    [Senate Hearing 117-571]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-571

         A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2736, THE RECOGNIZING THE
         PROTECTION OF MOTORSPORTS ACT OF 2021; S. 1475, THE LIVESTOCK
    REGULATORY PROTECTION ACT OF 2021; S. 2661, SMOKE-READY COMMUNITIES ACT
       OF 2021; AND S. 2421, THE SMOKE PLANNING AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2021

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 7, 2022

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    50-757 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2023

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

                   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

                               SEPTEMBER 7, 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.......................................................     2
    Kelly, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.........     5
    Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota....     6
    Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Moseley, Cassandra, Vice Provost for Academic Operations and
      Strategy; Research Professor, Institute for a Sustainable
      Environment; Senior Policy Advisor, Ecosystem Workforce Program    51
        Prepared statement...........................................    54
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    60
            Senator Cardin...........................................    61
    Walke, John, Director Of Clean Air Project, Climate And Clean
      Energy Program, Natural Resources Defense Council..............    63
        Prepared statement...........................................    65
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    94
            Senator Cardin...........................................    95
    Antron Brown, Company Owner, Professional Driver, Ab Motorsports
      Incorporated, National Hot Rod Association 38..................    99
        Prepared statement...........................................   102
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Capito...........................................   109
            Senator Sullivan.........................................   110
    Scott Vanderwal, Vice President, American Farm Bureau Federation
      44.............................................................   113
        Prepared statement...........................................   115
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Capito...........................................   119
            Senator Boozman..........................................   119

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letters of Support for Bills S. 2661 and S. 2421:
        Brenda Mallory, Chair, White House Council on Environmental
          Quality....................................................    11
        William Niebling, Associate Administrator, USEPA.............    13
        Harold P. Wimmer, National President and CEO, American Lung
          Association................................................    23
        Carbon Capture Coalition.....................................    25
        Portland Cement Association..................................    40
        Mike Spagnola, CEO Specialty Equipment Market Association....    43
    Letters in Opposition of Bill S. 2736:
        Fourteen undersigned organizations...........................   126
        Twelve undersigned National Health and Medical Organizations.   129
    Letter from Susan Parker Bodine, United States Environmental
      Protection Agency to Senator Jack Reed.........................   145

           THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE'S PROPOSED 2023 BUDGET

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2022

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Whitehouse, Merkley,
    Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Boozman, Ernst.

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

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone.
        I am going to ask our guests to please take their seats.
    Senator Capito and I are happy to welcome you all.
        We have been in recess for a while. It took me a while to
    find this room, but I finally wandered into the right hearing
    room. It is good to be back.
        Today's hearing is our committee's first hearing since the
    passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, the most significant
    investment to combat climate change in our Nation's history. I
    would like to take a moment to discuss the significance of this
    law before we turn to the hearing itself.
        This historic law is going to deliver nearly $370 billion
    in climate and clean energy funding that will put our Nation on
    track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below
    2005 levels by 2030. This is a critical down payment on
    reaching the President' goals on cutting emissions in half by
    the end of this decade and achieving net-zero emissions by
    2050. These investments will also significantly reduce
    emissions that impact our Nation's air quality, helping all
    Americans breathe a little easier.
        Passing this law could not have come at a more critical
    time. As many of you now, this week, heavy rainfall flooded
    streets and highways surrounding Providence, Rhode Island.
    Temperatures in Sacramento, California broke all-time records
    amid a historic heatwave in that State. It is quite clear that
    climate crisis is here, and this extreme weather is impacting
    the air that we breathe.
        Currently, there are nearly 70 wildfires burning across
    this Country. Along with the destruction that wildfires bring,
    the smoke they release contains particulate matter and other
    air pollutants that pose a threat to human health. Smoke
    doesn't just threaten nearby communities, but also downwind
    communities, as well. We know that smoke from wildfires in the
    West has reached as far as our States here on the East Coast.
    Some people say that we are at the end of America's tailpipe,
    and some days, I fully agree with that.
        As these wildfires become more frequent and severe, so do
    the emissions that they create. The health risks from exposures
    to this pollution are even greater for disadvantaged
    communities, including rural communities, which are often more
    vulnerable to wildfires and the resulting air pollution.
        That is why we have made mitigating the climate and health
    risks from wildfires eligible for funding under our
    Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants Program in the
    Inflation Reduction Act. This new program provides $3 billion
    in grants and technical assistance for mitigating environmental
    issues in disadvantaged communities.
        That brings me to Senator Merkley's two pieces of
    legislation that we are considering today, along with several
    others. The Smoke-Ready Communities Act would create a grant
    program to support communities in preparing for and responding
    to the potential health risks from harmful air emissions that
    emanate from wildfires. The Smoke Planning and Research Act
    would support community planning and research activities on the
    effects of smoke emissions from wildfires on human health. I
    look forward to hearing more about these bills shortly from
    Senator Merkley and our witnesses.
        Before we do, however, let me turn to another piece of
    legislation that we are going to examine today. That is the
    Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act, also known as
    RPM Act. This legislation seeks to clarify that racecars do not
    need to meet Clean Air Act emissions requirements. I commend
    Senator Kelly for his leadership on this legislation, as well
    as our good friend, Senator Burr, the original sponsor of the
    bill.
        We can all agree that racecar drivers shouldn't face
    liability for the emissions of their cars that are used solely
    for organized competition. Fortunately, as EPA has informed us,
    the agency has never sought to assert that individual drivers
    are liable under the Clean Air Act. But as a $10 million civil
    penalty announced last week makes clear, bad actors are
    attempting to exploit the racing community to sell devices that
    tamper with pollution controls for on-road use.
        While I do have concerns that this legislation is a
    solution without a problem, I look forward to hearing from all
    of our witnesses today and seeing if we can reach an agreement
    on language to clarify this point without inadvertently
    creating new uncertainties or opportunities for litigation in
    the law.
        Finally, the fourth bill we are considering today is
    Senator Thune's legislation, the Livestock Regulatory
    Protection Act. This legislation would restrict EPA's ability
    to issue permits under the Clean Air Act for emissions from
    certain agricultural activities, especially those relating to
    biological processes for livestock farming.
        As we discuss this legislation today, it is worth noting
    that EPA already refrains from issuing such permits. Why is
    that? One reason is the inclusion of language similar to
    Senator Thune's bill in annual appropriations legislation for
    several years now. That means the decision on whether this
    restriction is necessary is up to Congress each year, not the
    EPA. Doing so provides Congress with important flexibility.
        With that, again, we want to thank our panel of witnesses
    for joining us today. We look forward to hearing from each of
    you as part of our discussion.
        Before we do, though, let me first turn to our Ranking
    Member, Senator Capito, for her opening statement. Senator
    Capito, it is good to see you. You are recognized.

