[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]]