
    outdated that air officials have to resort to eBay to purchase
    equipment because the manufacturer has discontinued the needed
    parts. I am struck, in fact, I am disappointed by this story,
    and what it tells us about the State of air quality monitoring
    systems, I think, and my colleagues ought to be, as well.
        Are you able to tell us more about this story, or share
    with us any other anecdotes that you and your team heard
    directly from air agency officials? Was this a unique incident,
    or does this story reflect a pattern in the challenges of our
    air agencies across the Country that they are facing?
        Mr. Gomez. Thank you for that question, Chairman Carper,
    and yes. This is an aging infrastructure, as we have been
    talking about. Those were the stories that we have heard. We
    have heard other stories where the air conditioning, for
    example, failed. There were leaking roofs. One of the States
    told us how they had to throw away a whole week of data because
    the air conditioning wasn't working, and it affected the
    measurements that they were collecting.
        That is one of the challenges that we heard across the
    board from State and local air quality monitoring agencies. It
    is just an old system that needs to be updated, which is
    consistent with our recommendation, as why we told the EPA, we
    really need to modernize the system, figure out what you need,
    what the resources are, and put that into place, and really to
    partner with the State and local agencies who are really the
    ones operating the system.
        Senator Carper. That is a good point. Thank you.
        Second question: GAO's report found that Federal funding
    for State and for local air monitoring programs has declined by
    about 20 percent over the last 16 years, adjusted for
    inflation. At the same time, air agencies at the Federal, at
    the State, and local levels are facing rising costs associated
    with maintaining aging, inefficient infrastructure, purchasing
    new, more expensive equipment, and staffing needs.
        Given the dire financial situation, many air monitoring
    programs find themselves in it appears that additional Federal
    funding may well help to alleviate much, not all, but much of
    the strain that these agencies are facing. Would additional
    funding for updating our Nation's air quality monitoring
    systems help address some of the challenges found in GAO's
    report?
        Mr. Gomez. Right. So, that is exactly what we learned when
    we looked at the funding across the last 15 years, that it had
    decreased by 20 percent. We did hear from local and State
    agencies and from EPA, that more resources would help them do
    the job. Again, I go back to our recommendation. It is really
    up to EPA as they modernize the system to identify what
    resources they need and come forward to Congress with that.
        Senator Carper. OK. My last question deals again with
    monitoring of air toxics. I believe that GAO found EPA's
    strategies for air toxic and local monitoring were, I think
    this is a correct quote, ``outdated and incomplete.'' I think
    that is the correct quote. Briefly, based on the GAO report,
    what are the greatest gaps in how EPA currently monitors for
    air toxics in local air pollution, and how could Congress help
    address these gaps?
        Mr. Gomez. Sure. So, in the areas of air toxics, we did
    find where there are additional information needs for air
    toxics in key locations, such as identified cancer clusters and
    environmental justice areas around industrial facilities. There
    is also a need for timely information on air toxics. What I
    mean by that is currently, when you monitor air toxics, the
    samples are collected in canisters over a 24-hour period. They
    are sent to the lab. So, there is really a lack of information
    for real-time, exactly when do those elevated readings happen,
    for example.
        Then, there is also information, as I noted in my opening
    statement, about air toxics at low levels. So currently, the
    methods that we have for analyzing toxic samples, they are not
    sensitive enough at these low levels to detect and see if, in
    fact, these things might be causing bad health effects.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, and thank you for coming before
    the committee, and thank you for your work at GAO.
        I would like to go to the two recommendations that you
    mentioned in your statement. You mentioned for EPA to develop
    and implement an asset management framework for National
    Ambient Air Quality monitoring systems, and second for EPA to
    develop and make public an air quality modernization plan. You
    addressed this a little bit.
        I am wondering, what has EPA done, your study came out 2
    years ago, in the last 2 years to implement your
    recommendations?
        Mr. Gomez. Yes, thank you for that question, Senator
    Capito. We do followup with our recommendations. First of all,
    EPA agreed with those recommendations. They have been meeting
    and working with their local and State partners. They have
    plans already in place to develop an asset management
    framework, which we think would be really useful, as that would
    allow them to focus their limited resources on the highest
    priorities.
        We understand, at the upcoming conference that EPA is
    having next month on air quality monitoring in Pittsburgh, our
    report and our recommendations are part of the discussion as
    they partner with State and local folks to figure out the
    bigger job on a modernization plan. We are touching base with
    them and following up, so we are hopeful that those
    recommendations will be implemented, as well.
        Senator Capito. Let me ask you a question on the
    modernization plan. Let me ask first about the funding issue.
    It was 20 percent down, funding since 2004, adjusted for
    inflation. Is that real dollars down, or is that, I don't have
    the figures in front of me. Has the amount gone up, or just
    hasn't gone up as much to keep up with inflation, or how is
    that?
        Mr. Gomez. Sure. So, when we did the report in 2020, we
    looked back 15 years. What we found was that, for that time
    period, there was a decrease in funding of 20 percent while
    controlling for inflation. We can also submit for the record
    the more details about those numbers.
        Senator Capito. OK. So, I guess what I am wondering is, why
    do you think EPA, with knowing, you cited some of the real
    physical problems, lack of air conditioning and things of that
    nature, why do you think they haven't already moved to a
    modernization where you can have low-cost monitoring, you can
    reshape? Do you think it is a bureaucracy that is kind of
    immovable, or you like to do it the way it has always been and
    think it is accurate? Are States resisting? Where do you think
    the real problems are with why they haven't already moved to a
    modernization plan 10 years ago?
        Mr. Gomez. I think it is a variety of issues. This is an
    aging infrastructure. It is fairly complex, and many different
    networks. You can look at our statement and our report. There
    are thousands of monitors across the Country.
        Now, EPA has been working with its local and State
    partners, especially as they are looking at these low-cost
    sensors to figure out where they can be deployed, what the
    particular uses of them could be. We just didn't see an overall
    plan, where they are really focusing on this aging
    infrastructure, and really coming up with ways to modernize it.
    Again, they are supportive, they are moving in that direction,
    so we are hopeful to see that come about.
        Senator Capito. Well, I would hope sooner. You mentioned
    it, and I just caught what you said in your opening statement.
    I went back and tried to find it, but I couldn't find it. You
    said something about an incomplete list as to what is more
    toxic than, can you go back to your statement and read that?
        Mr. Gomez. Let's see. If it was about air toxics----
        Senator Capito. Yes, and you started--I do have the quotes
    on here about an incomplete list.
        Mr. Gomez. With air toxics, it was more that EPA needs to
    better understand the hotspots, like cancer clusters. It could
    also help promote environmental justice by highlighting where
    the pollutants are concentrated.
        Essentially, there is just a need for additional
    information when it comes to air toxics, like more local-scale
    information about where those hotspots are, and then also the
    timing information in real time.
        Senator Capito. Maybe I was thinking what you were saying
    is that local and State authorities working with the EPA don't
    have a clear view of what is the most toxic, or what the
    toxicity level of certain things, that is not what you are
    saying.
        Mr. Gomez. No, I mean, there are already 188, I believe,
    air toxics that have been identified. It is more the
    measurement of these toxics in particular locations that is
    needed.
        Senator Capito. OK, I heard that wrong, because I thought
    what you were saying was that the EPA hasn't provided the data
    to the local and States to say, this type of toxin is more
    critical or should be monitored more.
        Mr. Gomez. So, that is one of the challenges, prioritizing
    air toxics.
        Senator Capito. Yes, that was the incomplete list.
        Mr. Gomez. There is a need for EPA to figure out which air
    toxics need priority, because of a lack of information, so that
    is why we are saying there is information that is needed so
    that the agency can begin to prioritize which air toxics they
    should monitor.
        Senator Capito. Yes, well it seemed to me that would be a
    critical responsibility for the EPA, in my view, should already
    be pretty apparent with all the science and data that they
    generate. Thank you very much.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks very much.