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

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper. It is good to
    be back, and it is nice to see the members of the committee.
        I would also, before I begin, note that Senator Burr, who
    is one of the main cosponsors of one of the bills, the RPM Act,
    could not make it today, so I would ask unanimous consent to
    include a written statement from Senator Burr.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        Senator Capito. Senator Tillis is also on the statement.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper.
        [Presiding.] I want to thank our witnesses for joining us
    here today, and I look forward to hearing from each of you.
        We are here to consider four bills: the Livestock
    Regulatory Protection Act, the Recognizing the Protection of
    Motorsports Act, the Smoke-Ready Communities Act, and the Smoke
    Planning and Research Act. These bills relate to EPA's
    authority on issues spanning from livestock to racing vehicles
    to wildfire smoke.
        I am more interested to hear about Senator Merkley's bills,
    the Smoke-Ready Communities Act and the Smoke Planning and
    Research Act, but I do want to highlight that EPA has existing
    authority to fund wildfire research, including through the
    ``Science to Achieve Results'' STAR Program. That program has
    provided research funds for universities for wildfire research,
    which appears to be something that Senator Merkley's bill, the
    Smoke Planning and Research Act, would reauthorize in a
    separate program, and I would like to understand if there is
    any duplication there.
        In 2021, EPA awarded $9 million in grant funding for
    researchers to develop approaches and strategies to reduce the
    risks of smoke from wildfire and prescribed harm, and through
    the Democrats' what I call a reckless tax and spending spree
    that we just saw last month, EPA has been provided with
    excessive additional funding and authorities. EPA, and the
    Chairman mentioned this, received funding for air monitoring,
    which can be used for wildfires, as well as a $3 billion grant
    that can award funding to mitigate climate and health risks
    from wildfire events. I question the need for an even greater
    increase in EPA power and appropriations in light of the recent
    spending.
        As we consider the other topics before us today, I want to
    thank Chairman Carper for agreeing to consider two bipartisan
    bills during this hearing: the Livestock Regulatory Protection
    Act and the RPM Act. These two bills are narrowly tailored to
    provide clear relief and certainty to critical American groups
    that could suffer outsized costs from EPA regulation: farmers
    and ranchers and motorsports enthusiasts, which are rampant in
    my State.
        The regulatory threat is real and we have already seen this
    Administration take a very expansive view of EPA's authority
    under the Clean Air Act when evaluating the energy sector.
        The first bill I will talk about is the Livestock
    Regulatory Protection Act, which would ensure EPA cannot
    establish a new cow tax and would prohibit EPA from requiring
    Clean Air Act permits related to livestock emissions.
        Farmers and ranchers are on the front lines of dealing with
    rising prices, including higher costs of fertilizer, feed,
    fuel, and equipment that are vital to their operations.
    Enacting Senator Thune's bipartisan, straightforward bill,
    which is cosponsored by Senator Kelly, a member of this
    committee, and thank you for that, Senator Boozman, and Senator
    Sinema, could codify a narrow exemption for livestock. I would
    note that Majority Leader Schumer himself supported Senator
    Thune's bill when it was introduced back in 2009.
        I am also pleased to speak in support of necessary relief
    for racecar enthusiasts and their supporting industries. I have
    proudly supported Senator Burr's RPM Act since it was first
    proposed. This legislation seems so simple to me. As
    introduced, it has broad, bipartisan support, including on this
    committee. In addition to myself, four other committee members
    are supportive. Senator Kelly, and thank you for that support,
    Senator Inhofe, Senator Ernst, and Senator Sullivan are also
    cosponsors. In total, the bill has 32 cosponsors, including 11
    Democrat cosponsors.
        Back in 2017, when I was chair of the Subcommittee on Clean
    Air and Nuclear Safety, we held a hearing on the RPM Act. As we
    heard then and we will hear again today, Americans all over the
    Country enjoy the hobby of modifying vehicles into racecars.
    The RPM Act would clarify that vehicles to be used solely for
    competition are not to be treated like the cars that drive on
    our Nation's roads. Congress never intended for cars that have
    been modified from street use to race car track use to be
    regulated.
        This legislation would provide a narrow exemption, again,
    narrow, to ensure that small business that help hobbyists who
    transition their vehicles into racecars, that are not driven on
    the road and cannot be driven on the road, are not unfairly
    punished or targeted through EPA enforcement, because that was
    never the intent of this Congress.
        I am glad that we are hearing about these bills today, and
    I hope to learn more from our witnesses. Thank you again for
    holding the hearing.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. You just want to take the gavel, right?
        Senator Merkley. My imaginary gavel.
        Senator Capito. Here it is.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley.
        [Presiding.] I am delighted we are looking at this set of
    bills today. Next, we are going to turn to Senator Kelly to
    make a statement about Recognizing the Protection of
    Motorsports Act, or RPM, as Senator Capito referred to, of
    which he is an original cosponsor.
        Senator Kelly.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KELLY,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start by saying that I appreciate Chairman Carper's
    willingness to hold a hearing today on the Recognizing the
    Protection of Motorsports Act, or RPM Act.
        Racing is a very important thing to many Arizonans. It is
    part of our State's legacy. In my hometown of Tucson, Arizona,
    we have a street called Speedway Boulevard. I don't live more
    that maybe a half a mile from Speedway. The name of the street
    dates back to 1911, before Arizona was a State, when the road
    hosted the first-ever auto race in southern Arizona. Records
    from the time indicate that the race was so popular that more
    than half of the population of Tucson attended.
        Motorsports continue to be an important thing to thousands
    of amateur racers in Arizona and the more than 100,000
    Arizonans who attend motorsports events each and every year,
    including me. I have often gone down to the NHRA race outside
    of Phoenix. That also includes my wife, who raced motorcycles
    herself on a track in Arizona when she was in her twenties.
    When she was in Congress, my wife, Gabby Giffords, was a part
    of the House Motorcycle Caucus. She would regularly ride
    motorcycles near Patagonia and in southern Arizona. She still
    owns that motorcycle today, which will turn 50, not her, but
    the motorcycle will turn 50 years old this year.
        The RPM Act will help provide some certainty to Arizona's
    amateur racers and auto mechanics from EPA regulations which
    could harm their ability to enjoy their hobby. The goal of this
    bill and the reason that I support it is to provide a narrow
    exemption to Clean Air Act regulations, which govern vehicle
    emissions to allow those amateur racers to improve the
    performance of their vehicle without worrying that they are
    breaking the law.
        I recognize that this bill needs work in order for it to be
    included in a committee markup. I agree that we need to ensure
    that any amendments to the Clean Air Act preserve EPA's
    authority to go after bad actors, such as folks who sell and
    install defeat devices to illegally modify emissions controls
    on street vehicles. I know that our staffs have been discussing
    a potential path forward with EPW committee staff. I want to
    say how grateful I am for Chairman Carper's engagement and
    shared commitment to a path forward.
        I also want to be sure to acknowledge the leadership of
    Senator Burr, who has been a champion for this legislation for
    years, as well as our other co-leads on this bill, Senators
    Tester, Manchin, Tillis, and Ernst. I hope this hearing is
    another step forward toward the goal of finding a compromise
    where we can provide certainty to the racers, to the mechanics
    and retailers who are committed to following the law, while
    continuing to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly. Can
    you hear the roar of the racetrack from your home?
        Senator Kelly. I cannot, but I tell you, there is nothing
    like standing next to a top-fuel dragster, just feet away, when
    that thing takes off. It kind of reminds me of being in the
    rocket ship.
        Senator Merkley. I was thinking, as you were speaking,
    about the sport of quarter midget racing, which is racing in
    which youth participate in. I raced quarter midgets for many
    years when I was growing up, and I wouldn't want to be arrested
    for violating clean air laws, so thank you.
        We are now going to turn to our first panel, which is our
    esteemed colleague from the State of South Dakota, Senator John
    Thune. He is the lead sponsor of one of the pieces of
    legislation we are examining today, the Livestock Regulatory
    Protection Act.
        Senator Thune, welcome to the committee. You can proceed.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Capito, for holding today's legislative hearing to consider the
    Livestock Regulatory Protection Act. I also want to thank the
    South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation President and American Farm
    Bureau Federation Vice President, Scott VanderWal, for being
    here and for his testimony on this important legislation.
        I have long been concerned with efforts to impose onerous
    regulations and costly permit fees on animal emissions and the
    negative effect it would have on U.S. agricultural producers'
    ability to continue providing a safe and abundant food supply
    for our Nation and the world. Regulating animal emissions could
    ultimately lead to higher food costs for consumers who are
    already facing increased food prices.
        Contrary to the story that is being pushed by opponents of
    the beef industry, beef production is directly responsible for
    only a tiny fraction of U.S. emissions. Cattle actually play an
    important role in managing pasturelands that sequester vast
    amounts of carbon.
        On top of that, it has become clear that with certain feed
    additives, as well as then capturing and utilizing the energy
    potential of their waste using biodigesters, it is possible to
    significantly reduce cattle emissions, making the demonization
    of beef even more wrongheaded.
        This isn't limited to cattle production. Regulating animal
    emissions would negatively affect the entire livestock sector,
    including poultry producers in places like Delaware and dairy
    producers in places like West Virginia.
        To address this, I introduced the Livestock Regulatory
    Protection Act, along with Senator Sinema. The Livestock
    Regulatory Protection Act, which is also cosponsored by
    Senators Boozman and Kelly, would prevent the Environmental
    Protection Agency from imposing emissions regulations relating
    to the biological processes of livestock.
        I actually introduced this bill years ago with the Democrat
    leader. This legislation was included in annual funding bills
    on a bipartisan basis for a number of years after the Democrat
    leader and I first introduced it. Unfortunately, Democrats have
    omitted this important protection in their recent spending
    proposals, and it has had to be secured in final spending
    bills.
        Passing this legislation would provide livestock producers
    long-term certainty that their livelihoods will not be
    compromised by regulatory overreach.
        I want to thank you for holding today's hearing. I want to
    urge this committee to swiftly advance this important
    legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Thune.
        Now, we will turn to two witnesses related to my bills, and
    I will make my statement on that, and then we are going to turn
    to another witness related to the racing car bill.
        Why don't we have the second panel come to their seats
    right now?
        Welcome. Good to have all of you here. I will address
    Senate Bill 2661, the Smoke-Ready Communities Act and 2421, the
    Smoke Planning and Research Act.
        Communities are on the front lines across the Country, in
    wildfire country, and the west is burning. Thus, much more
    effects of wildfire smoke on agriculture, on our workers who
    work outdoors, certainly on our communities. As a result, we
    need to address some of these increased challenges. These two
    bills are designed to do that.
        The deadly wildfires are once again blazing across my home
    State and creating very poor-quality smoke. A lot of people end
    up in the hospital because of the aggravation of asthma. These
    two bills are very timely. Even as we sit here today, the
    Double Creek Fire in Northeastern Oregon has burned over 43,000
    acres in the last week. The Rum Creek Fire in Josephine County
    has burned over 19,000 acres, including homes and other
    buildings.
        When you have fire, you have a lot of smoke. It has a big
    impact on business, big impact on the economy, big impact on
    tourism, big impact on outdoor life. There was an expose on the
    changes on the Pacific Crest Trail, that I was just reading
    this morning, where vast sections have been burned. The
    landscape looks entirely different than it did 10 to 15 years
    ago.
        My wife, Mary, and I have hiked sections of the PCT and
    seen this firsthand while dodging forest fires and having to
    leave the trail because of those forest fires. I can tell you,
    when you are out in the wilderness and you are out of cell
    phone contact and you are not quite sure where the fires are,
    and you smell smoke, you start to feel very, very
    uncomfortable.
        Because of the fires raging across our State, the
    Department of Environmental Quality for the State of Oregon has
    issued air quality advisories this past weekend for many
    counties in Oregon where air quality levels are in the
    unhealthy category. Two years ago, the Labor Day Fire struck
    our State. It burned six towns to ashes. It looked like they
    had been firebombed in a war.
        I traveled 600 miles in my State and never got out of the
    smoke. I don't know that that has ever happened anywhere in the
    west, that you could travel so far and be completely in the
    smoke. I went from the northern border to the southern border
    and back again.
        Last summer's Bootleg Fire set smoke clouds traveling from
    Oregon to here, Washington D.C., 2,800 miles. This is not just
    something that affects a community, say, a mile or two from a
    fire.
        Many, many people being impacted, the American Lung
    Association's 2022 State of the Air Report notes that 63
    million people now live in counties with failing grades for
    daily particle pollution, 9 million more people than when they
    released their report a year earlier. Twenty-four of the 25
    worst counties for short-term particle pollution were in the
    western States because of the wildfires, 24 out of 25 of the
    worst counties.
        We have had some progress. I created a $4 million EPA grant
    program in the Interior Appropriations bill to support local
    efforts to address wildfire smoke hazards. I am proposing
    increasing that funding. Through a program that here is
    referred to as congressionally directed spending, in Oregon, we
    call it community-initiated projects, because the idea is that
    the communities initiate the project that they need, and we
    fight for them. Senator Wyden and I fight for them. Out of that
    came the Center for Wildfire Smoke Research and Practice at the
    University of Oregon, to help address a need for Oregon
    communities to be better prepared for wildfire smoke events.
        Thanks to provisions in the IRA, like the Environmental and
    Climate Justice Block Grants and the money for air pollution
    monitoring and reducing air pollution at public schools, we are
    going to make some much-needed investments. As important as
    those steps are, there is much more that needs to be done.
        The Smoke-Ready Communities Act will establish a grant
    program for air pollution control agencies to develop and
    implement programs to monitor and communicate with the public
    about air quality conditions created by wildfire smoke. It will
    equip public buildings with air filtration systems.
        Many people have heard of heat centers, where you escape
    the intensified heat, and we have heat of 115 degrees in the
    city of Portland, something I never thought I would witness in
    my lifetime. It was very rare to have a day over 90, and then
    it was rare to have a day over 100, but nobody predicted Death
    Valley temperatures to be in the Willamette Valley.
        Equip public gatherings, public buildings with filtration
    systems to protect from harmful events, and store and
    distribute N-95 masks.
        The Smoke Planning and Research Act would direct the EPA to
    create four centers of excellence for wildfire smoke.
    Essentially, the pilot project for that is the project at the
    University of Oregon. The centers will conduct research on the
    effects of wildfire smoke on public health, as well as ways in
    which communities can better respond to its impacts. The bill
    would direct the EPA to develop and distribute ways to reduce
    exposure to smoke and to reduce adverse health effects of smoke
    emissions, along with increasing the quality of smoke
    monitoring and prediction. It would create a grant program to
    help the development and implementation of collaborative
    community plans for confronting the impacts of wildfire smoke.
        Both of these bills have received support from
    organizations that pay attention to the health and well-being
    of our communities and the people who live in them.
        At this time, I ask unanimous consent for submitting for
    the record letters of support for bills S. 2661 and S. 2421,
    including a letter from the American Lung Association. Hearing
    no objections, so approved.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. With the threat and frequency of wildfires
    continuing to grow every year, communities are continuing to
    confront these dangers. When some of these intensive fires
    occurred, really, they have been steadily growing over the last
    20 years and over the last five to 10 years, there has been
    enormous change. We really realize how much more we need to do.
        As wildfires burn, the smoke fills our skies. It degrades
    our air quality. It threatens our health, it threatens our
    economic well-being, and we need to do all we can. These two
    bills will help in that.
        I really appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member for
    holding a hearing on these two bills today.
        Now, I have the pleasure of introducing a fellow Oregonian,
    Cass Moseley, welcome, who cannot only personally attest the
    challenges we face in the State from the wildfires and the
    smoke they produce, but also share her academic experience and
    her expertise about why these bills are critical. She is a
    member of the University of Oregon community for over two
    decades. She serves as the Vice Provost for Academic Operations
    and Strategy. She is a research professor with the Institute
    for a Sustainable Environment, and a senior policy advisor in
    the school's Ecosystem Workforce Program.
        She is a recognized expert in natural resource policy,
    including forest, wildfire, bioenergy, rule development policy,
    and Federal land management. She has studied the changing face
    of western wildfire management with a particular focus on how
    natural resource policies affect rural communities, businesses,
    and workers, including immigrant forest workers. We are
    thrilled to have such a knowledgeable and accomplished fellow
    Oregonian here to address this issue.
        Thank you.

