Building Back with Justice: Environmental Justice Is Central to the American Jobs Plan (Hearing, 2021)
Summary
Record of the hearing "Building Back with Justice: Environmental Justice Is Central to the American Jobs Plan" before the Committee on Oversight and Reform, July 21, 2021, Serial No. 117-35, with Chairwoman Maloney presiding. In an opening statement, Chairwoman Maloney said Executive Order 14008 created the Justice40 Initiative, under which President Biden committed to ensuring that the communities most impacted by pollution receive at least 40 percent of the benefits of the Administration's infrastructure investments. Witnesses were Richard Moore, Nicole Lee Ndumele of the Center for American Progress, Harold Mitchell, Raya Salter, Michael Leon Guerrero of the Labor Network for Sustainability and Shay Hawkins of the Opportunity Funds Association.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Building Back with Justice: Environmental Justice Is Central to the American Jobs Plan (Hearing, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-building-back-with-justice-environmental-5d484d6326/
, SHA-256 8759d3bd1e87f58a31e804163dd987b7ba182b3f27fc0b6e55e2a0c3181a4591.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING BACK WITH JUSTICE:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS CENTRAL.
TO THE AMERICAN JOBS PLAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 21, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-370 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Emily Burns, Max Whitcomb, Gina Kim, Staff
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 21, 2021.................................... 1
Witnesses
Richard Moore, Co-Coordinator, Los Jardines Institute, National
Co-Coordinator, Environmental Justice Health Alliance, Co-
Chair, White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Nicole Lee Ndumele, Vice President, Racial Equity and Justice,
Center for American Progress
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Harold Mitchell, Founder and Executive Director, ReGenesis
Community Development CorporationMember, White House
Environmental Justice Advisory Council
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Raya Salter, Esq., Member, New York State Climate Action Council
Oral Statement................................................... 12
Michael Leon Guerrero, Executive Director, Labor Network for
Sustainability
Oral Statement................................................... 13
Shay Hawkins, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Opportunity
Funds Association
Oral Statement................................................... 15
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
* Letter - Letter from the Oversight Committee Initiating
Investigation into the Veterans Administration; submitted by
Rep. Maloney.
* Report - Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis Reports on
Waste, Fraud, and Abuse; submitted by Rep. Maloney.
* Article - ``How a Tax Break to Help the Poor Went to NBA
Owner, Dan Gilbert,'' ProPublica; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
* Article - ``After Nevada GOP Pushed, Treasury Changed
Lucrative Policy Benefitting One County,'' The Washington Post;
submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
* Article - ``Boston's Heat Islands Turn Lower-Income
Neighborhoods from Hot to Insufferable,'' The Boston Globe;
submitted by Rep. Pressley.
The documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
BUILDING BACK WITH JUSTICE:
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS CENTRAL
TO THE AMERICAN JOBS PLAN
----------
Wednesday, July 21, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn Maloney
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib,
Porter, Bush, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Johnson, Sarbanes,
Kelly, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, Comer, Gosar, Foxx, Hice,
Grothman, Cloud, Norman, Keller, Sessions, Donalds, Herrell,
LaTurner, Fallon, and Franklin.
Chairwoman Maloney. [Presiding.] The committee will come to
order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
On January 27, President Biden issued an executive order
expressing his resolve to tackle climate change by creating
good jobs and ensuring all agencies' decisions consider climate
impacts. Executive Order 14008 contained a groundbreaking new
policy with the potential to transform how we measure
environmental harm and how we share economic opportunity across
our country. Known as the Justice40 Initiative, President Biden
has committed to ensuring that the communities most impacted by
pollution receive at least 40 percent of the benefits of the
Administration's ambitious infrastructure investments.
President Biden made this goal a key part of the Build Back
Better Plan in order to ensure that climate investments advance
racial and economic justice.
And getting this done right will be a key part of this
committee's agenda because, for the many communities that have
waited far too long for progress, this is a matter of life and
death. This is life and death for people in Congresswoman
Tlaib's district in Detroit, where heavy industry and thick
congestion have increased asthma hospitalization rates,
including in young children. This is a life and death for
hundreds of thousands of people in Congresswoman Cori Bush's
district in Missouri, who live with confirmed or suspected
exposure to radioactive waste. According to the Government
Accountability Office, her constituents may be ``the tip of the
iceberg.'' This is also life and death for my constituents who
are plagued by dirty power plants, including the massive
Ravenswood Generation Station, which sits right next door to
the largest public housing development in North America. And
polluting sites surround Baruch Houses, StuyTown and Peter
Cooper Village, and NRG's fossil gas proposal near the Astoria
houses in Ocasio-Cortez's district.
Today's witnesses are environmental justice leaders
appointed to the White House Environmental Justice Advisory
Council, which released an excellent list of implementation--
implementation recommendations in May. Among them was a very
important piece of common sense. In addition to ensuring 40
percent of our climate and infrastructure investments go to
hard hit communities, we need to make sure that none of these
investments hurt these communities. Using some investments to
cause pollution and other funds to stop it falls far short of
what our hardest hit communities need. Children are getting
sick. People are dying. We must get this right. Now it's up to
the White House, Federal agencies, and Congress to make
Justice40 a reality.
Yesterday, the White House released its interim
implementation guidance, directing agencies to immediately
begin work with OMB to implement Justice40 over the next 150
days. Agencies are required to deliver clean methodologies for
calculating and targeting benefits, as well as reports on the
percentage of benefits that actually go to impacted
communities. These reports will convey agencies' progress on
tangible improvements, like new wastewater systems in impacted
communities. Importantly, the guidance also establishes a pilot
effort that directs 21 programs to go beyond the 40 percent
target and work to maximize the benefits directed to impacted
communities. In other words, 40 percent is a floor, not a
ceiling. The Oversight Committee has a key role to play in this
and stands ready to work with the White House and community
partners to ensure Justice40 is fully implemented in the Build
Back Better Climate Plan.