        We have been joined, as you may have noticed, Mr. Gomez, by
    several of our colleagues. Senator Whitehouse has been able to
    come and stay for a bit. He has to leave very shortly. Senator
    Ernst from Iowa just joined us.
        We all serve on multiple committees and subcommittees, and
    for some reason, a lot of them are meeting right now at the
    same time, so folks are coming and going. Senator Padilla from
    California joined us by WebEx for an earlier part of the
    hearing, including your testimony, and Senator Cardin has
    joined us and had to leave and go to another meeting that he is
    scheduled to have at the same time.
        I am going to do something, since we have an extra minute
    or two here, that I don't often do, but I want to do it right
    now. Is there a question that you wish you had been asked by
    somebody on our committee? Is there a question that you wish
    you had been asked by somebody on our committee, and what would
    that question be?
        Mr. Gomez. Sure. I would say, again, there is a lot of
    information needs for air toxics, as we were just talking about
    them, information about air toxics in key locations, more
    timely information on air toxics, and then also, again, being
    able to have analysis methods so that you can get measurements
    for them.
        The other question, maybe, that we haven't talked about as
    much is about these low-cost sensors, because low-cost sensors
    are widely available. GAO, as part of our report, purchased
    some of these low-cost sensors, and we actually deployed them
    outside the building because we wanted to test them to see----
        Senator Carper. Outside this building?
        Mr. Gomez. Outside the GAO building, we put our low-cost
    sensors to see what kind of information we got. This was for PM
    2.5. This is one of the things that we have reported on, that
    there is a need for more work in looking at the quality and
    performance of the sensors, because we had two sensors,
    different sensors, and they gave us different measurements. It
    is a question about, what do you do with the data, do they need
    to be calibrated, so that is something that EPA, again, is
    focused on, because low-cost sensors do provide a lot of
    information and are widely available now. We need to figure out
    where we can use them and how we can use them.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thank you. Thank you for asking and
    answering the same question. Not every witness gets that
    opportunity. To our friends at GAO and to our Comptroller
    General, our best regards and thanks for all the good work that
    you and your colleagues do. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Gomez. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. And I am sure we will have some questions
    for the record, so we look forward to your responses. Thank
    you.
        All right, our third and final panel for the morning. Let
    me introduce and welcome four witnesses: Kathy Fallon, Hon.
    Jason Isaac, Dana Johnson, and Bart Eklund. We thank you all
    for joining us today and for appearing.
        OK, I understand that Kathy Fallon is joining us virtually,
    and I understand that Dana Johnson is joining us virtually. We
    have, live and in person, Jason Isaac and Bart Eklund, who is
    named after the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I was a Naval flight officer stationed at
    Moffett Field, California. I used to occasionally travel on
    your systems. It is nice to see what you look like in person.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Kathy entered a bio by way of introduction.
    Kathy Fallon, joining us remotely, is currently serving as the
    Director of Land and Climate at Clean Air Task Force in Boston
    Massachusetts. Prior to joining Clean Air Task Force, Ms.
    Fallon was a senior advisor at the Center for Climate Health
    and Global Environment at Harvard, T.H. Chan School of Public
    Health.
        Ms. Fallon, you may begin your statement at this time.
    Thank you for joining us remotely.

     STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY FALLON, DIRECTOR OF LAND AND CLIMATE,
                          CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE

        Ms. Fallon. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Capito, and members of the committee for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        I am Kathy Fallon. I am Director of Land and Climate at the
    Clean Air Task Force, which is an environmental organization
    founded in 1996 to curb air and climate pollution through
    policy and----
        Senator Carper. Kathy, where are you today?
        Ms. Fallon. I am actually sitting in the Town of Hartland,
    Vermont.
        Senator Carper. All right. Why?
        Ms. Fallon. Interestingly, I hail from Maine, and my family
    is from Rumford, Maine, where apparently, Senator Collins
    celebrated the Clean Air Act.
        Senator Carper. That is great. Small world, small world. Go
    right ahead. Sorry to interrupt.
        Ms. Fallon. Small world indeed. Thank you. The Clean Air
    Task Force strongly supports all three bills before the
    committee today. There is an urgent need to improve air quality
    monitoring, especially in overburdened and underserved
    communities, as called for in the Environmental Justice Air
    Quality Monitoring Act and in the Public Health Air Quality
    Act. My oral testimony today will focus on the comprehensive
    National Mercury Monitoring Act.
        Here are my key takeaways: mercury poses serious health
    risks, and millions of Americans are exposed to elevated
    methylmercury through fish consumption. Remarkable progress has
    been made in reducing mercury emissions in the U.S.,
    particularly from power plants, and that has brought the
    American public major health benefits. Despite this progress,
    mercury pollution remains a widespread problem, due in part to
    the long-range transport of mercury emissions from China.
        Unfortunately, about half of our mercury deposition
    monitoring sites have closed due to lack of funding, and there
    is no federally supported long-term mercury monitoring for fish
    and wildlife and water. The problem hasn't been solved, and the
    nature of the problem is changing, and it is more important
    than ever to establish and fund a National Mercury Monitoring
    Network.
        Mercury in the form of methylmercury can lead to lost IQ,
    impaired motor function, and cardiovascular disease, including
    risk of stroke and fatal heart attacks at elevated levels.
    Approximately 200,000 children are born in the U.S. each year
    exposed to elevated methylmercury at levels that exceed EPA's
    reference dose. Unfortunately, there is no threshold below
    which neurodevelopmental impacts don't occur.
        Most people are exposed to methylmercury through fish
    consumption. Sensitive populations include the developing
    fetus, pregnant women, women of child-bearing age, and people
    who consume a lot of fish. This can include people from
    households with lower incomes and education levels, as well as
    high-income populations and individuals from several non-white
    racial and ethnic groups, as detailed in my written testimony.
        Most of the methylmercury in fish originates from air
    emissions. Mercury, once emitted, can be transported locally or
    globally, depending on its form, and methylmercury is
    staggering in its ability to bioaccumulate in food chains. It
    can reach levels 100 million times higher in fish than levels
    in water.
        Unfortunately, mercury is also somewhat of an equal
    opportunity contaminant. Any watershed anywhere with the right
    conditions, like areas in rural Maine with lots of forest cover
    and wetlands, can have high mercury levels in fish and
    wildlife, even if they are far from sources and have relatively
    low mercury inputs.
        Remarkable progress has been made in cutting mercury
    emissions from the U.S. In fact, coal-fired power plants have
    cut their mercury emissions by an incredible 90 percent.
    Despite this progress, though, the total mercury deposited to
    the U.S. has shown only modest improvements and may be
    increasing in some areas, but we don't know, for lack of
    monitoring. According to the most recent compilation in 2013,
    fish consumption advisories for mercury still exist in all 50
    States.
        Here are three of the reasons why mercury pollution is
    still a problem. Global emissions, particularly emissions from
    China, have increased, offsetting the benefits of emissions
    reductions here at home. Climate change is making the problem
    worse. Mercury is being released from thawing permafrost and by
    more frequent wildfires, and it is bioaccumulating to higher
    levels as waters warm. Third, there are sensitive watersheds
    across the U.S. where even a small amount of mercury can have a
    large impact.
        Mercury monitoring today is pieced together with annual
    funding from various sources. Funding levels have fluctuated
    over time, and we have lost about half of our mercury
    deposition monitoring sites, so that we can no longer even
    produce a map of deposition for the whole Country. There are
    large gaps in Western States and in Gulf States.
        Also, even though fish consumption is the dominant pathway
    of human exposure, there is no coordinated national long-term
    mercury monitoring for fish and water.
        To wrap up, given the hazardous nature of mercury
    pollution, it is wonderful that we have made so much progress
    here in the U.S., but the problem hasn't been solved, and the
    nature of the problem is changing. It is more important than
    ever to establish and fund a national mercury monitoring so
    that the American public can know where it is a problem and
    where it is not and can make informed choices about mercury
    exposure and their health; so that environmental managers can
    determine whether to delist water bodies that may no longer be
    impaired by mercury or to list new ones that now are'; and so
    that policymakers have the data needed to understand how the
    American public is being impacted by mercury emissions that
    originate from outside our borders.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fallon follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you so much. We look forward to
    asking you some questions in just a few minutes, but first we
    want to welcome Mr. Isaac, who is currently serving, as I
    understand, as the Director of Life:Powered, a national
    initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Do you live
    in Texas?
