[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]]