As chairwoman, I will be focusing on several key
priorities. First, Justice40 cannot be isolated in just one
agency. We need a whole-of-government approach like the one put
forward by President Biden and the White House Environmental
Justice Advisory Council. Second, this approach must be guided
by frontline voices. Innovative efforts in New York,
California, and Delaware, South Carolina, and elsewhere provide
a roadmap of what is possible. Third, we need robust Federal
data about the full extent or impact of climate change and
pollution on our communities. Many of our committee members are
leading the way with legislation to create cutting-edge
environmental justice and data collection tools to incorporate
climate risk and frontline impact into agency planning and
congressional projections and to foster good paying jobs. Let
me also note that environmental justice should not be a
partisan issue. Americans in both red and blue states and in
both urban and rural communities are struggling with the rising
impacts of climate change and pollution, and I am hopeful that
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join together to
address this crisis together.
I want to thank the remarkable panel for being here today,
and I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr.
Comer, for an opening statement.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. I want to thank
the witnesses for their willingness to appear before the
committee today. We are here today for a hearing on the Biden
Administration's American Jobs Plan that calls for billions of
dollars in new spending on climate change. The premise of
today's hearing is to discuss the Justice40 Initiative, which
directs 40 percent of the benefits and climate and clean
infrastructure investments to economically disadvantaged
communities. Ironically, there is no witness from the Biden
Administration here to answer our questions. It is no wonder
the Lugar Center recently gave Democrats on this committee an F
in congressional oversight of the Biden Administration.
We have repeatedly asked Chairwoman Maloney to hold
hearings on waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, but,
unfortunately, she has refused. Most recently we asked the
chairwoman to hold a hearing on the backlog of veterans'
records at the National Archives and Records Administration.
Some veterans are sadly waiting almost a year to receive their
records so they can receive their benefits. In fact, we just
learned this week that the Agency is still not returning to
work at full capacity, so records will continue to be delayed.
This is unacceptable--unacceptable treatment for those that
served our country and a worthy hearing topic for this
committee.
Instead, we have had hearings on increasing work perks for
Federal employees and proposals to spend billions of dollars on
radical environmental policies that will increase energy prices
for Americans. Meanwhile, inflation and gas prices are surging.
Americans all over the country are dealing with the realities
of the Biden Administration's policies. According to a recently
released report by AAA, the average price of gas nationwide has
climbed to $3.13, a high for the year, and up 40 percent since
January 1. The increase in gas prices alone is costing American
consumers billions of dollars. This is not the American energy
dominance that we had seen over the prior four years, and it's
just one of the many factors driving up consumer prices, also
referred to as ``inflation,'' in this flailing Biden economy.
The Biden Administration's out-of-control spending is
causing inflation to skyrocket. Americans are now paying more
for goods and services while taking home less money in their
paychecks. Inflation has risen every single month President
Biden has been in office. The price of milk and fruit are up,
rental car prices have increased 87 percent, if you can even
get a rental car, and washing machines are up nearly 30
percent. Instead of examining ways to strengthen our economy,
stop the Biden border crisis, or fix the backlog affecting our
veterans getting benefits, Democrats want to continue spending
billions of dollars on government projects and progressive pipe
dreams, like the American Jobs Plan.
The Committee on Oversight and Reform used to question how
the government spends money, and now we are here having
hearings to try to find new ways to spend taxpayer money, often
with no strings attached. If Democrats want to address the
needs of economically disadvantaged communities, they should be
looking for solutions to encourage investment from the private
sector instead of massive tax increases that only have
negligible climate impact.
Over the past year, the world's economy was essentially
shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, even with this
halt in activity, a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration report from last month shows that it barely made
an impact on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If
the most unparalleled shutdown in human activity that closed
schools and businesses around the world barely impacted carbon
dioxide levels, it raises serious questions about whether
spending massive amounts of U.S. taxpayer money will actually
affect the climate, especially while countries like China and
India continue to pollute at record levels.
I fear that a premature move away from fossil fuels,
particularly from poorer areas, means that they will continue
to have little access to the type of affordable, reliable
energy that enables economic growth and allows for the
provision of clean water and sanitation, widespread
vaccination, and preventative child health services. As I have
said before, coal mining is a way of life in many parts of
America, including my district. Kentucky coal remains an
important component of the Commonwealth's economy and America's
energy portfolio. Until we have replacements for those jobs and
that energy, we cannot in good conscience move forward with
these radical policies. I am eager to hear from Mr. Shay
Hawkins today to learn more about the work he is doing to help
promote opportunity fund investments in economically troubled
rural and urban communities.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and, again, I thank the
witnesses for being here today. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. I recognize
myself to briefly respond to the claims from my Republican
colleague and good friend, that we should be holding a hearing
on something other than environmental justice. Our Nation is in
a climate emergency. There is no doubt about it. Just this
summer, we have seen shocking floods in some parts of our
country, severe drought and a wildfire in Oregon that is so
huge and so hot, that according to experts, it is changing the
weather. It was reported in New York that we could see the
environmental changes in New York, they're saying that the
wildfire is the largest and damaging--most damaging we have
seen, and the impacts of this extreme weather often falls the
hardest on the poorest communities, many of which are already
facing severe health impacts from industrial waste, pollution.
This issue demands action. What's more important than our
planet's health, than our children's health? Republicans may
prefer to change the subject, but I am proud that the Oversight
Committee is seeking real, urgent solutions to this climate
emergency we're confronting in our Nation.