        Mr. Isaac. Yes.
        Senator Carper. Where?
        Mr. Isaac. Just outside of Austin, in the hill country.
        Senator Carper. Welcome back to our committee, Mr. Isaac.
    We have, I think, seen you here before.
        Mr. Isaac. Yes, it is great to be back.
        Senator Carper. We are happy you are back, and you are
    recognized and welcome to proceed with your statement. Thank
    you.

       STATEMENT OF HON. JASON ISAAC, DIRECTOR, LIFE: POWERED, A
             PROJECT OF THE TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION

        Mr. Isaac. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman and members. I
    am Jason Isaac, the Director of Life:Powered, a national
    Initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation to raise
    America's energy IQ.
        From 2011 to 2019, I served in the Texas House of
    Representatives, and during my freshman session, carried the
    Texas Emission Reduction Plan legislation. I was a House
    sponsor for the ozone standards set by the EPA under the Clean
    Air Act in our State.
        Senator Carper. How long were you in State legislature?
        Mr. Isaac. Eight years, yes, four terms. That was our SIP
    that I carried, the State Implementation Plan.
        The EPA's National Emissions Inventory finds that mercury
    emissions from stationary sources in the U.S. fell 85 percent
    from 1990 to 2017, over 200 tons annually to about 30 tons
    annually. According to a 2018 U.N. study, 80 percent of the
    mercury deposited in North America comes from other continents,
    with half coming from Asia.
        A mercury deposition network already exists at the
    University of Wisconsin. The network consists of approximately
    100 stations across the Country and is supported by State,
    Federal, and private funding.
        The Mercury Air Toxics Rule, which cost billions of dollars
    and resulted in the closure of many coal plants, increased
    electricity prices and reduced grid reliability in many areas.
    It was estimated, originally, by the EPA that there would be
    $90 billion in health benefits, but resulted in only $6 million
    in health benefits from reducing mercury emissions.
        Instead of repeating the narrative that we are dirty and
    setting impossible emission reduction goals for ourselves, we
    need to recognize our success, which you both have touted, in
    our clean air here in the United States. We need to get the
    rest of the world to align with our air quality standards that
    improve human health. Until we do, our Nation will continue to
    export jobs and import pollution.
        Regarding environmental justice, the real injustice:
    American's lack of access to affordable and reliable energy.
    This year, Americans will pay $5,200 more than last year to
    cover rising prices of gas, electricity, and everyday items.
        Even before the current energy crisis that Americans are
    facing, a lawsuit was filed in California that specifically
    addressed the issue. The plaintiff, the more than 200 civil
    rights organizations accuses the California Air Resources Board
    of being racially biased in its environmental regulations and
    environmental lobby organization. The evidence they present for
    this case is that the regulations they created primarily hurt
    minorities, while not doing anything to help the environment in
    California.
        The effects of clean energy policies have been
    catastrophic, as are the measures being taken by the Federal
    Government that ignore the science behind air quality and
    responsible energy practices. When it comes to air quality, we
    are a world leader. We have reduced the six criteria pollutants
    that the EPA has the authority to regulate under the Clean Air
    Act by 78 percent in the past five decades, which both of you
    have touted.
        The message in the bill is clear: environmental extremists
    want to say that the air in these communities is racist and
    unfair, but what matters more to Americans is not having to
    choose between food and electricity.
        The last bill on public health air quality refuses to
    acknowledge the monumental wins I have already mentioned, as
    well as the fact that we have the cleanest air of any Country
    with over 50 million people. We should be celebrating our
    success, not spending more money to spread unnecessary climate
    alarmism.
        If we want to improve the lives of all Americans, then we
    should do so with our affordable, reliable energy from fossil
    fuels. Until the EPA demonstrates that it will ends its war on
    American energy, Congress should not bless it with more
    funding.
        Environmental leadership and economic prosperity do go
    hand-in-hand. We cannot address injustice without monitoring,
    but we can with energy. To improve the global environment and
    eradicate poverty as we know it, we should produce and export
    our energy and our clean air around the world.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Isaac follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Mr. Isaac.
        Next, I want to welcome, I believe remotely, Dana Johnson,
    currently serving as the Senior Director of Strategy and
    Federal Policy at WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
        Welcome, Ms. Johnson. Please begin your statement at this
    time. Welcome.

      STATEMENT OF DANA JOHNSON, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND
            FEDERAL POLICY, WE ACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

        Ms. Johnson. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Carper,
    Ranking Member Caputo, and all the members of the committee.
        Senator Carper. It is Capito. It is confusing because we
    have a witness, a nominee just before this committee, whose
    name is Caputo.
        Ms. Johnson. Senator Capito, I am sorry.
        Senator Capito. You are confusing her even more.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. You are not entirely wrong. Where are you
    today, Ms. Johnson? Where are you talking to us from?
        Ms. Johnson. I am talking to you from Washington, DC, and I
    am a Chicago native.
        Senator Carper. Oh, welcome. This is a home game. Chicago,
    good. Welcome aboard. Senator Capito and I are delighted to
    welcome you.
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, my apologies, Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Not a problem, don't worry about it.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
        I want to thank all of you for convening this important
    dialog on how we can improve the air quality in communities
    across this Country for all Americans. As noted, my name is
    Dana Johnson. I serve as Senior Director of Strategy and
    Federal Policy with WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
        We are a member-based organization whose mission is to
    build healthy communities by ensuring that people living in a
    community of color or low-income residents are able to
    participate meaningfully in decisionmaking at every level of
    government when it comes to environmental and public health
    policies and practices. We are based in Northern Manhattan and
    organized in New York City, New York State, and here in
    Washington, DC.
        We are the only environmental justice organization that has
    a Federal presence here, a Federal policy office. In this
    office, we convene the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum,
    which is a network of EJ groups representing 22 States, and
    there are about 50 members that make up that body.
        Americans living in communities of color have a racially
    disproportionate exposure to air pollution because of
    institutionalized bias in our environmental, energy, land use,
    and economic decisionmaking. Last year, researchers at the
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign found that African
    Americans have a higher-than-average exposure to particulate
    matter from every pollution emitting source studied, including
    cars, trucks, power plants, construction, industrial
    operations, and agriculture. This outsized and dangerous
    exposure was repeated in nearly all categories where
    researchers grouped Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians into a
    ``people of color'' category and compared the risk pollution
    exposure to whites.
        Millions of Americans live, work, and play in conditions
    that can only be described as environmental emergencies. This
    was true in 1997 when our Northern Manhattan community housed
    six of the eight bus depots in New York City. We had one-third
    of the city's bus fleet, which was diesel at the time, emitting
    pollution in our communities, and we did not have a single
    particulate matter air monitor present during the 8-hour period
    when particulate matter pollution was four times higher than it
    would be for annual levels set by the Environmental Protection
    Agency.
        We saw this again in 2005 in the Sauget community of St.
    Louis, which is an area of importance to Senator Duckworth,
    where there was a lack of air quality monitoring data available
    for an investigation into the health hazards associated with
    the operation of a waste incinerator.
        We saw it again in Chelsea, Massachusetts, where
    Congresswoman Pressley and Senator Markey intervened to have an
    air quality monitor placed in that city when no air quality
    monitor was present before 2020, and that area of the community
    ranked third in the State for environmental hazards and had the
    highest asthma rates in the city.
        There are hundreds of cases like these across the Country,
    and they tell us an important theme. Every facet of existence,
    including the health and economic conditions for those living
    in a front and fenceline community demands bold and decisive
    action to alleviate the cumulative burden of being exposed to
    carbon, ozone, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, methane, and
    sulfur dioxide. The proposed legislation for modernizing our
    air quality monitoring processes, our tools, our resources,
    staff, and technology that we are discussing today is that bold
    and decisive action that we need to begin to dramatically
    improve the quality of lives for all Americans.