       STATEMENT OF CASSANDRA MOSELEY, VICE PROVOST FOR ACADEMIC
     OPERATIONS AND STRATEGY; RESEARCH PROFESSOR, INSTITUTE FOR A
       SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT; SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, ECOSYSTEM
                           WORKFORCE PROGRAM

        Ms. Moseley. Thank you, Senator Merkley, for that kind
    introduction, and thank you to the committee for holding this
    really important hearing today.
        Driven by climate change and a century of wildfire
    suppression, wildfires are growing in size and severity across
    the American West. Wildfire smoke is rapidly increasing public
    health risks, affecting not only rural communities as we have
    discussed that are located near these fires, but increasingly
    in major urban centers, hundreds or even thousands of miles
    away.
        Exposure to fine particulate matter contained in smoke is
    associated with many different negative outcomes. People with
    respiratory disease, the young, elderly, and pregnant women are
    particularly vulnerable to these risks. Households and
    individuals need to be prepared to act quickly when smoke
    arrives, and yet many lack the information about the practical
    steps they can take to keep themselves safe.
        A central strategy for reducing smoke exposure is to go
    indoors, but for those who are unhoused or whose livelihood
    involves outdoor work, this may be difficult to achieve.
    Moreover, houses and other buildings, particularly in low-
    income communities, may lack the filtration systems and the
    insulation to effectively protect against smoke intrusions,
    especially these long duration events, such as the one that
    Senator Merkley referred to earlier, that I too lived indoors
    for 2 weeks around.
        Special attention is needed to ensure that both medically
    and socially vulnerable populations can limit their exposure to
    wildfire smoke. Today I want to suggest five key ingredients to
    foster smoke-ready communities.
        First, we need to address the underlying drivers of
    increasing wildfire smoke. We need to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions so that we can slow climate-driven wildfire. In
    addition, we need hazardous fuels reduction using mechanical
    treatments and prescribed fire in places where treatments will
    change fire behavior.
        I want to thank this committee for its leadership in the
    passage of both the Infrastructure Act and the Inflation
    Reduction Act. These are historic laws that make substantial
    investment in wildfire risk reduction. In addition, as has
    already been mentioned, the IRA's Environmental and Climate
    Justice Block Grants create an opportunity for the EPA to
    address many of the needs I discuss today.
        Second, we need to invest in community planning and
    preparation. Communities need to be ready to launch measures
    during smoke events, and success requires bringing together
    agencies that work on public health, air quality, along with
    social service delivery organizations and those who understand
    wildfire. They need to be creating locally relevant plans.
    Financial support will be important to the success of these in
    many low-income communities. The Smoke Planning and Research
    bill anticipates these needs.
        Third, we need to improve indoor air quality to increase
    the ability of people to seek refuge from smoke. Low-income
    households may need assistance with enhanced air filtration and
    weatherization to improve their indoor air quality, and
    communities need buildings that can act as clean air shelters.
    Investing in school building retrofits, for example, can also
    limit educational disruption due to poor air quality. These
    kinds of activities, along with expanding access to personal
    protection equipment, are specifically contemplated in the
    Smoke-Ready Communities bill.
        Fourth, we need improved air quality monitoring, smoke
    forecasting, and communication tools to allow emergency
    managers and the public to better anticipate and act on smoke
    events. The EPA's Air Now resource is a valuable source of
    current smoke conditions, but we continue to need a denser
    network of high-quality smoke sensors and improved long-term
    forecasting. In addition to helping with smoke response,
    improved forecasting could also help increase prescribed fire,
    which is a key ingredient in reducing smoke over time.
        Finally, we need additional investments in research and
    development. For example, we need better techniques to empower
    vulnerable populations. We need decision support tools for
    emergency managers, better approaches to addressing competing
    indoor air quality needs, and improved understanding of the
    relative health effects of wildland and prescribed fire, and
    many, many other things.
        The centers for research excellence that are proposed in
    the Smoke Planning and Research bill would help create this new
    kind of capacity to address a number of these really critical
    challenges.
        Let me conclude, again, by thanking the committee for
    holding this really important hearing today and for your
    leadership and passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which
    should help tackle wildfires over time. I look forward to
    answering any questions you all may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Moseley follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Dr. Moseley.
        We are now going to turn to Mr. Walke. Mr. Walke is the
    Clean Air Climate and Clean Energy Program Director at the
    Natural Resources Defense Council. He has spearheaded the
    organization's national cleanup advocacy before Congress and
    the courts and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
    before the public since the year 2000.
        Before joining NRDC, he spent years working as an attorney
    in the EPA's Office of General Counsel, where he worked on
    issues related to air toxins, monitoring, and enforcement under
    the Clean Air Act. He is a graduate of Duke University and
    Harvard Law School, based here in Washington, DC.
        Welcome, very much.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN WALKE, DIRECTOR OF CLEAN AIR PROJECT, CLIMATE
      AND CLEAN ENERGY PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
        EPA has twin goals for balancing the Clean Air Act and the
    modification of motor vehicles into vehicles used exclusively
    for competition motor sports, letting racers race while also
    keeping tampered, high-polluting vehicles off our streets and
    highways. Those are reasonable goals, I agree. Let racers race.
        Unfortunately, most of the RPM Act of 2021 is unreasonable,
    unbalanced, and not narrow. The bill opens an exemption from
    anti-tampering and defeat device prohibitions in the Clean Air
    Act. The committee should reject this bill.
        The bill would make it easier for the defeat device
    industry to continue and actually increase the manufacture and
    sale of illegal defeat devices for use on America's public
    roads, polluting American communities and violating the Clean
    Air Act. Defeat devices on America's streets already are a
    national scandal. The RPM Act would make that problem much
    worse.
        The Trump EPA, and now the Biden EPA, have concluded that
    illegal defeat devices have been installed on more than 550,000
    diesel pickup trucks in the last decade. In some States, as
    many as 20 percent of pickup trucks have illegal defeat
    devices. EPA concludes these pickup trucks release more than
    570,000 tons of illegal excess smog-forming pollution. That is
    nearly 75 percent of the smog-forming pollution from all
    electric power plants in America. That is nearly 15 times more
    illegal smog pollution than the Volkswagen Dieselgate cheating
    scandal.
        This pollution causes asthma attacks in kids, bronchitis,
    lung cancer, and even premature death. In some States, illegal
    defeat devices on pickup trucks are causing as much as 66,000
    tons of illegal excess smog pollution, just for one segment of
    the vehicle market.
        EPA has brought well over 120 successful enforcement cases
    against defeat device manufacturers and sellers since 2015.
    Some were criminal cases. EPA announced successful Clean Air
    Act enforcement cases against six more defeat device
    manufacturers and sellers just in the past 6 days.
        In enforcement cases by Republicans and Democrats, defeat
    device companies tried repeatedly to hide behind false claims
    that they were selling their products to the racing community
    for use solely on racetracks. They were not. Defendants often
    were unable to show any of their products were used solely for
    motorsport competition.
        In one case, a company sold over 8,000 illegal defeat
    devices, and a Federal judge found the defendant did not
    ``produce a single piece of evidence that a single one of its
    products had been used on motorsports vehicles.''
        Twenty twenty-one marketing data for the industry shows
    that the activity of dedicated racing vehicles makes up a mere
    2 percent of total use for their products. The vast majority of
    consumer activities using their products are for running
    errands, pleasure driving, commuting, and work use, not on
    racetracks.
        Now, the defeat device industry is promoting the RPM Act
    and hiding behind the racing community once again. EPA says
    that most defeat devices sold today are for motor vehicles used
    on public roads. EPA enforcement cases have addressed more than
    one million illegal defeat devices installed on street
    vehicles, not racecars.
        The RPM Act weakens the Clean Air Act to let defeat device
    makers and sellers claim it was not their purpose to sell
    defeat devices for street vehicles, backed up by completely
    inadequate evidence submitted by buyers, then have those defeat
    devices end up on hundreds of thousands of street vehicles. The
    industry would not need to show that any competition-only
    racecars used their defeat devices exclusively on racetracks.
    The Clean Air Act, to date, does not let the industry get away
    with that. The RPM Act would.
        EPA has never brought a Clean Air Act enforcement case
    against a racecar driver. It has no intention of doing so. If
    this committee nonetheless concludes that it is necessary to
    provide even greater assurances to the racing community, it
    should consider adopting a truly narrow amendment addressing
    just drivers and their motor vehicles used solely for formal
    racing competition, with appropriate safeguards to ensure
    decertified vehicles will not be operated on public streets.
    But the Clean Air Act should not be weakened or changed as it
    applies to the defeat device industry.
        Finally, I urge this committee not to advance S. 1475, the
    livestock exemption bill. It is unjustified, as my written
    testimony details. Moreover, a permanent exemption is
    unnecessary because Congress has adopted appropriate riders in
    recent years to accomplish the same outcome as the legislation,
    but importantly, only on an annual basis that allows yearly
    review to determine whether the exemption remains appropriate
    for the following year. S. 1475 dispenses with that and adopts
    a permanent, harmful exemption.
        Thank you for the chance to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walke follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper.
        [Presiding.] Mr. Walke, thank you for your testimony.
    Thanks, it is good to see you again. Thanks for coming back
    before our committee.
        We are going to turn now to Mr. Brown, Mr. Antron Brown, a
    professional drag racer, for his testimony. You are living the
    life a lot of young boys would like to lead, I suspect.
        This is certainly the first time I have introduced a
    professional racer before our committee, although I have been
    privileged to know a bunch of them. We have a big racetrack in
    the NASCAR track in Dover for the Monster Mile. I was once,
    Senator Capito, when my Town and Country minivan, 2001 Town and
    Country minivan, went over 500,000 miles, they opened up the
    track on a Monday morning, and we had a great media event with
    me driving around the Monster Mile in my minivan at a half a
    million miles.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I got to hold the starter flag out the
    window and drive as fast as I could go. I almost ripped my arm
    off. I did not let go. Today's hearing brings back some happy
    memories of that day.
        Mr. Brown, we are delighted that you are here, and it was
    very nice meeting you. Welcome. Please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF ANTRON BROWN, COMPANY OWNER, PROFESSIONAL DRIVER,
       AB MOTORSPORTS INCORPORATED, NATIONAL HOT ROD ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Brown. Pleasure, pleasure. Thank you, everybody for
    letting me share this moment with you, and thank all the
    Senators.
        Of course, my name is Antron Brown, and with me today I
    have my son Anson, my son Adler, and my wife, Billie Jo. My
    children, including my daughter Arianna, all them have been
    racing literally for over 8 years. Adler is our youngest, but
    he is only 14 years old. I can't stress enough that racing is
    not our hobby; racing is who we are.
        Racing has lifted our family from humble beginnings. Racing
    has provided us the opportunity to live the true American
    dream, an American dream that was passed down from my
    grandfather to my dad, and from my dad to myself.
        Racing is our business, and racing is so much more than
    that. Racing is the educator, teaching me, my children and team
    about STEM and how to use it in the real world.
        Racing instills persistence, which beats resistance each
    and every day. Racing has brought our family closer together.
    Racing has made us better people, better teammates, and better
    Americans. This is our story, and it is the story of millions
    of Americans.
        I actually began riding motorcycles at the age of 4, racing
    motorcycles and motocross.
        Senator Carper. Was that legal?
        Mr. Brown. Yes, yes. Soon as they took the training wheels
    off, it was sitting there, and my grandpop said, ``Get it,
    boy.''
        My senior year in high school is when my dad helped me take
    our street-legal motorcycle and make it into a race bike that
    we raced at numerous racetracks from Delaware to Pennsylvania
    to New Jersey, literally like our four-State area that we went
    racing as a family.
        I stand before you today as a three-time NHRA Top Fuel
    World Champion with 70 national event titles. I am both a team
    owner and a driver of a new race team, AB Motorsports, that
    just started this year, currently.
        To be clear, I am a small business owner, but my team is
    responsible for tuning my 11,000-horsepower racecar that goes
    over 330 miles an hour in less than 3.6 seconds. This powered
    AB Motorsports to win the biggest race of the year just last
    weekend at the Indianapolis U.S. Nationals at Indy, which is
    the mecca and race capital of the world.
        I am also told that I am a teacher and a role model, but I
    am proud to be part of the NHRA's Youth and Education Services
    program, that used to be sponsored by the U.S. Army, which
    provides me the opportunity to speak to thousands of students
    across the Country and have the chance to tell the story and
    educate our youth on the importance of setting goals, working
    hard to achieve them, and the connection between racing and
    STEM learning.
        I am fortunate to work with companies like Toyota of North
    America, Matco Tools, Lucas Oil, Hangsterfer's, and many other
    research and development companies to develop new technologies
    that ends up in motor vehicles that you and I drive every day,
    including EVs.
        Today, I am all of these things, but my story begins with
    the modification of a motorcycle into a dedicated race bike.
    Without the ability to convert a street-legal vehicle into a
    race vehicle, my dream of becoming a professional racecar
    driver would have never happened.
        That is why I am speaking in strong support of the RPM Act
    today. Racing is not just a business; it is a way of life, and
    I urge you to support the hundreds and thousands of racers who
    compete using a motor vehicle that was modified and transported
    on a trailer to over 1,500 racetracks across the Country.
        Most racers' entry into competition on tracks is done using
    cars, motorcycles, and trucks. It is simply more affordable to
    modify a motor vehicle than it is to buy a purpose-built race
    vehicle. I know. I spend lots of money. We must offer a cost-
    effective way to ensure the sport's inclusiveness and allow
    people from all different backgrounds to compete on the track.
        For business owners like myself and racers across the
    Country, the investment of time, money, and resources requires
    a certainty in law. The RPM Act makes it legal for racers to
    convert motor vehicles into dedicated race vehicles. The RPM
    Act is about ensuring that racers can purchase parts they need
    to compete on the track.
        The bill does not protect companies that produce and sell
    products that defeat emissions controls that are used on the
    street. We know that is really and totally illegal.
        The RPM Act does nothing to limit the EPA's ability to
    enforce against bad actors. The EPA has signaled that it does
    not plan to bring enforcement actions against the race industry
    and racers who compete in emissions-modified vehicles. However,
    the agency maintains that is has the authority to do so and has
    pursued enforcement cases stating racers cannot make such
    modifications.
        Again, racers and business owners make substantial
    investments modifying their vehicles to improve safety,
    performance, and efficiency. Furthermore, the racing industry
    injects an estimated $100 billion into the economy, benefiting
    people and communities. Why not provide absolute certainty that
    they are protected by Federal law?
        I appreciate the committee for taking up the RPM Act
    because I understand what is at stake. The RPM Act is one of
    the most bipartisan bills in Congress, with more than 31 Senate
    cosponsors, including 20 Republicans and 11 Democrats.
        This is about protecting the future of racing, which
    provides jobs and family entertainment in communities across
    the Country. This is a passion for me and millions of Americans
    who love racing.
        It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to testify before
    the committee today on something that is so extremely important
    to me. Thank you all so much for taking this time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Mr. Brown, thank you very much for joining
    us and for your testimony.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Carper. It was very nice to meet you and your
    family.
        Next, we are going to hear from Mr. VanderWal. Mr.
    VanderWal is Vice President of the American Farm Bureau
    Federation and President of the South Dakota Farm Bureau.
    Everybody on this panel has a strong agricultural component in
    our States and in our economy. Delaware is certainly among
    those.
        With that in mind, we especially welcome you today. Thanks.
    Please proceed.