My good friend mentioned the veterans' records. I ask
unanimous consent to place in the record a letter we just sent
out initiating an investigation and calling for documents and
oversight of the Veterans Administration.
Chairwoman Maloney. The Subcommittee on Coronavirus has
issued many reports on waste, fraud, and abuse and our actions
in that area, and I ask unanimous consent to place into the
record that also.
Chairwoman Maloney. He mentioned the economy. According to
the Kiplinger Report, the GDP actually is the highest that I
have ever seen since I have been in office, seven percent GDP,
Gross National Product, and we are employing more people every
month, every day, more people are employed. And, thanks to the
American Rescue Plan that was put forward by the Democrats
without one single Republican vote, hundreds of billions of
dollars have flown out of Washington into the pockets of
individual citizens with unemployment, direct payments, all
kinds of help for them, and also to our cities and our
counties, our tribes, our territories, our states directly to
help them survive and build back after the worst health crisis
in my life, probably in the period of the country. The
Coronavirus-19 claimed many, many lives, and we were not
prepared, because we had cut services in the CDC and all of our
services to get ready for crisises.
I applaud President Biden for centralizing the response of
vaccines, getting them out quickly, demanding a 70-percent
success rate, which we're almost at, we are at in my district
because we all worked hard to get everybody vaccinated. Twenty
billion dollars was put into the American Rescue Plan to get
vaccines out across the country to everyone who needs it. And
we now are trying to get those who do not want to get
vaccinated, vaccinated, because it is for their good health and
the health of the Nation. But I don't want to be sidetracked
into other items. The purpose of this hearing is the climate
emergency. It is the climate crisis that we're confronting and
what is this Nation going to do about it.
I would now like to call on and recognize the chairman--the
distinguished chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Ro
Khanna, for his opening statement. Mr. Ro Khanna, you are now
recognized, and then we will hear from our very distinguished
group of panelists that are here today. I am just very thrilled
about what they have been able to accomplish on their own in
other areas in our country and hope we can do the same on a
national level. Mr. Ro Khanna, you are now recognized.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your
incredible leadership with the climate crisis. There is no one
in Congress who cares more about the climate crisis than you in
taking bold action, and it's a sign of your commitment to the
issue that you are really elevating it in your role as chair.
And I also want to thank Russ and the Oversight staff for their
commitment to this issue. Thank you to the panelists.
Let me start by praising President Biden for his vision
that the solution to the climate crisis means jobs and economic
growth in communities left behind. We have all seen the
economic disparity. In my district in Silicon Valley, $11
trillion of market cap. When you go to rural communities,
storefronts are vacant. You see people having to leave. You see
churches dwindling. You go to black and brown communities, and
a lot of the same challenges of economic de-industrialization.
President Biden wants to close that gap. He wants to say
that it is not fair that people in rural America may have
flooding or breathe air that is not as clean, or people in
black and brown communities may live in a different and
substandard way than the rest of us. He believes that they all
should have jobs of the future, the manufacturing jobs, the
small business jobs, that those shouldn't just be isolated on
the coast. They need to go into the heartland. They need to go
into left-behind communities. There needs to be racial, gender
equity, geographic equity in the job creation of the future.
That is what Justice40 is about. It's not just about
tackling the environmental crisis that is so severe. It's not
just about making sure kids don't grow up with asthma, that
people drink water that isn't poisoned with lead, that people
don't have to deal with flooding. It's about making sure that
we finally have new manufacturing jobs in communities that have
been left behind, new economic wealth generation in communities
that have been left behind, the future in communities that are
so desperate for new jobs and new opportunity, and that is what
this President does. He cares about those left-behind
communities. That's the whole vision behind a lot of his
economic policies.
The distinguished ranking chair said China, and I share the
view that we need to win on China, but China is actually
marching ahead on a lot of these technologies, and I want to
make sure they don't win, that we do. China just announced a
week ago that they are going to have an emissions system where
they are going to actually have trading in carbon emissions to
try to get to carbon neutrality by 2060, and they're leading--
right now they are beating us, unfortunately, in electric
vehicles. They are putting more money in solar. They are
putting more money in wind. America needs to lead the 21st
century, not China. I don't want the world saying China is
outdoing us in fighting the climate crisis. I don't want the
jobs going to China. I would rather the jobs go to West
Virginia or in the middle of the country or down South. I don't
want them going to China. That is what the President is saying.
He is saying the Justice40 Initiative is making sure America
wins, not China and not other countries, when it comes to
tackling the climate crisis.
So, I applaud the President's leadership. I'm looking
forward to hearing from our distinguished panel. And,
Chairwoman Maloney, thank you again for elevating the
environment and climate crisis in your leadership.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. Now I would
like to introduce the witnesses. Our first witness today is
Richard Moore, who is the co-coordinator of the Los Jardines
Institute, the national coordinator of the Environmental
Justice Health Alliance, and the co-chair of the White House
Environmental Justice Advisory Council. Then we will hear from
Nicole Lee Ndumele, who is the vice president for racial equity
and justice at the Center for American Progress. Next, we will
hear from Harold Mitchell, who is the founder and executive
director of the ReGenesis Community Development Corporation,
and is a member of the White House Environmental Justice
Advisory Council from South Carolina. Next, we will hear from
Raya Salter, who is a member of the New York State Climate
Action Council and has led some very significant advances in
legislation in New York. Next, we will hear from Michael Leon
Guerrero, who is executive director of the Labor Network for
Sustainability. Finally, we will hear from Shay Hawkins, who is
the chairman and CEO of the Opportunity Funds Association.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statement will be made part
of the record.