        I just want to flag four things really quickly from the
    bills that we think are important to highlight. The community
    engagement and data gathering processes that are available
    really partner well with the principles of environmental
    justice that note that people have the right to participate in
    decisionmaking at every level of government. This includes
    needs assessment, planning, implementation enforcement, and
    evaluation.
        Communities have the right to know and be educated when it
    comes to pollution where they live, work, and play. For
    pollution present in their community, we have a right to know
    about the health risks associated with it and how it might
    exacerbate any present health conditions.
        And we have a right to corrective action. Once there is an
    awareness and understanding of air pollution in our
    communities, corrective action must be taken. Environmental
    justice principle No. 6 demands that there be a cessation of
    the production of all toxins, hazardous wastes, and radioactive
    materials, and that all present and current producers be held
    strictly accountable to the people for detoxifying contaminants
    at the point of production. We believe that these three bills
    being discussed today give us the opportunities to do that.
        I will just make quickly one final point around the
    investments. I think it was noted that there has been a 20
    percent decrease in funding for the EPA to do this important
    work, and we want to highlight the need to have the financial
    resources available to invest in the people, the technology,
    and the equipment necessary to really do quality monitoring in
    communities that have a legacy of harm as it relates to air
    pollution.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Ms. Johnson, thank you so much for joining
    us today.
        Now, batting cleanup, we are pleased to welcome Bart
    Eklund, currently serving as the Senior Technical Expert at
    Haley and Aldrich. Welcome, Mr. Eklund. We invite you to
    proceed with your statement. Glad you could be with us. Thank
    you.

     STATEMENT OF BART EKLUND, SENIOR TECHNICAL EXPERT, HALEY AND
                                ALDRICH

        Mr. Eklund. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Capito, distinguished Senators, for the opportunity to speak
    today.
        I concur with the statements that various folks have made
    about the success in improving air quality over my working
    lifetime. Some of the reasons for the success of the Clean Air
    Act for the NAAQS is that we have standards, we agree upon what
    we are trying to achieve for those six pollutants, and we have
    reference or equivalent methods so that when people gather
    data, they used agreed-upon methods, and we don't argue about
    the data, we argue about what the implications might be.
        When it comes to air toxics, we have some additional
    challenges. We do not have any national standards for air
    toxics, with the exception of lead. From jurisdiction to
    jurisdiction, there are differences in what is an acceptable
    level. If I am doing a study for dry cleaning fluid or arsenic
    or benzene, what concentrations we have to achieve in
    California may be different in Illinois may be different in New
    York. What concentration we have to achieve drives some of our
    choices on monitoring methodologies.
        We don't have any standard methods for some of the air
    toxics. I know one of the bills calls out ethylene oxide. I
    developed a method for ethylene oxide 15 years ago. There are a
    couple other methods out there. There hasn't been methods
    development done to compare those different approaches to see
    how they compare, and EPA doesn't necessarily endorse any of
    them at this point.
        When we are looking for monitoring in communities for air
    toxics, we need to look at the timeframes of interest.
    Sometimes, we are interested in very short-term exposures, such
    as during an accidental release or process upset. Sometimes we
    are interested in lifetime exposure to low levels of
    carcinogens.
        A mistake that is often made is trying to use one
    measurement method to address all those different objectives.
    Generally, we wind up needing to fine tune our approach for the
    specific objective at hand. The trends in the monitoring
    community have been toward continuous monitoring, and sometimes
    that is needed, sometimes it is not, but we are generating huge
    amounts of data now.
        The other, I don't know if it is a trend, but there is a
    lot of enthusiasm for low-cost sensors. There is very little
    enthusiasm among people like me that are experts in air
    monitoring for low-cost sensors. They have some pros and cons,
    obviously, but there are some deficiencies in their accuracy,
    precision, and sensitivity. I know some of the bills have
    called out more use of low-cost sensors.
        I would suggest, as an alternative, more short-term
    intensive studies. We have done that many times in the past
    when we are interested in understanding more about an issue to
    intensively study it for a shorter period of time with the
    kinds of equipment that we all have confidence in. That is a
    potential tradeoff.
        I would also point out that we are generating huge amounts
    of data, millions and millions and millions of data points a
    year for air quality. Unfortunately, I don't think there is
    really the funding for review and interpretation of that
    information. So, for example, EPA has an Urban Air Toxics
    Monitoring Program. They generate data across the U.S. and
    urban areas for things like formaldehyde, mercury, benzene,
    many of the compounds we are interested in.
        But they ceased doing reporting of that in 2016. The data
    is still available, but it is no longer in a usable format for
    the public. They no longer can see a summary report. There is a
    lot of reason to do more with the data we have in addition to
    considering collecting more data.
        My final point is, in recent years, I have done a lot of
    indoor air work. People spend, the typical number you will see
    is 89 percent of their time indoors. When we are doing indoor
    air studies, we collect outdoor air samples, but what people
    are exposed to in that 89 percent of the time they spend is
    overwhelmingly due to consumer products and other things they
    have indoors. It is rarely outdoor air being a significant
    contributor to their overall exposure.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Eklund follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much.
        Senator Capito has to head out for another responsibility
    here in a second, but she is going to be asking questions. I
    think I will turn it over next to Senator Whitehouse. I will
    probably go right after her, so Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, and thank you all for being
    here. Mr. Eklund, let me ask you if you can explain in really
    general terms, because I know you are a technical expert, the
    difference between monitors that are used to regulate criteria
    for air pollutants, and then air toxics. Is there a difference
    there?
        Mr. Eklund. Certainly. For criteria pollutants, they are
    largely the combustion products for things like vehicle use and
    burning coal. We are interested in short-term exposure, so we
    have monitors that give us time resolution of a few seconds or
    a few minutes.
        For air toxics, we are often interested in lifetime
    exposure, because of the potential for them being cancer
    causing. In those cases, we don't need that same time
    resolution, but we need to get very, very sensitive results. So
    as a previous witness pointed out, we may be collecting a
    sample and shipping it off to a lab and getting the answer back
    in a matter of weeks, rather than instantaneously.
        Senator Capito. We have heard testimony that there are
    gaps, and some of these bills are aimed at trying to fill gaps.
    You mentioned enormous amounts of data that EPA is generating,
    or has, collects, and then we are hearing all these gaps.
        I am curious to know, why did EPA stop publishing the data
    in 2016, that you could extrapolate for regular people like me
    to be able to see what it going on, rather than to have to dig
    deep, and what gaps would you say there are in light of the
    testimony that you have heard before you?
        Mr. Eklund. I can't speak to EPA's----
        Senator Capito. You don't know?
        Mr. Eklund. I don't know.
        Senator Capito. OK.
        Mr. Eklund. In terms of gaps, there are emerging
    pollutants.
        Senator Capito. What would be an example of an emerging
    pollutant?
        Mr. Eklund. Well, PFAS is one, but also some of the things
    that were listed in Senator Duckworth's bill: ethylene oxide,
    formaldehyde. One of the issues is that the methods that we use
    to look at things like around a refinery aren't good tools for
    those chemicals. Each of those chemicals presents some
    challenges from an analytical chemistry standpoint, and we wind
    up needing to spend a lot of money and effort to get data for
    one chemical at a time, as opposed to some of the existing
    methods that allow us to look at dozens or hundreds of
    chemicals with a single sample.
        Senator Capito. OK. Mr. Isaac, I want to ask you about the
    Permian Basin, because domestic air emissions, including
    ground-level ozone, have fallen significantly over the past few
    decades, meaning our Country has much cleaner air, but that has
    not stopped this Administration from moving forward with plans
    to redesignate your area, the Permian Basin, as being in
    nonattainment with the ozone standard. How would a finding of
    nonattainment with the ozone standard impact what goes on in
    the Permian Basin, and how do you interpret their
    interpretation?