      STATEMENT OF SCOTT VANDERWAL, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARM
                           BUREAU FEDERATION

        Mr. VanderWal. Thank you, Chairman Carper and Ranking
    Member Capito and members of the committee. We appreciate
    having this legislative hearing this morning on the Livestock
    Regulatory Protection Act.
        In addition to the two jobs that the Chairman mentioned, I
    am also a working family farmer from eastern South Dakota,
    where I raise corn, soybeans, and have a custom beef cattle
    feedlot.
        Keeping our farmers and ranchers in production is vital to
    our food security and to our national security. Farmers and
    ranchers work hard to keep food on our plates while continuing
    to make great strides in sustainability, which brings me to the
    topic of today's hearing.
        American agriculture accounts for approximately 10 percent
    of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That is far less than
    transportation, electricity generation, and other industry
    sectors. Farmers continue to produce more food, fiber, and
    energy more efficiently than ever before. Over two generations,
    we have nearly tripled our productivity without using more
    resources. In fact, we would have needed nearly 100 million
    more acres 30 years ago to match today's production levels.
    That is just amazing, and it is because of technology.
        More productive livestock operations allow ranchers, pork
    producers, poultry growers, egg producers, and dairy farmers to
    maintain their total contribution to greenhouse gas emissions
    at less than 4 percent. As I said, innovation plays an
    important role, from methane digesters to advances in
    nutritional balance, that lead to lower per-unit greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        I will give you just a few statistics here. In fact, we
    have seen a 26 percent reduction in per-unit emissions of
    greenhouse gases for a dairy industry while milk production is
    up 48 percent. We have a 20 percent reduction by our swine
    producers with an 80 increase in pork production, and close to
    a 10 percent drop by our cattlemen and cattlewomen with an 18
    percent increase in our production of beef.
        To continue to make improvements in carbon sequestration
    and emissions reductions, we need to increase investment in
    agricultural research and spur innovation. We do not need to
    burden our hardworking farmers and ranchers with onerous
    regulations and costly permit fees. That is why the option of
    S. 1475, the bipartisan Livestock Regulatory Protection Act,
    introduced by Senators Thune and Sinema, is so important.
        This legislation makes clear that investment and innovation
    are the way forward, not command and control regulation. Our
    advancements in sustainability are due to adoption of
    technologies and farmers' terrific participation in voluntary,
    incentive-based conservation programs. U.S. farmers have
    enrolled more than 140 million acres in Federal conservation
    programs. That is equal to the total land area of California
    and New York combined.
        I can tell you personally, our farms and our land are our
    heritage. Every farmer I know wants to leave the land, air, and
    water, as well as our farm and ranch businesses, in better
    condition than we found them. To achieve that goal, Congress
    must protect agriculture from undue burdens and respect
    farmers' and ranchers' ability to innovate and solve problems.
        We must ensure that shortsighted, knee-jerk reaction public
    policies do not threaten the viability and sustainability of
    our farms or the long-term resiliency of our rural communities.
    Americans have a new appreciation for the importance of
    agriculture after seeing empty grocery store shelves the last
    couple of years, some for the first time in their lives.
        When the pandemic hit, we were proud to assure America that
    the commitment of farmers and ranchers is unwavering. We are
    still farming. Please make sure that the public policy doesn't
    stand in the way of our ability to continue to fulfill what we
    see as a sacred commitment.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing. I
    would be pleased to answer any questions the committee might
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. VanderWal follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. VanderWal. Senator Merkley has
    asked for a chance to go ahead, out of order. We are happy to
    do that. Please proceed. After he asks questions, I think
    Senator Capito says Senator Ernst has made a similar request. I
    think you will follow Senator Merkley, and then after that,
    Senator Capito and myself, and we will take it from there.
    Senator Merkley?
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Moseley, Senate Bill 2421 calls for the creation of
    wildfire smoke centers of excellence to leverage the capacity
    and expertise at universities to help address the challenge of
    wildfire smoke and its impacts. The work that is being done at
    the University of Oregon under the community-initiated project
    right now is essentially the pilot project for this. What are
    the benefits of the centers of excellence model?
        Ms. Moseley. Thank you for that question. The Federal
    Government supports research in a number of different ways. As
    the Ranking Member pointed out, the STAR program is one key way
    that we support research in this space.
        Centers of excellence, however, are really useful in very
    specific circumstances. One is when you need to build new
    research capacity, and you need to build that research capacity
    that would be sustained over time. Because centers of
    excellence or research centers tend to be funded with more
    funds and over longer durations, you have the time to build the
    interdisciplinary partnerships you need to tackle complex
    problems, either among the academy or between the academy and
    practitioners.
        Our center for wildfire research smoke and practice is
    focused on the latter, which is to build new relationships
    between academic researchers and communities that are seeking
    to tackle smoke at home, and we really want to be doing
    research that is driven by the needs of those communities and
    making sure that the research we do reaches those communities.
    That is why something like a focus center of excellence can be
    so important to tackling these kinds of complex problems. We
    have seen them be very effective in climate change,
    transportation, and many other areas where we have wicked
    problems to solve. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Doctor.
        We have seen States taking some limited efforts to help
    address the challenge. For example, in Oregon, their
    environmental agency has provided a grant for the city of
    Ashland to set up an air purifier distribution program. In
    California, the State has launched a pilot program providing
    grants for smoke shelters, kind of a similar effort.
        Still, most places are no better prepared for unhealthy air
    this year than they were in 2020 or 2015, even as smoke becomes
    more and more of a problem.
        Doctor, what would be the benefit of providing dedicated
    resources to States to address the impacts of wildfire smoke?
        Ms. Moseley. Thank you for that. I think one of the things
    that we are grappling with in the area of wildfire smoke is
    that, for many, this is actually more like a natural hazard
    than it is traditional pollution, like smokestack pollution. So
    we need to have new tools to be able to tackle this problem,
    which is becoming very ubiquitous.
        We think of it, and communities that are frequently near
    fires see the problem of smoke very often, but for many places,
    smoke is maybe more rare. But we need to tackle it across the
    Country. As you said in your opening remarks, Washington D.C.
    is downwind from many, many fires, and so the enormity of the
    range of communities that need to be prepared to provide clean
    air shelters, similar to the cooling shelters or heating
    shelters that we provide for other kinds of weather events, is
    really critical.
        We need to have some focus in this space, because it is
    really different than some of the other kinds of pollution that
    we face that we have been tackling through more traditional
    means.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Doctor.
        I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks. Senator Ernst, you are
    recognized.
        Senator Ernst. Yes, thank you, Chairman Carper, and Ranking
    Member Capito.
        Senator Carper. Do you have a bigger sign than that?
        Senator Ernst. Do we need bigger?
        Senator Carper. That is pretty big.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Ernst. Thank you so much for holding this hearing
    today, and for those that are here as witnesses. These are
    issues that are really important to our State of Iowa.
        Mr. VanderWal, I would like to start with you, please. Just
    like you, I grew up on my family farm in southwestern Iowa, and
    I know how much pride that our family took in raising livestock
    and in crops. Our hardworking farmers and ranchers really
    shouldn't have to worry about overly onerous regulations coming
    from the Federal Government and, of course, the increased
    production costs that go along with that.
        Could you please speak to the impacts that previously
    proposed livestock emissions regulations would have had on your
    family's farm?
        Mr. VanderWal. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I
    think that is one of the most important points that we need to
    make. Every time Congress puts a regulation, or an agency puts
    a regulation on agriculture, it makes it more difficult for
    small family farms and ranches to survive.
        In our operation, we only feed about 1,000 thousand head of
    cattle, farm 2,000 acres. That is not big anymore. When
    regulations come out that take more employees, more time away
    from managing the operation, that detracts from the success of
    the operation. Certainly, those previous regulations would have
    been very difficult to manage. Like I said, a lot of smaller
    operations would probably just hang it up and quit.
        Senator Ernst. Yes. Then, of course, we talk a lot about
    the cow tax, but how would those burdensome regulations, like
    the cow tax, increase costs on both livestock producers and our
    consumers? More of the same, right?
        Mr. VanderWal. Exactly, yes.
        Senator Ernst. I think this is something that is very
    important, obviously, to folks in Iowa and South Dakota, all
    across the Midwest where we do have large livestock operations
    on sweeping through the South, but it is difficult for our
    small family farmers to really take on the burden of Federal
    Government regulations, again, that are overly onerous. It does
    cause increased costs to our consumers.
        Of course, I am advocating not to pass a cow tax, of
    course, but I thank you for being here today.
        I do want to move on to the RPM Act, as well. Mr. Brown,
    thank you very much for being here, and your family. Chairman
    Carper had made a comment about young boys that want to go into
    racing. I said, ``and girls.''
        Mr. Brown. Yes.
        Senator Ernst. Yes. So, I grew up on a motorcycle. Of
    course, we had dirt bikes out on the farm. My brother was an
    avid motocross racer when he was a young man. My sister,
    shoutout to Adams County Speedway, the county over from us, we
    used to go there on Saturday nights. My folks would take us
    over dirt track racing, and that is the greatest place in the
    world to be on Saturday nights. My sister tried her hand at
    powderpuff racing, as well. We are a family that loves
    motorsports.
        I think, Mr. Walke, to your point, it is illegal. It is
    illegal to have those types of vehicles on the streets, but
    certainly, we want to make sure that it is OK to modify certain
    vehicles for the love of racing.
        Iowa has about 34 dirt and asphalt tracks, and we love it,
    so that is about one for every three counties. We host these
    races all throughout the year. We bring drivers in, race teams,
    and a heck of a lot of fans.
        Can you talk about what would happen if we did not have
    this legislation? What would happen to the industry if we
    didn't allow for those modifications?
        Mr. Brown. The thing about it is, I could speak on my
    personal experience. If that legislation goes through, because
    we need it to be clear, and what I mean about that is, just
    like the Chairman said too, is looking for a solution without a
    problem.
        The hard part is, let me just quote you something from
    EPA's legal briefing from a file of court in 2020. ``An EPA-
    certified motor vehicle cannot become a non-road vehicle, even
    if it used exclusively for competition.'' That was filed. Then,
    another one in 2021 where the EPA says, ``is illegal regardless
    of whether the vehicle is exclusively for competition
    purposes.''
        If that is the case, that is why this certainty is so