With that, Mr. Moore, you are now recognized for your
testimony. Mr. Moore?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MOORE, CO-COORDINATOR, LOS JARDINES
INSTITUTE, NATIONAL CO-COORDINATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
HEALTH ALLIANCE; AND CO-CHAIR, WHITE HOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mr. Moore. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Madam
Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and the rest of the members of
the committee for this invitation to give testimony before you
today on the Justice40 Initiative and Build Back Better with
environmental justice. I do have to say to the committee and to
the ranking member that we are not a special interest group. We
are those from grassroots communities that live around, and in,
and surrounded by many of the facilities that have been spoken
to already. I offer this testimony on behalf of Los Jardines
Institute, the Gardens Institute, in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance.
More than ever before, the Biden Administration has put
environmental justice on the national agenda. He has done so
through executive orders and with his Justice40 Initiative, and
I will say ``our Justice40 Initiative,'' which directs 40
percent of the benefits of sustainable economy to marginalized
communities, such as the ones we work with in Albuquerque and
the communities that we live in. In the South Valley of
Albuquerque, we have been fighting against community impact
burdens of pollution and social inequity for decades.
South Valley is home to a thriving Hispanic and immigrant
community, rooted in rich culture, traditions, and agricultural
history. However, our community has been subjected to
environmental racism that has left a legacy of contaminated
groundwater through Superfund sites and high levels of toxic
air pollution. Our drinking water has been consistently plagued
by radon and arsenic contamination. We are surrounded by
railyards and industrial facilities, and home to the city's
only landfill contributing to high levels of toxic pollution.
With unsafe water, unclean air, and inadequate access to
health, the community deals with compounding health risks,
which we only saw exacerbated through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Unfortunately, the South Valley is not unique. For many years
communities of color, low-income communities, tribal
communities, and rural communities across the United States
have experienced disproportionate harm from environmental
contaminants and now face disproportionate risk for--from
climate change.
Several points I want to share. Our nation's environmental
laws are sometimes inconsistently applied and often are more
slowly enforced in our communities. Historically, the Federal
Government, through public policies such as residential
segregation, has perpetrated, institutionalized, or defended
injustices that have resulted in environmental injustice and
communities being exposed to hazardous substances. In order to
address these harms arising from environmental racism and to
build a better future, Congress must ensure that at least 40
percent of the Federal investments, including in Federal
legislation, go to programs that deliver real benefits to low-
income communities and communities of color most in need.
New programs should cleanup legacy pollution and create
greater access to renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean
transportation, affordable housing, flood and heat protections,
and other projects that benefit environmental justice
communities. The Federal Government also should find creative
pilot projects that support jobs and job training in
environmentally sustainable industries. Furthermore, Congress
should not add cumulative pollution, which will only reinforce
environmental injustices and violate the spirit of Justice40.
Finally, state governments shouldn't be allowed to divert
Federal funds simply to fill state budget gaps.
We feel strongly that the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, which has interagency coordinating
responsibility, should be adequately resourced and charged with
lead responsibility for the oversight of Justice40
implementation. Also, CEQ and the White House Office of
Management and Budget should receive resources needed to
monitor and clearly track the gaps in Federal investments that
must be filled to meet Justice40 goals. Last, I urge respected
members of this committee to look toward building comprehensive
legislation, such as the Environmental Justice for All Act,
that deals with many of the challenges environmental justice
communities face.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee
Members, for allowing me to give this testimony.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I want to thank you for your very
moving testimony. And to really underscore, we have two
panelists that have worked very closely with President Biden on
formulating this policy that we are looking at today, which
literally came from the community up, so we do have two people
from the Administration here. Their ideas became the Justice40
Initiative.
Our next panelist will be Ms. Ndumele. You are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF NICOLE LEE NDUMELE, VICE PRESIDENT, RACIAL EQUITY
AND JUSTICE, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Ms. Ndumele. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairwoman
Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and members of the committee. I
am very pleased to discuss President Biden's Justice40
Initiative. My name is Nicole Lee Ndumele. I am the Vice
President for Racial Equity and Justice at the Center for
American Progress. CAP is an independent, nonpartisan think
tank committed to improving the lives of all Americans through
bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and
concerted action.
Justice40 is a historic step in the fight for
environmental, economic, and racial justice. Longstanding
discrimination in environmental, housing, infrastructure, and
economic policies have forced too many black, brown, and
indigenous communities to endure high levels of pollution. It
has limited economic mobility within these communities and
stymied equitable and climate resilient housing and community
development opportunities. For many black, brown, and
indigenous communities, exposure to dangerous toxic pollutants
is a hazard of daily life. The cumulative impact of exposure to
high concentrations of pollution leads to higher rates of
cancer, asthma, and other serious health problems, which
undermine these communities' ability to participate equally in
the economy and live safe, healthy, and prosperous lives.
Systemic and institutional racism have facilitated and
exacerbated the concentration of dangerous pollutants in black,
brown, and indigenous communities. Structural inequalities have
led to high levels of racial segregation, significant
environmental and economic injustices, and a persistent and
widening racial wealth gap. This racial wealth gap hinders
black, brown, and indigenous people from accumulating wealth,
and locks them into disadvantaged neighborhoods where they
experience disproportionate environmental harms. We now have a
critical opportunity to turn the tide, not only against climate
change, but also environmental, economic, and racial injustice.
Tireless environmental and racial justice advocates, some of
whom are on this panel today, have been on the front lines of
the fight for a pollution-free environment for decades.