        Mr. Isaac. Their interpretation is wrong. The EPA
    nonattainment areas should be based on vehicular traffic, and
    they are looking at remote areas where there is no vehicular
    traffic. You are looking at one of the largest areas of
    production for oil and gas in this Country, and so it would be
    absolutely catastrophic to put EPA nonattainment, and that is
    why our Governor, Governor Abbott, has come out full throttle
    against this and will work diligently to make sure that this is
    not implemented over the Permian Basin, whether it is Texas or
    New Mexico.
        But that energy that we are producing is really providing
    the fuel for this Country and the rest of the world, and quite
    honestly, we need to be increasing production. We need to get
    the financial industry off of the backs of the oil and gas
    companies and the fossil fuel producers in this Country. We
    need to get them to quit discriminating against responsible
    American energy producers. We need to get the government to get
    out of the way and get off the backs of these responsible
    energy producers so that we can be helping people that are
    facing troubles in Sri Lanka, in Germany, in France, and the
    Netherlands, and Ghana and South Africa that are just being
    crushed by energy poverty because they have adopted these
    policies to decarbonize their governments, their countries,
    which does nothing to improve the environment, but does
    everything to increase the cost of energy. It is just another
    assault on the oil and gas industry.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. We have heard that, and we have
    stated, both of us, and you all have as well, that the mercury
    levels have come way, way down over the last 20 to 30 years.
    Consistent with everybody's testimony is that the reason that
    we have any issues with this, I wouldn't say any, but issues
    with this is because of what goes on in China. I am curious to
    know, does China monitor their mercury emissions? Mr. Eklund,
    do you know?
        Mr. Eklund. No, I don't know, but I would be surprised if
    they do.
        Mr. Isaac. I do know they have the pollution control
    technology, they just don't utilize it. I have often said that
    there are, of all the technology the Chinese steal from us, it
    would be nice if they would utilize our pollution control
    technology. They don't. We are world leaders in clean air, and
    that impacts, as I said in our testimony, over 80 percent of
    the mercury deposits in the U.S. today come from foreign
    sources, and over half of that is from Asia.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks so much for joining
    us. I look forward to seeing you on the floor in a little bit.
        I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record letters and statements of support for today's
    legislative hearing. These letters come from environmental
    organizations, environmental justice groups, public health
    advocates, including a July 12th, 2022 letter from the American
    Lung Association in support of all three pieces of legislation
    we are examining today.
        [The referenced information was not submitted at the time
    of print.]
        Senator Carper. I believe a series of votes have just
    started on the Senate floor. We will have to be out of here in
    less than 30 minutes. I am going to ask questions next, and I
    will yield to a Marine friend of mine, I am a Navy guy,
    different uniform, same team, and I will yield to Senator
    Sullivan next, and Senator Whitehouse is back. He will be
    following Senator Sullivan. OK.
        My question, let me just start off with a quick statement.
    My colleagues have heard me say this more times than they want
    to remember, Mr. Isaac, but there is an old saying that says
    where you sit helps determine where you stand on a particular
    issue. I don't sit in Delaware, but I live in Delaware. I have
    lived there forever since I got out of the Navy a million years
    ago at the end of the Vietnam War when I moved there.
        My State is sinking. We are the lowest-lying State in
    America. We are sinking. The seas around us are rising. Up and
    down the east coast, you find similar situations. Although our
    colleagues from Louisiana remind me from time to time, both
    Republicans, that in their State, that they lose about every
    hundred minutes, a piece of land the size of a football field.
    During the course of this hearing, they are going to lose, in
    Louisiana, enough land for two football fields, and it is going
    off into the sea.
        We have wildfires across the Country as big as my State.
    There is stuff going on here. There are reasons why we are
    still concerned about reducing carbon emissions, as you know.
    The challenge for us, and the opportunity for us, going back to
    what Ms. Johnson said, she was talking about diesel bus
    emissions.
        One of the things that Senator Sullivan and I focus on is
    how do we cleanup, do good things for our planet, for air,
    water, and so forth, and create economic opportunity at the
    same time? One of the things that, this is the committee that
    helped write the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and reported
    out unanimously both the Surface Transportation piece and all
    the water legislation.
        We are proud of the work that we did. We also provide a lot
    of opportunity to address, through electric vehicles and buses,
    reducing bus pollution, diesel emissions and that sort of
    thing. There is a lot of opportunity for economic development
    and job creation, as well, so we are focused on both sides of
    that.
        In terms of questions, I will start with Ms. Fallon. Ms.
    Fallon, are you still with us?
        Ms. Fallon. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Carper. Good, good. Mercury is a dangerous air
    toxic, as we know, that persists and bioaccumulates in the
    environment long after its release, meaning it gets more
    dangerous over time.
        Unlike particulate matter and ozone pollution, mercury air
    pollution is more dangerous when it settles into our waterways
    and our food than when it is in the air, yet we have
    significant data gaps in knowing how much mercury is present in
    our environment at one time. For example, as you mentioned in
    your testimony, it has been a decade since EPA last compiled
    State mercury fish consumption advisories.
        The question, Ms. Fallon, is this: how is the mercury
    monitoring authorized and the Comprehensive National Mercury
    Monitoring Act different? How is it different from EPA's
    current air toxics monitoring programs, and why is this new
    type of mercury monitoring necessary to better protect health?
        Ms. Fallon. Thank you for that question. Currently, as you
    said, as you rightly said, mercury is not just an air pollution
    problem. While mercury levels, specifically mercury emissions,
    have gone down, the amount of mercury deposited to watersheds
    has not, and may be increasing. The funding is currently to
    measure that deposition being pieced together from State
    agencies, universities, nonprofit organizations.
        We don't have dedicated Federal funding to measure mercury
    deposition, and we are down to 82 sites that measure mercury
    deposition. There have been about 90 others that were online at
    one point or another. As the patterns of where mercury is
    coming from changes, it is particularly notable that we lack
    Federal funding for measuring mercury deposition in Western
    States.
        So, with the influx of mercury from emissions in China, it
    is really important that we are able to document mercury
    deposition in those Western States. Given the fishery and the
    Gulf States, it is equally important that we measure mercury
    deposition there. We shouldn't take the fact that mercury
    emissions in the U.S. are declining to mean that the mercury
    problem has been solved.
        Senator Carper. Thanks very much. A quick question, and a
    quick answer, I would ask from Ms. Johnson. You explained in
    your testimony how vulnerable populations like children, like
    seniors, and pregnant women are more sensitive to the effects
    of air pollution, especially if they live in low-income
    communities or communities of color.
        Do you believe that the three pieces of legislation before
    us today complement one another to address the deficiencies of
    our current air monitoring systems and adequately protect
    vulnerable communities? Why should Congress, through these
    bills and other legislative action, continue to invest in air
    monitoring? I ask you to be succinct in responding to that
    question. Go ahead, Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, thank you for your question, Chair
    Carper.
        I absolutely believe that the three pieces of legislation
    work well to address the issue of air pollution in our
    communities. I think that people living in an environmental
    justice community oftentimes notice the adverse health outcomes
    plaguing their community before data is available to validate
    that source.
        I think the burden of health protection has been placed on
    people living in communities, whether it is fundraising for
    monitors or performing community-based participatory research,
    and the passage of these bills, the Environmental Justice Air
    Quality Monitoring Act and the Public Health Air Quality Act,
    as well as the bill focused on mercury, can shift the burden of
    protecting communities, protecting the environment away from
    residents and place that burden on our agencies and departments
    that have that responsibility.
        I think it also, as was mentioned earlier, can provide
    economic opportunities for individuals. We talked about the age
    of the monitors that we currently have in place and a need for
    us to do robust maintenance and care for them, and we believe
    that those are opportunities, economic opportunities, that are
    available for individuals to be trained, to have jobs, as well
    as to have entrepreneurial opportunities in that space.
        Senator Carper. That was good. Thanks very much.