    important, especially for me, because I see my kids coming up.
    I was that kid, just like you growing up as a kid, that went to
    a local racetrack and saw my hero and said ``this is what I
    want to do.'' That was a part of the American dream. When I was
    able to see that, it gave me hope to be there 1 day.
        I fulfilled that want because I was able to take a standard
    motorized vehicle that I could afford, a motorcycle from a
    junkyard, and rebuild it and take it to the drag strip and made
    my dream into a reality through those steps. My kids are
    reaping that benefit where they are going through that same
    thing. They get out what they put in. You know what I mean?
        When I look at that, when I see this, and I see notions
    like that, it is heartbreaking, because I see the girls and the
    boys that are coming up in the junior dragster ranks across
    this whole Country where I help race a league called the
    Midwest Junior Super Series, where we are actually helping
    these kids understand what it takes to become a professional
    and show them the grass root levels on how to get there.
        Senator Ernst. That is so great.
        Mr. Brown. Being able to modify that, and do those with
    those motor vehicles, that is the stepping stones in the
    building blocks for the next future professional racers
    tomorrow. Without that, there is no stepping stone.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thanks
    to you and your family. Happy racing. Thank you.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Ernst, we learned a few things
    about you here, today. Senator Capito?
        Senator Capito.
        I am going to let Senator Inhofe go before me. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. You are kind to do that. Senator Inhofe?
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, madam.
        I appreciate the really interesting thing that we are
    experiencing right now, we really do have some star power here
    that we are happy to have as part of it.
        Mr. Brown, as you know, the EPA is threatening to restrict
    America's ability to convert motor vehicles into racing
    vehicles. Recognizing the protection of the Motorsport Act
    would clarify that it is legal for car racers convert street
    vehicles into a dedicated race vehicle. The bipartisan
    legislation provides certainty to motorsports companies
    employing tens of thousands of American workers that produce
    and sell special parts that racers need to build.
        You are the one who is really interested and you are on the
    line on this thing. You have done a very good job. My kids will
    be very proud that we are spending this time together. I would
    like to just have you characterize the type of people.
        Oklahoma is a small State. We are a rural State. We are an
    ag State. So I look at this in both these bills that we are
    going to be talking about today as things that would be very
    helpful to get to hear for Oklahoma. I would just like to have
    you share a little bit about the mom-and-pop type of population
    that benefits the most from this, Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. Where the mom-and-pops benefit from this, you
    said, sir?
        Senator Inhofe. No, how they benefit. We are talking
    Oklahomans now. These are not giant corporations. These are
    mom-and-pop operations.
        Mr. Brown. Yes. Well, the way they benefit is, believe it
    or not, in our community of motorsports, our 1,500 tracks reach
    across the whole Country, even in the small neighborhoods. I
    grew up, of course I grew up in New Jersey, but I go to 22
    different venues across the Country in NHRA drag racing.
        We go from all the way down there in Tulsa, that racetrack
    in Tulsa, Oklahoma all the way down to Dallas, Texas,
    Gainesville, Florida. We go all the way up to Brainerd,
    Minnesota. We impact so many of the small grassroots people
    that come in, and we affect the communities by generally just
    where, I am not going to lie to you, I grew up on a 15-acre
    farm ground in the little town of Chesterfield, New Jersey. It
    is in the middle of nowhere. Cattle up the road, I drove a
    combine; my family had an excavating business on the farm.
        What we did was do-it-yourselfers, so a lot of do-it-
    yourselfers back in those areas, this is actually who it
    benefits, because they work on their vehicles, and they are the
    ones who are able to take it where, racing and motorsports,
    when you take it to the area where you are able to take that
    station wagon that your mom had, and you can actually modify
    it. It doesn't take a lot of money, and you can take it to your
    local drag strip.
        Where is the local drag strip? In those little towns across
    America, and you can go there and spend 20 bucks, and you can
    actually race that vehicle.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes. We are operating on limited time here,
    and I want to come back. I have been fascinated by your
    background and what it has meant to you, but I have one
    question I wanted to ask Mr. VanderWal.
        As you mentioned in your testimony, agriculture accounts
    for approximately 10 percent of the total greenhouse gas
    emissions, and livestock accounts for less than 4 percent of
    overall emissions. I think John Thune did a good job of
    explaining what a cow tax would do and who that would affect.
        Mr. VanderWal, would you explain how passing the Livestock
    Regulatory Protection Act would keep food costs down for
    Americans buying beef and pork, eggs and egg products?
        Mr. VanderWal. Thank you for that question, Senator. That
    is very important. Like I said, food security is national
    security to our Country. The more times we put more regulations
    on our farms and ranches, it causes people to quit if they
    can't afford to follow those regulations or meet them, if they
    have to hire more people. In turn, it reduces the supply, which
    increases prices to consumers. It is certainly in our Country's
    best interests to use common sense and keep those regulations
    low.
        I talked about the fact that agriculture is doing such a
    good job already through innovation in the last decades and how
    we are doing things on a voluntary basis, always looking for a
    way to improve and doing the best we can. We believe that is
    the way to go in the future.
        Senator Inhofe. I really believe that we have an
    opportunity to yield to the pressures that are out there on
    overregulation. Overregulation is something that people don't
    understand until they are one among those who are
    overregulated. Mr. Brown, are there any other thoughts, we are
    running a little short of time, that you would like to talk
    about further economic impact that this legislation would have
    on States like my State of Oklahoma?
        Mr. Brown. Absolutely, sir. One thing that I like to share
    too, in just our motorsports industry, throughout the whole
    Country, we have over a $100 billion impact on the communities
    and States across the Country that motorsports resonates and
    goes to. So it is definitely a big impact for communities, just
    from hotels, from everything that is around it.
        It has a huge impact, and also for the small business
    owners, that actually make these parts and pieces, and also for
    the development of future technology that goes into vehicles
    tomorrow. Like we always say in racing, we are working on
    tomorrow's technology today, and that has a huge impact across
    the whole Country.
        Senator Inhofe. That is a good point.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. You bet. I am going to ask unanimous
    consent to submit for the record two letters dated September
    6th, 2022 in opposition to S. 2736, the Recognizing the
    Protection of Motorsports Act of 2021, as written, without
    objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Again, to our witnesses, thank you all for
    joining us.
        I mentioned right at the beginning of my comments, I spoke
    of what we are seeing in terms of weather across the Country,
    record floods, not far from where my mom and sister live in
    eastern Kentucky. We have seen sea level rise all over the
    coasts of our Country. We have seen record droughts.
        In terms of agriculture, we have seen a lot of places where
    crops just aren't growing. It is not just in America, but it is
    across the planet. If you look at the major cause of what is
    creating this, it is too much carbon dioxide in the air. If you
    look at where does it come from, about 30 percent of the carbon
    dioxide emissions in this Country come from our vehicles that
    we drive, our cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles. I say that as a
    former motorcycle driver and owner.
        The second greatest source is power plants. About 25
    percent of the emissions come from power plants, and about
    another 20 percent from manufacturing operations; think cement
    plants, think steel mills, that sort of thing.
        This is a serious matter. The amount of property damage is
    not just in the millions, it is not just tens of millions, or
    hundreds of millions. It is in the billions of dollars,
    hundreds of billions of dollars, within this year, so this is
    serious. This is a serious matter. We have to make sure that we
    are looking at every significant source of carbon emissions,
    and that is why this is so critical.
        Mr. Walke, as you know, emissions from our transportation
    sector are a large contributor to the climate crisis and to
    smog, to soot, to air toxic pollutants that are dangerous to
    our health. I believe we can all agree that drivers should face
    a Clean Air Act liability for vehicles that are used solely for
    organized racing.
        EPA has never gone after, let me say, the EPA has never
    gone after racecar drivers through its Clean Air Act
    enforcement actions, and does not intend to do so in the
    future. Having said that, EPA is finding massive Clean Air Act
    violations as after-market parts are installed on cars and
    trucks that are used daily on streets in our communities. That
    means more asthma attacks, more lung disease, more mortalities.
    Somebody needs to be held accountable for these results.
        My question is this, Mr. Walke. What is your advice to us
    as lawmakers about who should be held accountable, and how
    should we do that?
        Mr. Walke. Thanks, Senator Carper. We should not be holding
    racecar drivers accountable. The minimal amounts of air
    pollution that occur on weekend driving racing is not the air
    pollution problem. It is the defeat device industry that is the
    problem.
        I understand and appreciate Mr. Brown's desire for
    certainty for himself, for his family, and for racecars
    drivers, and I think that is something that Congress can
    address through a narrowly tailored amendment. The problem is
    that the bill limits the ability of EPA to enforce against
    businesses who should have known their defeat devices were not
    being used on racecars.
        I don't have his driving skills. I really wish I did. I
    have had much less significant skills as a Clean Air Act
    attorney for 30 years. If I were an attorney for the defeat
    device industry, I would write language like this, because it
    says, no, no, we shouldn't ask whether people know or should
    have known that their devices were not used on racecars. We
    should ask solely, what was your purpose in selling this? Well,
    they are going to say their purpose was to sell it to racecar
    drivers.
        But as these enforcement cases have shown by the Trump
    Administration and then Biden Administration, they aren't able
    to prove those facts in actual cases, so we have hundreds of
    thousands of tons of illegal vehicles, hundreds of thousands of
    tons of illegal pollution. It is my professional opinion that
    this bill would make things worse.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Another question. I want to go back to Dr. Moseley. I want
    to turn to wildfire events. Best climate science tells us that
    the conditions that are driving wildfires, including extreme
    heat and drought that I mentioned earlier, are getting worse,
    not better. This summer, at least one-third of Americans were
    under a heat advisory, one-third, and tens of millions have
    experienced extreme temperatures surpassing 100 degrees
    Fahrenheit. That is in a bunch of places where they don't even
    have air conditioning.
        At the same time, the historic extreme drought affecting
    the west is worsening and spreading east. It shows, as of
    yesterday, I am told, 69 active wildfires across our Country,
    some as big as my State. In July, that number was at least 82
    wildfires burning at one time.
        My question, Dr. Moseley, briefly tell us, do these
    startling figures reflect the reality you see on the ground? In
    other words, do you agree that wildfires are becoming more
    frequent and intense due to climate change?
        Ms. Moseley. I think the scientific evidence is fairly
    clear that we have a number of drivers, not the least of which
    is climate change, that is increasing the size and severity of