President Biden's (inaudible) commitment to deliver 40
percent of the climate clean energy and infrastructure
investment benefits to disadvantaged communities has the
potential to direct billions of dollars to the communities most
in need, communities who are long overdue for investments in
pollution-free energy and transportation, work force and
community development, affordable and energy efficient housing,
and clean water. Overall, these funds have the potential to
fight climate change, address public health risks, reconnect
neighborhoods that were deliberately segregated, and create
good jobs.
Congress and the Biden Administration must ensure Justice40
implementation delivers on its promise and delivers tangible
benefits to disadvantaged communities, because all too often,
Federal funds intended to benefit disadvantaged communities
either fail to reach these communities, or inadvertently cause
harm. There are many hurdles for disadvantaged communities
trying to receive grants and Federal funds, such as weak
program criteria, lack of protections against community
displacement, cumbersome application and reporting
requirements, technical assistance gaps in communities, and
capacity restraints at Federal agencies. Just yesterday, the
White House released interim guidance for implementing the
Justice40 Initiative, which includes many of the
recommendations made by the Equitable and Just National Climate
Platform, the White House Environmental Justice Advocacy
Council, and CAP to support transparency and accountability and
maximize the benefits delivered to disadvantaged communities.
Congress, and this committee especially, has an important
role to play to ensure that Justice40 delivers real and
measurable benefits to disadvantaged communities to right the
wrongs of environmental and systemic racism. This committee can
require that the climate and economic justice screening tool to
identify disadvantaged communities is designed well and
developed in collaboration with environmental justice advocates
and academics. It can ensure that the environmental justice
scorecard, created to track agency progress, accurately
measures the Administration's performance. It can make sure
that the Administration takes into account recommendations and
lessons learned from State Justice40 implementation and
oversight in places like South Carolina, led by fellow
panelist, Harold Mitchell, and others in other states. The
Administration can also take the time--Congress can also make
sure that the Administration takes the time necessary to
conduct an inclusive and deliberative implementation project--
process.
This committee must use its oversight authority to make
certain that equity in environmental, racial, and economic
justice remain the core goals of Justice40 implementation and
protect the fundamental rights of all communities to breathe
clean air, drink clean water, and have access to economic
opportunities and safe and affordable housing so they can live
healthy and prosperous lives. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Mitchell, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD MITCHELL, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
REGENESIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; AND MEMBER, WHITE
HOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney,
Ranking Member Comer, and members of this distinguished
committee. Thank you for holding this hearing today on this
very important topic about the opportunity and the necessity to
put environmental justice at the heart of a true economic
recovery for our Nation. I am Harold Mitchell, Jr., the founder
and executive director of the ReGenesis Community Development
Corporation based in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and a former
state legislator. I am pleased to appear before you today to
discuss the critical investments in environmental justice and
equitable economic opportunity that President Biden has
proposed, and how Congress must seize this moment to advance
legislation providing solutions that meet these challenges
facing our communities, because our communities are suffering.
They suffer disproportionately and systematically from the
worst toxic, hazardous air pollution, so much of which is
associated with burning of fossil fuels. We are also suffering
from economic disinvestment, lack of opportunity, and from
climate change. But first, let me tell you a little bit more
about the story of ReGenesis. I am here today to show you what
is possible when we work together.
From the first time when I was growing up in Spartanburg,
people were always getting sick and dying. I had a fertilizer
plant located in front of the house and a landfill in back. We
had two EPA-designated Superfund sites and four brownfield
sites polluting our community and poisoning our people, and
preventing the types of economic opportunity that would allow
our community to thrive. In 1998, I created ReGenesis. I began
working with other community residents to identify solutions
and build a healthier community. We had philanthropic partners
and Federal partners, too. We took a $20,000 EPA small grant
and leveraged that into $300 hundred million. We worked with
the Department of Energy on planning charettes; Health and
Human Services on establishing our first federally qualified
health center that expanded into seven sites and two pharmacies
in three different counties, one which is with Congressman
Ralph Norman, which he was able to visit and see how that
impact has turned around the behavioral health and the issues
they are facing in his community; the Department of Labor and
Department of Commerce on investing in jobs and economic
opportunities, like a new grocery store complex in a once food
desert. A $7 million green recreational facility was also
built. We built energy efficient affordable housing, and solar
that was attached too, with the investment from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development and a $20 million HOPE VI
grant.
The Department of Justice's Weed and Seed reduced crime by
92 percent in that community, and EPA helped us with the
cleanup of the legacy of toxic pollution, from where the
brownfields and Superfund sites are ready for reuse as
designated opportunity zones. And as an example for one of
those Superfund sites that was an opportunity zone designation,
now we are looking to use that landfill, converting it to a
community solar project with Solvay Chemicals and Duke Energy.
All of these solutions were built from the ground up by our
community, but none of this would have happened without the
willing partner in the Federal Government. And if that can be
done in a red state like Spartanburg, South Carolina, it could
be done anywhere in the country.
Now, as you turn to advancing legislation that meets or
exceeds the commitments by President Biden in his American Jobs
Plan, I encourage you, be bold and deliver on environmental
justice and equitable economic opportunity. President Biden's
Justice40 Initiative targeting 40 percent of the benefits of
climate and clean energy infrastructure investments to
disadvantaged communities should permeate every Federal
investment and, in some areas, like Superfunds, should exceed
the 40 percent. Our communities must be ready to receive these
investments. That is why this year, I have worked with state
Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter to advance a bill that's in
the South Carolina legislature to establish the State's
Justice40 oversight committee. This is to help identify and
ensure that disadvantaged communities derive the full benefit
of these Federal investments. Other states are using the South
Carolina legislation as a model. The Delaware legislature
recently passed a joint resolution establishing a Justice40
oversight committee. We are now working with other states,
Governors, and legislatures, too.