        Senator Sullivan is next, followed by Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Padilla will be coming back after that; he will be
    next. OK, Senator Sullivan, welcome. Good to see you.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You, too.
        Mr. Isaac, Mr. Eklund, I want to followup on Mr. Isaac's
    discussions on the energy sector and the importance in terms of
    jobs, national security, economic security, prices at the pump.
    I couldn't agree with you more that this Administration has
    undertaken a full assault on these sectors.
        One thing, though, that never gets talked about, I am from
    Alaska. I was the Commissioner of Natural Resources and Energy
    in Alaska. We have the highest environmental standards on
    production of any place in the world, in the world, by far. It
    is not even a close call, but that goes for America in general.
    I think Alaska is the highest.
        But can you just comment on that, because a lot of people
    don't know that. When we produce oil and gas in Texas and
    Alaska, New Mexico, by the way, New Mexico is just cranking.
    Deb Haaland, Martin Heinrich, their State, boy, do they crank
    on oil and gas. They get special treatment by the Biden
    Administration. Almost half the Federal permits, half the
    Federal permits issued by the Biden Administration go to one
    State. Not Texas, not Alaska, they try to shut my State down
    every day.
        New Mexico; I think it would be a great hearing to have,
    why is New Mexico getting all this special treatment for oil
    and gas? Maybe it is the Secretary of the Interior. Maybe it is
    the Senior Senator, but who knows. I am digressing here. It is
    an issue I am a little hot and bothered about.
        Do we have higher standards than, say, Russia, Saudi
    Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, where the President is going around
    begging for more oil production? Do we, and shouldn't that
    matter?
        Mr. Isaac. Absolutely, Senator. The National Energy
    Technology Lab issued a report. You could take natural gas
    produced in this Country, you export, you produce it, you pipe
    it, you liquefy it, and then you put it on a ship and you
    transport it around the world, and you can get that gas to
    Europe and the India with greater than 40 percent fewer life
    cycle emissions than getting the same gas just piped from
    Russia.
        Senator Sullivan. From Russia, 40 percent. Yes.
        Mr. Isaac. You are absolutely right, yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Greater than, Venezuela is 18 times
    higher in terms of pollution, including air, than U.S. energy
    production. Isn't that true as well?
        Mr. Isaac. That is absolutely correct.
        Senator Sullivan. OK.
        Mr. Isaac. We are world leaders in environmental
    protection.
        Senator Sullivan. But that never gets out. When they come
    after the energy sector, oh, you guys are horrible. We are the
    leader in the world, aren't we?
        Mr. Isaac. Yes, we are.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me show you another chart that is
    really important. I bring this out a lot. By the way, all the
    national media has fact-checked this because they hate it, but
    it happens to be true. Even they have to admit it is true.
        This is a chart of CO2 emissions since 2005, OK? That is
    the United States. We have reduced CO2 emissions by almost 15
    percent. There is China; there is India, through the roof. Why
    do you think that happened?
        Mr. Isaac. It is technology, and it is environmental
    leadership.
        Senator Sullivan. Technology, and it is also the revolution
    and the production of natural gas in America, correct?
        Mr. Isaac. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Because it is clean-burning, relative to
    other sources. We moved off coal, and we went to the production
    of natural gas.
        Mr. Isaac. I am glad you brought up CO2, because I am
    ingesting higher concentrations that what is prevalent in the
    atmosphere, and I am not spontaneously combusting, so we can't
    demonize CO2. It is necessary for life on Earth.
        Senator Sullivan. My point is, if other countries had the
    profile that we do, don't you think the global emissions
    problem would make significant, if China and India had our
    profile, wouldn't that be good for global emissions around the
    world?
        Mr. Isaac. Oh, absolutely.
        Senator Sullivan. Does everybody, Mr. Eklund, do you agree
    with that?
        Mr. Eklund. I think that is pretty obvious, yes.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Ms. Fallon, do you agree with that?
        Ms. Fallon. Could you repeat your question, please?
        Senator Carper. Try to make it really short.
        Senator Sullivan. I am going to be out of time here.
        I want to ask, Ms. Johnson, I want to ask one final
    question. It is a really important one for me. I have brought
    this chart up a lot, too. This is a chart about life expectancy
    in my State, in America. Dark blue, even purple, is the most
    life expectancy, increases from 1980 to 2014.
        Unfortunately, in America, there are a couple areas you
    look, orange, red, yellow, the life expectancy in America
    decreases. It is mostly the places where there is opioid
    challenges.
        Alaska has had the biggest life expectancy increases of any
    place in the Country, almost 13 years. What is remarkable about
    this, and the reason it happened, is because resource
    development happened. That is the North Slope of Alaska,
    Northwest Arctic Borough, Aleutian Island Chain with the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act. That is fisheries, that is oil, gas,
    mining.
        My question is, this Administration likes to talk a lot
    about environmental justice, environmental equity, but when it
    comes to Alaska Natives, they don't count. They don't count,
    because they try to shut down resource development projects in
    these parts of my State that will not only hurt people, it is a
    matter of life and death. Thirteen years life expectancy
    increase.
        So when people talk about environmental justice and
    environmental equity, Ms. Johnson, shouldn't they also include
    the Alaska Native people who are communities of color, who are
    often targeted by the Biden Administration, not helped, and to
    promote policies that actually increase life expectancy?
        Senator Carper. Ms. Johnson, I am going to ask you to be
    succinct in responding to that question.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, that is my question.
        Senator Carper. Three more folks to ask questions, and then
    we have to go vote. Ms. Johnson, very briefly, please. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Johnson. Yes. I will note that there are indigenous
    tribes in Alaska, and they are considered environmental justice
    communities. So I would make the assumption that when one is
    talking about Native Alaskans, one could also be talking about
    an environmental justice community.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Whitehouse, please. Thanks for coming back,
    Sheldon.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks. I love following Senator
    Sullivan, because I get the chance to point out that his graph
    does not include methane and is based on coal-to-gas transition
    that has unleased enormous amounts of excess methane, and it is
    not based on percentage, which is interesting, because the U.S.
    has been the biggest carbon dioxide emitter. It is based on raw
    emissions.
        So yes, we have a bigger number because we are a bigger
    emitter. I think that is what the fact-checking shows.
        Mr. Isaac, the Texas Public Policy Foundation has received
    funding from the fossil fuel billionaire Koch operation, from
    ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, Devon Energy and other
    fossil fuel companies. Is that correct?
        Mr. Isaac. If that is public knowledge. I don't keep track
    of who our donors are, but I know that we are supported by over
    close to 10,000 people across the United States that believe in
    liberty, free enterprise and personal responsibility.
        Senator Whitehouse. Here is what TPPF's former vice
    president said about the organization producing industry-
    friendly research and advocacy in exchange for donations from
    industries that would financially benefit from the industry-
    friendly policies. The fundraising involved approaching
    corporations, wealthy businessmen and corporate-funded
    foundations with a pitch described as ``We think this is
    beneficial to your industry and would you consider providing us
    with a non-profit contribution? Here is the timeline for the
    completion of the research, the parameters of the research are
    this, we expect it to result in some savings or outsourcing.''
        I would like to put this article from the Texas Observer
    into the record.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not submitted at the time
    of print.]
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Isaac, in 2020, the most recent
    year for which we have your TPPF 990 form, TPPF reported
    receiving over $17 million in donations, correct?
        Mr. Isaac. That is correct. That is my understanding.
        Senator Whitehouse. How much of that comes from entities
    connected to the fossil fuel industry?
        Mr. Isaac. I am not advised.
        Senator Whitehouse. You really don't know that that funding
    comes from the fossil fuel industry?
        Mr. Isaac. I am going to say it comes 100 percent from
    people that benefit from fossil fuels.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I bet they do.
        I am assuming that you are a fan of and familiar with the
    economist Milton Friedman, the godfather of conservative
    libertarianism.
        Mr. Isaac. Yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. In fact, TPPF honored Dr. Friedman at a
    commemorative event for the important role he played in
    promoting economic freedom in the United States, correct?