    wildfire. As you say, we are seeing hotter, dryer climate,
    particularly in the arid West.
        I think it is also important for folks to realize that we
    see a lot of wildfires on CNN or on cable news, but there is,
    in fact, a very broad array of what wildfire is and where it
    occurs.
        In this Fiscal Year to date, we have had more than six
    million acres burned in wildfire. Half of that occurred in the
    State of Alaska. A million of it occurred in the southern
    United States. We have wildfire, really, everywhere.
        What we really need to be thinking about as wildfire
    continues to grow, and I think the scientific evidence is also
    clear, that we are not yet at a new normal. It feels like a new
    normal, but it is going to continue to grow for some time, even
    with our best climate mitigation measures. More and more folks
    are going to need to be prepared for and learn to live with
    fire and fire smoke, and that is why adaptations such as
    contemplated in the bills here are so important.
        Senator Carper. Dr. Moseley, thank you.
        Now, Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of
    you all for being here today.
        The RPM Act, as I mentioned in my opening statement, this
    is the second hearing over the last several years that we have
    had on something that, to me, seems like a simple, very common-
    sense fix. We are saying that it is a solution in search of a
    problem, but we have spent a lot of time trying to fix this
    problem.
        There is a problem there. Mr. Brown, you testified to that,
    and Mr. Walke has acknowledged that we need to have a fix here.
    I guess my question to you, Mr. Brown, because you have been
    really explicit about talking about your youth and the STEM
    education, and you have your wonderful family there that is
    involved in racing. I would imagine that most of your audience
    are families that come out on an evening to an affordable way
    to enjoy being with their families and watching a great sport.
        But if a looming EPA lawsuit is looking over you, and you
    saic you just created your new team, what kind of reaction do
    you have to that as a small business owner? How would you ever
    be able to fight that?
        Mr. Brown. That is the hard thing. I agree with Mr. Walke
    on the purpose that, speaking as a racer, when I am looking at
    the things from their standpoints, we are all against people
    with defeat devices. The thing about it is, you don't have to
    come after the racers or the race teams, but if you go after
    legitimate companies that are producing race parts, and they
    don't have the power to sustain, and you shut those small
    companies down, then it hurts the whole motorsports industry as
    a whole because those companies were supplying legitimate race
    products to the racing industry.
        I do agree that they should also have a deal of sale, where
    they actually have a record of sale, or they go, hey, this is
    what this part is for. This is where it goes, and this is what
    it is used for. If they have that categorized, that might help
    the solution to the problem.
        For me in general, it was mind-shocking because, hold up,
    and you are seeing where sports, I live in Indianapolis,
    Indiana, and I came from New Jersey. The reason why I moved
    there was because this was the race capital of the world. Then
    when you see things that come down from the EPA, it actually
    puts a stronghold on that where you can see it dissipating,
    going away, from the outside in. Being a racer, we will be the
    last ones affected by it when we don't have any parts and
    pieces to buy.
        Senator Capito. Right. Thank you, very good.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Mr. VanderWal, we also heard that the cow
    tax proposal, there is really no need for this legislation
    because it is taken care of every year in Appropriations. I am
    on Appropriations. I wouldn't be betting on what is going to
    happen every year in an appropriations process here in the U.S.
    Congress.
        We are heading up to a continuing resolution, which is not
    the way that this whole system was conceived. We should have
    our appropriations bills in line by September 30th, have them
    passed, and have our wishes moved forward.
        So, a year-by-year band-aid is not, I don't think, a
    solution to the issue that you are talking about. How do you
    all feel about every year, having to fight, and some years more
    than others? That has got to be an issue for you.
        Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you, Senator. It certainly is.
    That causes uncertainty, when we have to wait every year in
    anticipation of something that might happen in a bill, or
    something that EPA might do administratively. It would be far,
    far better to have this in statute by Congress that would say
    the EPA does not regulate agriculture based on greenhouse gas
    emissions, recognizing all the things we have talked about.
        It would provide certainty for us going forward. People
    could really concentrate on innovation and technology and be
    able to work on those things, rather than worrying about what
    the government might do in the next year, in the next round.
        Senator Capito. I think you have stated the statistics
    that, without something, as you are moving forward as an
    industry with the innovation and technology that is coming
    forward, you are able to bring your emissions down almost at a
    voluntary manner because it is good for the environment, it is
    good for the farmer, it is good for the consumer. I think
    putting our emphasis in those positive areas is a much more
    beneficial way than in a punitive way, such as a cow tax would
    put forward.
        Thank you for commenting. Thank all the panelists, thank
    you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito.
        Senator Whitehouse? Good to see you. Welcome.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        Let me start with offering a little bit of context. This
    comes from the National Institutes of Science, I believe, and
    it shows the mammal creatures on the Earth measured out by
    biomass. If you look here, you see that all the wild mammals on
    the planet amount to 4 percent of the biomass of mammals, from
    field mice to rabbits to deer to elk to tigers and elephants,
    all of them, as mammals, 4 percent.
        Cattle alone are 35 percent. There are nine times as many
    cattle, at least by weight. There are nine times as much cattle
    by weight as there is all of the wild animals, mammals,
    anywhere on the planet together. What the cattle are doing out
    there, obviously, has big effects on our planet.
        Mr. VanderWal, you have said that livestock emissions make
    up less than 4 percent of overall emissions in the U.S., and
    that they are declining thanks to improvements in feed and
    production practices. You have said that U.S. farmers and
    ranchers have long been at the forefront of climate-smart
    farming, utilizing scientific solutions, technology, and
    innovations to raise crops and care for livestock, and that
    innovations include methane digesters and advances in
    nutritional balance that lead to lower per-unit. I assume
    there, you mean per-animal, GHG emissions.
        Could you just say a word about what the technologies and
    innovations are that are proving most effective in reducing
    methane emissions from livestock?
        Mr. VanderWal. Thank you, Senator. Just to comment on part
    of your question, when I talk about----
        Senator Whitehouse. Don't comment too long, because I am on
    a clock here, so I would really like you to answer my question.
        Mr. VanderWal. I understand. What I mean by reduction in
    per unit is per unit of production, so in a dairy cow, that
    would be per gallon of milk or per pound of milk.
        Senator Whitehouse. Got it.
        Mr. VanderWal. In regard to emissions, the anaerobic
    digesters that people are putting in, that energy is being
    used, actually, to generate electricity for farms, those kinds
    of things, so we are not pulling on the grid. There are
    technologies such as varieties of corn that can be fed to
    livestock that are more efficient, produce less methane and
    greenhouse gases.
        Senator Whitehouse. Do algal and seaweed supplements do the
    same thing?
        Mr. VanderWal. I can't answer that for sure. I am not an
    expert on that.
        Senator Whitehouse. All right. Well, I just wanted to flag
    for you that the Growing Climate Solutions Act was a very
    bipartisan measure. As it gets implemented by the Department of
    Agriculture, my sort of nutshell version of it is that the
    equivalent of a farm agent can go out to a farmer and say, here
    is the stuff that you can do that will reduce either CO2 or
    methane emissions. I have the science behind me, so I can put a
    number on that.
        Then I can give you basically a good housekeeping seal of
    approval for those savings, and then you can take that and get
    credit for reducing your emissions. Is that the kind of
    incentive that you think the American farming community would
    welcome as we try to solve together the problem of climate
    change?
        Mr. VanderWal. Yes. Certainly, incentives are much better
    than a stick. If it is economically viable, or if somebody can
    finance it to show that it will be economically viable at some
    point, those are the things farmers are looking for. Certainly,
    we want to do the right thing for the right reasons, and we
    want to do these environmental things because they are the
    right thing to do.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, the Farm Bureau supported it, and
    I appreciate that very much.
        Also, I would just give Mr. Walke a chance to respond as he
    may wish in my remaining 30 seconds.
        Mr. Walke. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Just two
    clarifications.
        One, I just want to emphasize that the Clean Air Act
    permitting program that is the subject of the livestock bill
    imposes no emissions limitations, none whatsoever. So any
    discussion here of concerns over emissions limits and emissions
    standards being opposed, they just don't arise under that
    program. It is a program to compile preexisting requirements.
    There may not be any. It also has some monitoring to provide
    for public awareness.
        The second clarification I would just like to offer is
    that, as my testimony details in written form, EPA has never
    brought an enforcement case against a company that sells
    products just for racing cars. What Mr. Brown is talking about,
    his suppliers are----
        Senator Carper. Would you say that again? Never?
        Mr. Walke. EPA has never brought an enforcement case
    against a manufacturer that sells products exclusively for
    racing cars. They are bringing cases again defeat device
    manufacturers that are selling their products to the general
    public that end up on roads illegally in the hundreds of
    thousands.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Walke. Mr. Brown is buying products from the top racing
    car companies and manufacturers in the world, and they have not
    been the subject of enforcement any more so than racecar
    drivers have. None.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator
    Kelly, you are next. Welcome.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have questions
    for both Mr. Brown and Mr. Walke, 14 questions, so we are going
    to go quickly, short answers, yes and no. Mr. Brown, I am
    trying to remember. Did we meet at the track in Chandler,
    Arizona, or was it in Texas? Where was it?
        Mr. Brown. I believe we met in Texas, in Houston, and I
    went to the NASA center.
        Senator Kelly. Oh, I may have taken you in the simulator
    with Bob Tasset, maybe.
        Mr. Brown. Yes, and I landed the space shuttle. I did it.
        Senator Kelly. You did? You landed the--let me clarify. You
    landed the space shuttle simulator?
        Mr. Brown. Yes, not the real space shuttle, the space
    shuttle simulator.
        Senator Kelly. I want to congratulate you. I saw what your
    best time and your best speed was at the track in Chandler,
    Arizona. Congratulations on that.
        Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. Thank you.
        Senator Kelly. I have six questions for you, eight for Mr.
    Walke in less than 4 minutes. In your testimony, you discussed
    how, in your early days of racing, you converted a street-legal
    motorcycle into a racing vehicle. You said it was used, from a
    junkyard. How much cheaper was buying that vehicle as compared
    to purchasing a bike built for racing?
        Mr. Brown. For racing, I would say I probably built that
    bike for five grand, and a race vehicle of that nature probably
    would have been over $50,000.
        Senator Kelly. Since this bike was used for racing, did you
    register your bike with DMV and get insurance for it?
        Mr. Brown. No, sir.
        Senator Kelly. So, no insurance, no registration. As you
    know, some have raised concerns that there are bad actors out