You all in Congress have a historic opportunity this year
to pass legislation that confronts systemic environmental
injustice, and helps avoid the worst impacts of climate change,
and that builds a more just, inclusive, and thriving clean
energy. I hope that you will seize this moment. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you today, and I, with
others, stand ready to work with you to build a more just and
equitable future for all Americans.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much. Ms. Salter, you
are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RAYA SALTER, ESQUIRE, MEMBER, NEW YORK STATE
CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL
Ms. Salter. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and distinguished members. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify today. My name is Raya Salter. I am an
energy attorney based in New Rochelle, New York, Lenape land. I
am a member of the New York State Climate Action Council, which
is developing the scoping plan for New York to achieve its
statewide greenhouse gas emissions goals. I am also the policy
organizer for New York Renews, a coalition of over 280
environmental justice, labor, and community groups, and the
force behind the 2019 New York Climate Leadership and Community
Protection Act, the Nation's most progressive climate law, and
we are very proud to say the state precedent and example for
the Justice40. Since the passage of the law, I have been
working with the State Climate Action Council and New York
Renews to ensure the implementation of New York's Justice40.
I started my legal career as an energy associate with the
Law Firm of Dewey & LeBoeuf in New York City. In prior roles, I
was a regulatory attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund,
and a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense
Council. I have worked with activists, community stakeholders,
utilities, and other thought leaders from New York to Hawaii to
promote the just integration of clean and renewable energy onto
electric grids. I am an adjunct professor of law at Cardozo Law
School, and my book, Energy Justice, was published in 2018.
Before becoming a lawyer, I worked for community-based
organizations in both Yonkers and Brooklyn, New York. I am a
deep believer in popular and public education on these issues,
so I invite all of you to consider me your climate auntie, and
that is actually where you can find me on both IG and TikTok.
First, I want to thank you again for this important
investigation into the need for the American Jobs Plan to
comprehensively address climate and environmental justice. This
means that as we build energy and related infrastructure at the
scale needed to address the climate crisis, we must also change
the trajectory of harm that many infrastructure projects have
historically caused communities of color. It's important to
know that in New York law, the 40 percent investment mandate
sits within a broader justice framework that is critical for
its success. So, yes, New York law mandates that a goal of 40
percent of the benefits must be realized by disadvantaged
communities, and New York law is very broad in what those
investments mean: all energy and energy efficiency investments.
Please make sure the American Jobs Plan is broad, too.
But New York law goes further. It provides significant do
no harm protections in statute for frontline communities as
infrastructure is permitted, planned for, and built, and
requires, among other things, that all state agencies in their
permit approvals and licenses must not disproportionately harm
frontline communities. Projects requiring major permits must
demonstrate that future climate risk has been considered,
including impacts on disadvantaged communities, and very
important, early action must be taken to prioritize reductions
of co-pollutants and greenhouse gases in disadvantaged
communities. Make sure to require co-pollutant tracking and
accounting and demand cumulative impact analysis. Demand early
action. If you fail to do this, the projects will rush forth
with no way to understand if they are achieving the Justice40
goals. These provisions in New York provide guardrails for
environmental justice communities, and the American Jobs Plan
should also incorporate these types of express controls into
agency decision-making.
In addition, I advise that you to make the language
explicit now and get ready to build in oversight later, or, I
emphasize again, when the money flows, the community-led
coffers will remain dry. So first, measure benefits to
disadvantaged communities in dollars spent. When the standard
has been used in New York, we have seen success. Include funded
mechanisms for procedural and participatory justice designed to
include frontline communities in all aspects of infrastructure
investment decisions. Fund and develop community-based
infrastructure for community-controlled investments. Make sure
the money goes to community-led projects. Build new financing
structures to ensure that the money goes where it is supposed
to go. I also fully support the WHEJAC recommendations for
Justice40, which include important protocols with regard to
indigenous nations and communities, equity mapping, and other
matters.
Thank you again so much for this opportunity to testify
before you. It has been an honor.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Guerrero, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LEON GUERRERO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LABOR
NETWORK FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Mr. Guerrero. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer,
members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Michael Leon Guerrero. I am the
executive director of the Labor Network for Sustainability. We
are a national network of worker, climate, and environmental
justice organizations working for an ecologically sustainable
and economically just future. We affirm that environmental
justice is central to the American Jobs Plan, as are the voices
of workers and communities in the process. My remarks will be
brief, but I refer you to my written comments for greater
detail.
These are troubling and turbulent times that require bold
and creative action. They compel us to ensure that the goals of
creating good jobs and protecting our environment are not
incompatible. We commend President Biden for centering job
creation, the rights of workers, and environmental justice in
his climate protection strategy. Earlier this year, LNS
published a report, ``Workers and Communities in Transition,''
based on a national year-long Just Transition Listening
Project. These were in-depth interviews with people across the
country who experienced major job loss in their communities due
to factory closures, the pandemic, and other causes. Many
interviewees described the economic devastation and personal
trauma in the wake of plant closures and support systems that
were wholly inadequate. Without healthcare, insufficient
unemployment benefits, and a lack of good new jobs, people just
couldn't make ends meet. Many lost loved ones to suicide,
alcoholism, or drug addiction.
The principal finding was that transitions are inevitable
and constantly happening across the economy. Workers in fossil
fuel industries are already losing their jobs, not due to
climate change policies, but to market forces or the pandemic.
As a country, we are just not well prepared for these changes,
but the Listening Project also tells a story of innovative
community and labor-led solutions to navigate these
transitions. A set of recommendations is included in the
Listening Project report, and we offer four overarching
recommendations that are described in detail in my written
testimony.