        Mr. Isaac. I believe so, yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. Are you aware that Dr. Friedman
    supported pricing of emissions, pollution pricing, indeed said
    it was the best way to deal with pollution, and he considered
    pollution to be a market failure? Is that correct?
        Mr. Isaac. I am not advised of his comments on pollution
    pricing.
        Senator Whitehouse. Is this being the one area where TPPF
    doesn't follow Friedman's principles related to the fossil fuel
    donors of TPPF?
        Mr. Isaac. I would say that we are proud of our American
    achievement and having the cleanest air on record, and we are
    world leaders in environmental protection.
        Senator Whitehouse. We, meaning?
        Mr. Isaac. The foundation. The foundation is absolutely
    proud of our Country and the clean air that we have, the
    safest, we are No. 1 when it comes to access to clean and safe
    drinking water. There is almost a billion people on the face of
    the earth that have no access to electricity.
        Senator Whitehouse. We keep trying to improve that, and
    your industry keeps trying to oppose us, and you work for the
    industry.
        You cite a Bloomberg article in your testimony saying that
    the average household paid $5,200 more a year because of
    inflation, much of it from gas price hikes by big oil, which
    sets gas prices. At the same time, the International Monetary
    Fund estimates that damages associated with fossil fuel
    combustion to people's healthy, property, lives, amount to
    approximately $640 billion in 2020, which works out per
    household to almost exactly $5,200. That hits those households
    every year, not just when inflation surges, correct?
        Mr. Isaac. Yes, I believe those are referring to
    statistical lives, and that is flawed, much like the U.N. IPCC
    climate model.
        Senator Whitehouse. So you disagree with that?
        Mr. Isaac. Yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. How much is the Ike Dike going to cost
    to protect the Texas coast from future hurricanes? Is it $31
    billion?
        Mr. Isaac. I am not sure of the cost of the Ike Dike. The
    only levee that I am aware of was built around Galveston.
        Senator Whitehouse. How much is the damage from Hurricane
    Harvey? Is it $125 billion?
        Mr. Isaac. I am not advised.
        Senator Whitehouse. Ninety-one percent of families in the
    Houston area with flood insurance policies projected to see
    their rates go up due to increasing weather events like
    Hurricane Harvey?
        Mr. Isaac. I would say it is due to extreme insurance
    companies that are no longer making funds available to the
    fossil fuel industry or the timber industry in this Country as
    well as financial institutions discriminating----
        Senator Whitehouse. How do they make funds available to the
    fossil fuel industry?
        Mr. Isaac. If you are limiting access to insurance
    policies----
        Senator Whitehouse. Hold on. Hold on. Hear my question.
    This is home insurance I am talking about.
        Mr. Isaac. Yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. You are talking about business
    insurance.
        Mr. Isaac. Correct.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. Just wanted to be clear about that.
    I would like to put into the record the article about the
    increased cost to Houston families from flooding.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information was not submitted at the time
    of print.]
        Senator Whitehouse. In other States, Florida, average
    homeowner's insurance premiums up 55 percent in the last 3
    years due largely to increased hurricanes and flooding.
    California, more than 350,000 home and business owners saw
    property and casualty properties dropped because of more
    frequent and severe wildfires. Cargill's executive director has
    stated that climate change could reduce grain yields in the
    U.S. by 14 percent by mid-century and 42, 42 precent by late
    century.
        What effect on prices would a 42 percent reduction in
    midwestern grain yields have, Mr. Isaac?
        Mr. Isaac. I think the key word there is could. What we are
    seeing is climate is absolutely changing and man is having an
    impact on it. But over the last 100 years we have seen around a
    90 percent----
        Senator Whitehouse. And a 42 percent reduction in supply
    would have an effect on price, would it not?
        Mr. Isaac. It could. Could.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. My time is expired.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
        Now we have Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
    everybody who is testifying today.
        Mr. Eklund, I want to ask you about emission reduction
    credits and what flexibilities currently do or could exist
    under the Clean Air Act. As you know, under the Clean Air Act,
    any new manufacturing or development must identify emission
    offsets through emission reduction credits. These credits are
    traditionally created by installing pollution controls at
    factories or at generation facilities.
        In Arizona, where we do not have a legacy of heavy
    polluting industries, finding sources of emission reduction
    credits from traditional sources is challenging. This has led
    Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, to explore
    opportunities to create non-traditional credits from offsets
    from the transportation sector or improving efficiencies in
    refrigeration technologies. But they have encountered
    challenges working with EPA Region Nine, given limitations of
    the Clean Air Act.
        Mr. Eklund, do you believe that there are opportunities in
    the Clean Air Act legislation that we are considering today or
    another legislation to give EPA the additional ability to help
    localities create non-traditional emission reduction credits?
        Mr. Eklund. I am not an expert in that topic, but I think
    we all would agree that EPA should have flexibility to reach
    goals that are agreed upon by non-traditional methods, if
    necessary, for those kinds of situations like you described.
        Senator Kelly. Yes. So this is getting rather challenging
    for Arizona. If you could, after the hearing today, if there is
    any other information you can get on this topic, and would work
    with my office, I would appreciate that.
        Ms. Fallon is testifying remotely. Ms. Fallon, thank you as
    well for being here today. Your testimony and that of several
    other of our witnesses has focused on the potential benefits
    that could come from the deployment of small, low-cost sensors
    to help localities monitor air quality in more locations and at
    a lower cost. Yet some have raised concerns that this
    technology has not been fully proven out and in some cases, it
    creates false positives, which can push a community into non-
    compliance.
        Ms. Fallon, do you believe that the new, small, low-cost
    sensors are able to perform at the same level or before than
    existing level, or better than existing air quality management
    tools?
        Ms. Fallon. Thank you, Senator. That is a bit outside my
    specific area of expertise, so we can certainly get back to you
    with more details. But in general, innovations in air quality
    monitoring are pretty commonplace. As new methods are adopted
    and new equipment is used over time, they are often co-located
    and coupled with the conventional methods for a period of time.
    So that through a pilot project, for example, we learn how to
    calibrate and better use new equipment.
        So innovation in air quality monitoring is important and
    should be funded so that we can continuously improve our
    measurement of air quality.
        Senator Kelly. I would appreciate your getting back to us
    because there have been a number of cases where this has
    created false positive situations. Mr. Eklund, if you would
    like to comment?
        Mr. Eklund. The low-cost sensors cannot be used for
    enforcement or compliance purposes, because they don't have the
    capabilities to do that. So we can put them out for
    informational purposes, but when we have put them side by side
    with EPA reference or equivalent methods, they don't perform
    very well. That is why I was making the case for alternative
    approaches like short-term intensive studies using more robust
    methods than relying on low-cost sensors to gain that knowledge
    about how pollution might bury them on a local scale.
        Senator Kelly. Yes, I am all in favor of game-changing
    technology. We just need to make sure it is ready for
    widespread use.
        Thank you, Mr. Eklund, Ms. Fallon, and I yield back.
        Senator Carper. Senator Markey, have you voted? Senator
    Markey. I have not voted.
        Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, have you voted? Would you
    mind if Senator Markey goes ahead and speaks, asks his
    question? Are you able to do that? That would be helpful.
    Thanks very much.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
        Just a few years ago, Chelsea, Massachusetts, a major
    industrial hub with some of the highest rates of asthma in the
    United States, the most elevated rates of lung disease, did not
    have any permanent air quality monitors, while nearby Boston
    had three. I am proud that we were able to get some monitors
    deployed in Chelsea.
        But we have a lot more work to do to correct our patchwork
    approach to pollution measurements within affected communities.
    Ambient air quality monitors are critical tools to get baseline
    air quality measurements on a regional average.
        But we also need to understand that the air quality issues
    that can vary substantially from neighborhood to neighborhood
    are very real. Communities like Chelsea or Springfield or
    Lawrence deserve real-time data on a block-by-block basis in
    order to make day to day decisions about public health risks,
    as well as long-term decisions about siting infrastructure.