    there who will buy a device built to be used for racing, but
    then will install it on a car that they use to drive on city
    streets.
        Do you believe that there are ways, such as asking a driver
    to show that they have canceled their vehicle's registration,
    which could help sellers and mechanics easily know that they
    are only selling parts to drivers for legitimate racing
    reasons?
        Mr. Brown. Yes, I believe that will be where you can make
    it void, where it is not street legal anymore, at all, period,
    and most race vehicles are like that.
        Senator Kelly. Can you briefly talk about the process in
    California, which allows racers to purchase equipment needed
    for their vehicles?
        Mr. Brown. Yes, California being one of the most strict
    States out there, they actually have that part of the
    legislation where it excludes race vehicles from all the normal
    that they do for normal motor vehicles that are on the road.
        Senator Kelly. I understand that there are some devices
    sold today which allow drivers to turn off and on the emissions
    control on a vehicle, or there are devices programmed to trick
    the computer when the vehicle has its emissions tested.
        Can you think of any reason that a racer might need a
    device that has these features?
        Mr. Brown. No, sir, because we actually strip all the
    vehicle's standard stuff out of it and put electronic EFI and
    everything to control everything that we do down on the
    racetrack, which all the standard stuff would be null and void,
    what we need in a race vehicle.
        Senator Kelly. Mr. Walke, I have 2 minutes, and I
    appreciate your testimony on the RPM Act. Let me just step
    through these. I want to start off with an easy question: do
    race cars or street vehicles converted and used exclusively for
    racing have a measurable or meaningful impact on overall air
    pollution?
        Mr. Walke. Not to my knowledge.
        Senator Kelly. Given that, would you oppose a properly
    crafted compromised version of the RPM Act which had guardrails
    to protect amateur racers and businesses whose goal is to serve
    amateur racers, while going after bad actors?
        Mr. Walke. Not drivers. I would be very interested to see
    what the law said about businesses.
        Senator Kelly. Would you agree that there are vehicle
    owners, mechanics, and parts sellers who legitimately want to
    modify vehicles exclusively for racing?
        Mr. Walke. Yes.
        Senator Kelly. In your testimony, you explained that EPA
    maintains that a device which defeats emissions controls is
    illegal, regardless of how a motor vehicle is used. This means
    that EPA maintains that modifying a vehicle's emissions
    controls for racing is illegal. Correct?
        Mr. Walke. That is correct, and they have said they will
    exercise enforcement discretion, but that is not a legal
    exemption.
        Senator Kelly. Does this also mean that EPA has not
    provided any regulations or guidelines to good-faith vehicle
    owners, mechanics, or parts sellers explaining how they could
    avoid being subject to EPA enforcement actions related to the
    Clean Air Act?
        Mr. Walke. EPA has provided numerous instances of that
    guidance and specific ones targeting the racing competition
    vehicle market.
        Senator Kelly. So, there is guidance?
        Mr. Walke. There is.
        Senator Kelly. All right. Would you be more likely to
    support the bill if EPA were required to issue regulations
    within a reasonable period of time before a racing exemption
    took effect?
        Mr. Walke. I am not fully understanding the question. The
    key is the statute, and whether the statute is weaker before
    and after, and then EPA will issue regulations following the
    statute.
        My testimony today has solely been about not weakening the
    statute as it applies to defeat device manufacturers and
    sellers.
        Senator Kelly. I was asking if there were, if in a
    reasonable period of time, if the EPA were required to have
    some clear regulations, would you then be more likely to
    support it?
        Mr. Walke. Sure, especially if those regulations made clear
    that drivers like Mr. Brown were not covered by the law. I
    would support that 100 percent. I have tried to be very clear
    about that.
        Senator Kelly. Would you be more likely to support the bill
    if EPA were required to, in implementing regulations, describe
    documentation needed to ensure a vehicle would be used
    exclusively for racing?
        Mr. Walke. The key to enforcement is placing the burden of
    proof on the defeat device manufacturers to show that their
    products are not being used in racing cars. If that standard is
    preserved in the law the way it has been for decades, EPA can
    write regulations with lots of additional guidance and
    information to help carry out that law.
        Senator Kelly. I just have one more, Mr. Chairman. If clear
    implementing regulations are developed by EPA explaining how a
    part seller mechanic could comply with the Clean Air Act, would
    you agree that EPA should avoid applying a strict liability
    standard against a retailer or mechanic who is duped by a small
    number of bad actors?
        Mr. Walke. Yes. That is not the law, and it has never been
    the law. It should not be the law.
        Senator Kelly. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, you are recognized.
    Senator Markey, welcome. You are next in line.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        First of all, I want to thank Senator Merkley for his
    leadership in introducing both the Smoke Planning and Research
    Act of 2021 and the Smoke-Ready Communities Act of 2021. It is
    not just the State of Oregon, not just the State of California,
    but the entire western United State, but California in
    particular that is all too familiar with the devastation caused
    by wildfires. Not just the fires themselves, I am also
    referring to the smell and effects of wildfire smoke.
        Again, it is not just a California issue. It is not just a
    western United States issue, because as a lot of people
    remember, I got calls from my colleagues all the way to
    Illinois, even colleagues on the Eastern Seaboard last year
    complaining about the air quality. Think about that, the air
    quality on the East Coast that was the result of wildfires
    burning in the West. It truly is a national concern.
        Wildfire smoke is a complex mixture of air pollutants,
    clearly unhealthy to breathe, and it can be especially
    dangerous for children, for the elderly, for pregnant women,
    for anyone with heart or respiratory conditions. A recent
    Stanford University study found that single-family homes across
    the Country tend to have three to four times higher particulate
    pollution during wildfire events than public health guidelines
    recommend.
        My question is for Dr. Moseley. Given that time is of the
    essence with increasingly extreme and more frequent wildfires
    continuing across the West, how crucial do you think it is to
    enact these bills as quickly as possible to protect public
    health and better inform communities of the dangers posed by
    wildfire smoke?
        Ms. Moseley. Thank you for that question. Wildfire is
    growing so rapidly that, for those of us who live in the West,
    you can almost barely imagine it. The fires in your State and
    mine have been just astonishing. The importance of taking
    action to protect people from wildfire smoke is increasingly
    urgent, not only in our States, but as you say, across the
    Country, as we learn more and more about the negative impacts
    of smoke, as well as the rapid increase in the number of people
    in all walks of life who are affected by that smoke.
        Senator Padilla. I appreciate that, in your written
    testimony, you referenced to equity concerns, how there is a
    disproportionate impact on lower-income individuals, lower-
    income communities.
        Mr. Walke, my home State of California has long been
    recognized as a national leader in the fight against the
    climate crisis and for our efforts to protect communities from
    toxic air and water pollution, as well. California is also the
    largest agricultural State, home to a $50 billion agricultural
    economy and the largest dairy industry in the Country.
    California's farmers and ranchers know better than most in our
    ability to feed the Nation, and to support family farmers and
    farm workers alike relies on clean air and clean water.
        That is why California is working to cut methane emissions
    by at least 40 percent by 2030 in partnership with farmers and
    ranchers as they transition to more sustainable manure
    management and emission reduction practices. Senate Bill 1475
    would preemptively restrict EPA's authority, preventing the
    agency from considering policies to address the industrial
    livestock sector. To your knowledge, is there precedent for
    exempting entire industries from major components of the Clean
    Air Act?
        Mr. Walke. No, certainly not in this manner. I was shocked
    to learn that agriculture emits more methane emissions in the
    United States than the oil and gas sector. The vast majority of
    that comes from the digestion processes of animals.
        It is not a problem that we should be permanently codifying
    into an exemption in the law. If we kick the can down the road
    with an appropriation rider, we can always change our mind. But
    if it becomes a permanent exemption of the Clean Air Act, my
    experience says it is just never going to go away, and we are
    never going to solve this problem.
        Senator Padilla. So, just to underscore the point, how
    important is the EPA's Operating Permit Program to the ability
    of States like California to protect the public and support
    investments in smart, sustainable agricultural practices?
        Mr. Walke. The key to the Operating Permit Program, and it
    is sometimes misunderstood, is really to just have some
    monitoring reporting so that there is public awareness and some
    accountability, so the States and the Federal Government can
    get a handle on how much the emissions are from this industry.
        Right now, we don't know. There is nothing to require it.
    EPA was required by a court in 2005 to develop emissions
    estimation methodologies for concentrated animal feeding
    operations, or CAFOs. They are 17 years overdue.
        Now, they are supposed to come out with something this
    fall. I am waiting with bated breath to see what it will say. B
    ut we are just not taking this problem seriously, and
    unfortunately, a permanent exemption from the Clean Air Act is
    just not the right approach, in my opinion.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, good to see you. Thanks
    for joining us today. Senator Markey, how are you?
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am doing great.
    I hope you are as well.
        Senator Carper. Indeed.
        Senator Markey. Mr. Walke, as you know well, factory farms
    produce immense quantities of waste that fuel climate change
    and pollute the surrounding soil, air, and water. According to
    a study conducted in 2021, simply living in proximity to a
    factory farm can decrease life expectancy, rural, low-income,
    agricultural, dependent, and black and brown communities are
    directly affected by these environmental hazards.
        Mr. Walke, do you believe that codifying this exemption for
    factory farm emissions, which is already regularly included in
    appropriations packages, would be beneficial to nearby
    communities?
        Mr. Walke. No, Senator Markey, quite the opposite. One of
    the pollutants that the bill exempts is nitrogen oxide, which
    is a precursor to smog, so that is a health hazard to
    communities surrounding these factory farms. This takes us
    backward, I am afraid.
        Senator Markey. So, it would not improve, in fact, it would
    harm those communities that are in proximity?
        Mr. Walke. That is correct.
        Senator Markey. According to the EPA's latest greenhouse
    gas inventory, emissions from agriculture have continued to
    rise, while emissions from some other sectors have decreased,
    and these emissions are significant.
        For example, a recent report found that JBS, the world's
    largest livestock corporation with substantial U.S.-based
    operations is responsible for more emissions than the whole
    country of Italy on a yearly basis, one company. We just have
    to be realistic about it. As we are waiting for Italy to come
    to Egypt in November, we should be inviting JBS as well, in
    terms of what their plans are to reduce greenhouse gases.
        If corporate agriculture is given broad, permanent
    exemptions like those proposed in the Livestock Regulatory
    Protection Act, what prevents corporations like Exxon and Shell
    and BP from asking similarly large industry-wide exemptions?
    They will say, you gave it to agriculture, why not give it to
    us as well? We only produce the same amount of emissions as
    JBS, so give us the exemption too.
        What would stop that from being the inevitable and