First, we must create family sustaining jobs that address
equity and communities in need. The full range of programs
promised by the American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan
would be a vital first step in creating millions of jobs in
repairing and upgrading our Nation's infrastructure. For
instance, electrifying transportation and expanding our public
transit systems can create thousands of good jobs in
manufacturing, operations, and maintenance, and address
environmental justice for communities overburdened by pollution
and underserved by transit options. The Invest Act and the
Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act offer vital
measures in this direction. The Orphaned Wells Cleanup and Jobs
Act of 2021 can help to protect and restore our environment.
With the addition of strong labor standards, it can create
thousands of long-term, good-paying jobs in urban and rural
communities.
Second, job creation must be paired with high road labor
standards to help ensure that workers who experience job loss
in the new economy can transition to a good job. These include
prevailing wages and benefits, targeted and local hiring for
underserved communities and displaced fossil fuel workers,
apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship hiring, project labor and
community work force agreements, and organizing rights,
including passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act.
Third, we must expand and strengthen social safety nets.
The Federal Government should dedicate significant funding to
support transition efforts. You can do this by establishing a
national just transition or worker and community protection
fund; providing financial support to communities that lose tax
revenue as a result of facility closures; increasing and
extending benefits, like unemployment, healthcare, and
childcare; expanding the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to
apply to other major economic trends, like the transition to a
clean energy economy; and fully funding state rapid response
programs that provide critical peer-to-peer support for workers
to access financial resources, social services, and more.
Our fourth recommendation is to support active community
and worker engagement. The state of Colorado's Just Transition
Program, for instance, was crafted by a broad-based coalition
of labor, environmental justice, and other organizations. It
establishes a just transition fund that invests initially in
coal workers and communities by providing wage replacement for
workers who transition to lower-paying jobs, investing in
economic development, and other support. Colorado's program is
a fully bipartisan effort supported by state legislators across
the political spectrum. However, without the support of the
Federal Government, Colorado and other states will struggle to
fully implement groundbreaking programs like this.
Record heat and intense wildfires in the U.S. and raging
floods in Europe are reminding us that we are way behind in a
transition from fossil fuels to a clean energy future. Action
must be swift, but thoughtful, with a managed transition that
is just, and will not treat workers and communities as stranded
assets. Waiting, though, is no longer an option. We strongly
urge you to take action now to pass the strongest version of
the American Jobs Plan possible.
Thank you so much for your consideration and attention to
these issues.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Hawkins,
you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SHAY HAWKINS, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, OPPORTUNITY FUNDS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hawkins. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to
be with you today. This will be my 5th time testifying before
Congress, but my first time testifying before the full
Oversight and Reform Committee, so I thank you so much for
having me.
I am the co-founder and president of the Opportunity Funds
Association, and this morning I would like to discuss how
opportunity zones are targeting private investment in areas of
the country that have been de-industrialized and historically
disadvantaged, and how opportunity zones can be expanded in
ways to help provide cleaner, more affordable, more secure
energy. Further, I would like to emphasize the importance of
pursuing an infrastructure program that makes significant
investments in traditional infrastructure without crippling tax
increases on small businesses and workers that would undermine
the historic progress made prior to the pandemic in minimizing
minority unemployment and raising minority incomes.
So, prior to founding the Opportunity Fund Association, I
served as majority staff director for the Senate Finance
Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure,
and as tax counsel to Senator Tim Scott, where I helped
champion the Investing in Opportunity Act legislation authored
by Senators Tim Scott and Cory Booker from New Jersey. That
ultimately became opportunity zones. IRS data shows that $24
billion has been raised for investment so far, with billions of
that having actually been raised during the pandemic. And an
August report from the Council of Economic Advisers estimates
that opportunity zones will lift 1 million Americans from
poverty and reduce poverty in designated opportunity zones by
11 percent.
We are also seeing operating businesses taking root in
opportunity zones in critical energy--critical industries, such
as clean energy. There are 475 solar energy installations
producing more than 1 megawatt of activity in opportunity
zones, as well as about 127 wind farms and 15 battery plants of
at least the same capacity. So, more specifically, Hoosier
Solar Holdings is embarking on a large-scale solar build-out
project in Indiana using opportunity zone financing. They are
operating under $20 million in opportunity zone capital, and
have plans for six utility-scale solar projects across four
counties.
In a lot of cases, the greatest and greenest building is
the one that is already built. So, America's legacy communities
are full of vibrant, historic buildings that fell into sort of
severe disrepair when jobs and industry left the urban core.
So, in Philadelphia, for instance, real estate developers,
Sterling Wilson and Southwood Partners, have partnered with PNC
Bank to redevelop a defunct creamery, Harbisons Dairy. You have
seen this kind of like 10,000-gallon milk bottle that is kind
of historic landmark. So, they redeveloped this to create 50
units of work force housing. They built a new headquarters for
Pop! Promos, one of the city's fastest-growing companies. And
this team's next collaboration is going to be to develop an
affordable food manufacturing space for minority-owned
businesses there.
So, Congress can really help by, first of all, pursuing an
infrastructure plan without tax increases. So, current
inflation rates are above 12 percent. We have seen inflation
increase in every month of this year. And so, Congress imposing
additional taxes on small business and workers will
essentially, you know, double the existing pain that we are
seeing from inflation, so that is going to be critical. And I
look forward to discussing other ways that Congress and this
committee can get more capital into minority communities and
distressed communities, and secure cleaner, more affordable
energy for all Americans. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much, and I thank all of
the panelists. I now recognize myself for questions.
We are here today because the status quo is not working. In
1994, President Clinton issued an executive order directing
each Federal agency to make environmental justice part of their
mission. Seven years later, a wave of 10 dirty power plants,
nearly all of them in communities already facing structural
inequality, went up and in around my district in New York City.