        Ms. Fallon, do you agree that hyper-local monitors are
    helpful and provide additional data to regional ambient air
    monitors that will help us really to target the areas that need
    the most help?
        Ms. Fallon. Yes, Senator, I do agree with that. As you have
    mentioned, a lot of the existing monitoring provides regional
    average information. We can have very strong gradients in air
    pollution exposure and air quality.
        So we need to begin to better understand how people are
    affected who live close to these sources such as people who
    live in Chelsea and hyper-local monitoring is the way to get
    there.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. Because the national average or
    the State average doesn't tell us anything about Chelsea.
    Because you only get the average from the extremes. So the
    suburbs, they are great. But you have to identify the Chelseas
    to know where the protections are in need of being placed. We
    can't manage what we don't measure. We have to use the best
    available technology to make the best possible decisions.
        That is why I introduced the Technology Assessment for Air
    Quality Management Act, in addition to the Environmental
    Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act. This legislation would help
    the EPA annually update and expand its online air quality
    toolbox with the best available monitoring technology and
    connect the toolbox with environmental justice mapping and
    screening tools.
        It is 2022. We have new, advanced technology that can fill
    critical hyper-local data gaps. But today's communities aren't
    reaping the benefits of today's monitors. We need to pass the
    Environmental Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act in order to
    provide EPA with the resources to kickstart hyper-local
    monitoring programs in environmental justice communities across
    the Nation.
        Ms. Johnson, do you agree that it is important that
    communities have access to air quality data that lets them know
    how healthy the air is in their neighborhood, especially for
    neighborhoods that have historically been redlined or afflicted
    with higher levels of pollution?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator
    Markey, and your leadership on this issue. We do believe that
    it is important for communities to have this air quality data.
    We believe that they are already with citizen science projects
    identifying pollution in their communities and this gives us an
    opportunity to match real time data, real time information with
    the lived experiences that people are having on the ground.
        It also helps to address, as you noted in your comments,
    how communities have been redlined and how we have centralized
    pollution. While we may have seen improvements in air quality
    at a national level, this does give us the opportunity to
    really drill down and at a hyper-local level be able to
    quantify and qualify the experiences that people are having.
        Senator Markey. I thank you so much. You also, I hope,
    believe that it is important to provide people on the front
    lines with jobs and training to work on community air
    monitoring issues. Do you agree with that?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, absolutely. As I noted earlier, this is
    an opportunity for us to train those who are under-employed or
    unemployed in a new skill set. It is an opportunity to give
    folks entrepreneurial possibilities, in sort of managing and
    monitoring the upkeep of these systems and technologies. So we
    do think it is a great opportunity and WE ACT does have
    experience in training and developing people in these areas.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you to Senator Padilla for your indulgence.
        Senator Carper. Thanks for coming back.
        Senator Padilla, thank you for joining us again.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    you for holding this hearing on the bills to improve air
    quality monitoring. All three of the bills that we are talking
    about today will improve our air monitoring network, which is
    desperately needed to improve public health and access to clean
    air in our communities.
        California is no stranger to polluted air. Going b ack to
    1955, 15 years before the Clean Air Act and before the creation
    of California's own Air Resources Board, the city of Los
    Angeles, where I was born and raised, experienced the single
    smoggiest day in its history. I know firsthand what that is
    like. When I was a kid growing up in Los Angeles, I remember
    the smog days when we were sent home from school early due to
    the devastating air quality.
        We have come a long way in improving air quality and clean
    air access for our communities. But California's clean air
    gains have not necessarily been equitable throughout the State.
    I won't go into the entire history of redlining, but I think
    the results are devastatingly clear in many California
    communities.
        I will give an initial example. In the East Bay area in
    California, redlined neighborhoods in Berkley and Oakland,
    among others, were closer in proximity to polluting industries
    and further harmed by major highways that separated communities
    and increased exposure to pollution.
        Data shows that even today, people in those areas
    disproportionately suffer from higher levels of nitrogen
    dioxide pollution which in turn increases rates of childhood
    asthma. A study from 2019 that focused on eight California
    cities found that residents of historically redlined
    neighborhoods were twice as likely to visit emergency rooms for
    asthma.
        So my first question is for Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, how
    would the Environmental Justice Air Quality Monitoring Act help
    redlined neighborhoods, specifically like those in the East
    Bay, achieve the same air quality gains that non-redlined
    communities have enjoyed?
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you for your question, Senator. I think
    there are examples of hyper-local air quality monitoring
    projects in California that give us an idea of the benefits
    that we can gain from these bills. One is a pollution
    monitoring project that was designed to increase youth literacy
    around air quality issues. But what it really found was that as
    it followed youth in their day-to-day activities, it found that
    their exposure at home and at school to transportation
    pollution was higher than expected because of the path that
    they needed to take to walk back and forth between those two
    places.
        When we think about a project that the NRDC, The
    Environmental Group and Google engaged in it really showed that
    people living in a redlined community have a higher percentage
    of exposure to pollution that is eight times that of any other
    area. So I think our ability to really be able to capture this
    data will be the step, the first step or an additional step, in
    the path that we need to be able to actually bring corrective
    action to these communities that will improve air quality.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. I want to piggyback on the
    question and topic raised by Senator Markey about hyper-local
    monitoring, which you just acknowledged once again. We have
    been working together with Senator Duckworth as well on an
    item.
        I will preface it with highlighting once again the tool
    developed in California known as CalEnviroScreen, that helps
    identify communities with the most significant pollution
    burden. Part of the innovation of CalEnviroScreen is how it
    maps communities that are impacted by multiple sources of
    pollution, not just each source in isolation. It collects data
    on over 20 indicators to help California policymakers identify
    disadvantaged communities so we can better target climate
    investments.
        We are working, as I mentioned, with my colleagues as well
    as the Council on Environmental Quality to make recommendations
    for how to improve the Federal climate and economic justice
    screening tool, and we hope that the recommendations, which are
    based on lessons learned from California, can be used to
    improve both the Federal tools and the States that have similar
    tools.
        Ms. Johnson, how is CalEnviroScreen unique in its use of
    air quality data? How would the legislation that we are focused
    on today help improve California's tool and the Federal tools
    at CEQ and EPA?
        Senator Carper. Ms. Johnson, I am going to ask you to
    answer very briefly. Time has expired on the floor. Answer that
    very briefly and we will ask you to answer it more completely
    for the record. Go ahead, Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson. The CalEnviroScreen is unique in that it uses
    satellite data and pairs that with other sensor technologies.
    It is a process for that tool, had a robust community
    engagement complement to it. When we think about the climate
    and economic justice screening tool, married with other data
    sets, as noted in these pieces of legislation today, we do
    think that that community engagement, the use of satellite data
    and other data sets will really go a long way in ensuring that
    we are able to direct benefits to communities that have been
    most impacted by redlining and air pollution.
        Senator Carper. Good. AI am going to ask you to hold it at
    that.
        Again, Senator Padilla, thanks so much for coming back. I
    want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us. I want to
    thank Senator Capito. I want to thank the other colleagues who
    joined us here. There is going to be much interest in this
    issue, more than I even expected. We are delighted with the
    kind of participation that we have had.
        I want to thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle for
    the work they have done on this, and especially our witnesses.
    Our Nation's air quality monitoring networks face some real
    challenges, but I think we have some opportunities within those
    challenges to address them through the legislative solutions we
    have talked about today and discussed today.
        Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. Senators
    will be allowed to submit written questions for the record
    through the close of business on Wednesday, July 27th, 2022. We
    will compile those questions, send them to our witnesses, and
    ask our witnesses to reply by August 10th, 2022.
        One of the questions I am going to ask for the record is
    for the witnesses, having a diverse panel like this ensures
    that there is not a lot of unanimity. But one of the things I
    will be asking you to do is maybe to come back and share with
    us, each of you, what may be an area or two that we have talked
    about today with respect to improving the quality of air, where
    do we agree. Not just where do we disagree, where do we agree.
    That is what I always look for.
        With that, it is a wrap. Thank you all so much. Great to be
    with you. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]