    inexorable course that this whole discussion would take?
        Mr. Walke. Nothing would stop that. I think it is just a
    matter of political muscle. We have 50 years of experience in
    this Country to know that voluntary measures don't cut
    greenhouse gases enough to avoid a climate crisis. We need to
    take that seriously with actual, real measures.
        Senator Markey. Yes, I think we should be heading, I agree
    with you, in the opposite direction, in terms of what the
    requirements are going to be on companies that have been
    allowed to use the air as a large sewer to be sending up these
    very dangerous emissions.
        Robust air pollution standards are critical to protecting
    communities. The transportation sector is the largest
    contributor to climate pollution in the United States. Over a
    single year, in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic alone, more than
    7,100 deaths were linked to pollution from vehicle emissions.
        Mr. Walke, in your testimony, you mentioned the extensive
    use of illegal defeat devices in diesel pickup trucks, which
    resulted in an additional 570,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and
    5,000 tons of particulate matter. As you point out, this is
    quite alarming, considering that all electric power plants in
    the United States released 780,000 tons of nitrogen oxide
    emissions last year. Those are crazy numbers. The use of
    illegal defeat devices is creating an easily avoidable threat
    to public health.
        Mr. Walke, does preventing the use of defeat devices and
    prohibiting tampering with emission controls protect
    environmental justice communities, who historically bear the
    brunt from living in areas with dirty air?
        Mr. Walke. Absolutely. We know they live closer to highways
    than a lot of the rest of us. Those figures you quoted were
    just from diesel pickup trucks. But there are a lot of other
    vehicles in the roads with defeat devices near where these low-
    income and black and brown communities live.
        Senator Markey. Yes, so these are crazy numbers. Again, all
    electric power plants in the United States release 780,000 tons
    of nitrogen oxide last year, and just the diesel pickup trucks
    is 570,000. We have to work harder and smarter here and just
    look at JBS and look at what it does, compared to other
    industries.
        The same thing is true here with the diesel pickup trucks
    and the other issues that we are trying to deal with. We just
    have to get serious. We can do it because we are a
    technological giant in the United States. That is our strength.
    That is who we are, and we only lose our opportunities when we
    allow for our greatest strength to be offshored. We will wait
    for some other country to start producing chips for us, our
    solar panels, our wind turbans, rather than saying no, we are
    going to do it here.
        That is where all of these technologies that will be the
    solutions have to be developed, and we have to say, we will go
    first, and then the rest of the world will follow.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your great leadership on all
    these issues. Thank you for this hearing.
        Senator Carper. Thank you for being a great partner over
    all these years.
        Senator Capito, is she going to be coming back? OK, all
    right. I think she may have just a few words to say in closing.
        This has been an interesting hearing. It is our first
    hearing back. We have been on August recess. A lot of times, we
    don't have an August recess. We did last month after we
    finished an active period of time here in the Senate and the
    House, but it is a good hearing to come back on.
        We are grateful to each and every one of you for your
    presence. Some of you have been before us before, some not, but
    we are grateful for your presence and your participation today.
        I think a big part of why I have had some success in my
    life, I like to say, my sister and I picked the right parents,
    a coal-mining town in Beckley, West Virginia. They instilled in
    us the core values that I carry around with me to this day and
    have served me well in my life. You can probably think of core
    values that your parents instilled in you. Among those were
    hard work, the Golden Rule, treat other people the way you want
    to be treated, and trying to figure what is the right thing and
    just do it.
        Our hearing today reminded me of something that my dad used
    to say to us. My dad was a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy in
    World Word II, the Korean War, and for about 30 years after
    that. He would say to my sister and me when we were little kids
    growing up, we were born in West Virginia, grew up in Virginia,
    but he would say to my sister and me, when we would pull some
    bone-headed stunt, he was always saying, ``just use some common
    sense.'' You can probably think of things your parents said. He
    said it a lot. We must not have had much common sense.
        Using common sense means that we need to do more to protect
    Americans from the impact of climate change and unhealthy air.
    Mr. Brown, Mrs. Brown, it was a pleasure to meet your sons, who
    I think 14 and 18? Yes, 14 and 18. Our biological sons are
    about a generation older, 32, 34. We always have worried about
    them growing up, just to make sure they didn't get into an
    accident, whether they were on a bicycle or car or whatever,
    always worrying about them, but we wanted to make sure they had
    a chance to grow up and grow old. Your boys, hopefully, will
    have a chance to grow up and grow old.
        The greatest threat to their generation is, frankly, our
    planet is on fire. It is getting worse, and it is getting worse
    faster, rather than not. That is the bad news.
        I would just say, my colleagues hear me do this probably
    more than I ought to. I like to think of it, how do we have
    clean air, clean water, do something real about climate change?
    How do we do it? Create economic opportunity and jobs. That is
    my focus.
        I am an old Governor, and I am always trying to figure out
    how do we create a nurturing environment for job creation and
    job preservation. As it turns out, in the legislation that we
    passed a month or so ago, the Inflation Reduction Act, which
    has a lot in it that deals with clean air and climate change,
    but there is a very clear connection between doing the right
    thing for our planet and for the people who live on that planet
    or are growing up on that planet, do the right thing for them,
    but also making sure that they will have jobs. They are
    creating literally millions of good-paying jobs going forward.
    That is critical.
        The question is, can we do both? Can we both look out for
    our planet, provide for our kids going forward, and making sure
    they not only have clean air and clean water to drink and don't
    live in a planet that is on fire, but have good-paying jobs?
    One of our challenges is, how do we realize that? How do we
    realize that potential and make it happen?
        In Delaware, we raise a lot of chickens. We have some cows,
    but mostly we have chickens. For every person, Senator Capito,
    for every person that lives in Delaware, there are roughly 300
    chickens. They provide a lot of food for people in our State
    and around the world, but they also create a lot of manure,
    chicken manure.
        We empty out our poultry houses on a fairly regular basis.
    We used to put it out in the farm fields. It would rain and end
    up in streams and in the Chesapeake Bay and places like that,
    the other bays in our State. Not good, not good. We have gotten
    smarter about doing that. We still have a lot of runoff on the
    Delmarva Peninsula that degrades the quality of water.
        One of the smartest ideas I have seen, and I will relate
    this back to poultry, one of the smartest things I have seen in
    terms of trying to look for a market solution to help protect
    our planet and our air and all, is, I saw it out in California.
    I like to do customer calls at businesses large and small, all
    over the Country.
        In California, you have a bunch of technology businesses,
    as you know, that are especially interesting. I visited one in
    the Bay Area where they take cow manure and they mix it with
    food waste, and they create a renewable form of gas that can be
    used to power large trucks and vans and buses. What a great
    market solution.
        We are trying to seize on the same approach on the Delmarva
    Peninsula where we take chicken manure and maybe food waste as
    well and, through a process called, I think, anaerobic
    digestion, to be able to transform that into something that
    actually has market value.
        The other thing, as Senator Capito and I know, we support
    the legislation that came out of the Ag Committee a year or two
    ago on regenerative agriculture, trying to encourage farmers to
    put back into the soil, topsoil especially, carbon dioxide
    components that will increase the quality and richness of the
    soil and increase yields. We have legislation that is designed
    to provide an economic model to incentivize that. So there are
    a bunch of good ideas out there, and we need more. We need
    more.
        Last thing I would say, as we discuss today, that means
    more actions to protect Americans from deadly woodsmoke, which
    now blankets our western States, all 12, to extreme wildfires
    driven by climate change. It also means using common sense to
    ensure racecar drivers at Dover Downs may continue to race,
    while cars and trucks we use on our streets and highways meet
    their pollution standards of good citizens.
        I may have driven my old Chrysler Town and Country minivan
    around the racetrack at Dover Downs, but that doesn't make it a
    racecar that should be exempt from emissions standards. With
    that having been said, I look forward to further conversations
    with Senator Capito and with our colleagues on these and other
    matters.
        Before we adjourn, Senator Capito, any last closing
    statements, please?
        Senator Capito. I would just like to thank the witnesses. I
    think we have gotten a broad view of things. We have a lot of
    common area here, and now that the Chairman, I have a visual of
    him driving around a racetrack in a minivan, that scares me,
    and then we are leading into lunch, and he is describing what
    we are going to be doing our cow manure.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. In all seriousness, these have been very
    serious topics. There are a lot of things at stake here, so I
    just appreciate everybody being here with us, and thank you so
    very much.
        Senator Carper. Before we adjourn, just a tiny bit of
    housekeeping, to close on a lighter note.
        When my minivan reached 600,000, a fellow who does yard
    work in a bunch of homes in our neighborhood always said he
    wanted to buy my minivan. If I ever sold my minivan, he wanted
    to buy my minivan.
        Finally, the day came. The electric vehicle came in, red
    car, and he said, will you sell me your minivan? I said, sure.
    He said, how much? I said, a dollar. He said, how much? I said,
    no, a dollar. He said, oh, that is not enough. I said, no, no,
    a dollar.
        So we drove to the DMV, got there, took a number, sat down.
    Finally they called the number. They called us up to the desk,
    and the lady who was in charge, she said, Governor, how are you
    doing? She still thinks of me as her Governor, which was nice.
        She said, Governor, how is your minivan? I said, funny you
    should ask. My minivan is better known than me in Delaware. She
    said, how is your minivan? I said, funny you should ask; I am
    going to sell it. She said, to whom? I reached over and said,
    to Eric right here.
        She said, really? Do you have the title? I said yes. She
    said, well, how much are you going to sell it for? I said, a
    dollar. She said, how much? I said, a dollar. She said, well,
    write on the back, $1.00. You sign it, he signs it.
        So we signed it and gave it to her. She said, there is a
    transfer fee. I said, how much is that? She said 3 percent. I
    said, how much would that be then? She said, well, three cents.
    I reached into my pocket and pulled out a nickel and gave it to
    her, and I said, keep the change.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. All right. A little bit of housekeeping.
    Senators will be allowed to submit written questions for the
    record through the close of business on Wednesday, September
    21st, 2022. We will compile those questions; we will send them
    to our witnesses. We ask our witnesses to reply by Wednesday,
    October the 5th of this year.
        Again, there has been some humor in today's hearing. These
    are serious matters. I know that you realize that. Together,
    hopefully, we can come to a good conclusions, good outcomes, so
    that Mr. and Mrs. Brown, those boys of yours will someday be
    sitting here before us testifying again, 50, 60, 70 years from
    now and trying to keep our Country on the right path.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [al]]