They were so dirty and dangerous to public health that
residents were promised they would close in just three years,
but 20 years later, they are still burning the dirtiest oil and
gas in some of our densest neighborhoods.
Two plants in Long Island City pollute alongside the
Ravenswood Generation Station, one of the largest power plants
in the country, right next to Queensbridge Houses, the largest
public housing development on the continent. Four plants in the
Port Morris section of the Bronx contribute to some of the
worst air quality in the country, with tens of thousands of
truck trips spewing smog along the streets. It is so bad that
areas, represented by myself and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez,
are called ``Asthma Alley.'' In one Manhattan neighborhood I
represent, there are tens of thousands of people, including
some in public housing, who live within a few blocks of a power
plant, and they are planning to build two more polluting
facilities. So, my first question is to Mrs. Salter. How would
implementing Justice40 at the Federal level help address these
environmental harms?
Ms. Salter. Thank you, Chairman Maloney, for asking that
critical question, and you are exactly right. We know that PM
2.5 in New York City causes more than 3,000 deaths each year,
2,000 hospital admissions, 6,000 emergency department visits
for asthma, and a lot of it is due exactly to those peaker
plants that you are talking about. And by the way, we spend
$4.5 billion on capacity payments to keep those aging, dirty
peakers open.
And so, what can Justice40 help do? We need to work to
close those peakers and replace them with local, community-led,
renewable solutions, like what We Act for Environmental Justice
can do with energy efficiency and solar on buildings, like what
we can do by closing Rikers Island and turning it into a hub
for clean energy, like what the Point CDC is doing with green
infrastructure. So, there is a tremendous amount of good that
can be done by the Justice40.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, it is clear we need a plan, and
we need action. Mr. Moore, in your personal assessment, would
you say that all Federal agencies have made environmental
justice a top focus since 1994, and is it a focus for all
agencies today? And what are some of the most immediate steps
we can take to make sure that we close these polluting sites
that are taking years off our constituents' lives? Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would say, based
on our experience throughout all these years, that in previous
years, one, that this is the first Administration that has not
only spoke to environmental justice, but listened to
environmental justice communities, and so this is crucial with
the 40 Justice framework. Additionally, I would say in response
to your question, Madam Chair, that it is important for this
committee to understand that, one, I am not here representing
the WHEJAC today, but those WHEJAC members in many cases are
volunteers. And so, I have to give credit to the tremendous
amount of work that the WHEJAC Council has done in terms of
engaging with communities, bringing these experiences to the
table as life and death issues.
Very clearly, within the Justice40, and, as you said, that
was released yesterday. Then based upon that, it calls upon all
Federal agencies to create and lay a guideline for all Federal
agencies to be able to--to look at the 40-percent investment
and to make sure that that 40 percent is largely put in not
only legacy communities and historical environmental justice
communities, but that it is put in rural communities and so on.
So, there are over 20 agencies that have addressed the interim
guidance that was released yesterday and is very important to
this. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. And, Mr. Mitchell, very
briefly, your leadership in South Carolina is at the cutting
edge of environmental justice legislation. What do you think
effective implementation of the Federal Environmental Justice
Initiative looks like, and then my time has expired. Thank you
all. I wish I had an hour to ask more questions to all of you,
but we have everybody waiting to talk. Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Mitchell. What that would look like is having what
President Biden, when he was then candidate Biden, did, was
listen to those on the ground, the frontline, fence-line
members from around the country. And he asked us what could the
government do to help fix these problems. And he actually put a
plan together, listening to many of these folks from around the
country, and didn't put it out until listening and talking, and
wanting to make sure to get it right, because just like in
South Carolina, Senator Fritz Hollings and Strom Thurmond in
Spartanburg, on paper it was shown that the fertilizer plant
was closed properly, but we found later that there was
hazardous waste from Atlantic Station in Georgia that was
shipped to Spartanburg, South Carolina for disposal. And this,
as far as the release, had traumatic impacts within the
community.
Now, until you listen, and you get out of the beltway, and
go into these communities and find out what those problems are
to find the solutions, and this is exactly what President Biden
did and influenced the Justice40 Initiative. So, I think once
we're able to get on the ground, put these resources, find the
needs, look at, as Ranking Member Comer stated, you know, we
were in a pandemic. And the good thing about it, it showed us
how we kicked the can down the road, and we didn't properly
invest in healthcare, because when we look at the
disproportionate impact of those that were affected, were many
of the states that chose not to expand Medicaid. And these are
people that didn't have medical coverage, underlying
conditions, and those are the ones that we saw that tested
positive and died.
So, I think with this whole push right now with the
Justice40 Initiative, being able to get it right and invest
rightly in these communities with the proper oversight, I think
we can turn around not only the black and brown, but the tribal
and the entire country to move in the right direction of
building back better.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Just very briefly, and I am
going to recognize Mr. Comer as much time as he needs. I just
want to say in the weeks ahead, I plan to advance an All of the
Benefits, None of the Harm Environmental Justice platform. Your
testimony today from all of you will be invaluable in preparing
this. And next month I hope to plan and hold a field hearing on
the peaker power plants that Ms. Salter talked about that are
polluting my district, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's, and many
other districts in New York City. And as chair of the Oversight
Committee, I will be doing everything in my power to ensure
that the Federal dollars get to the communities that need them,
and that agencies incorporate environmental justice into their
agendas. Thank you for your inspiring testimony.
I recognize, at the request of Mr. Comer, the gentleman
from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, for as much time as he may consume.
Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to first
comment on the repetition of this hearing topic from the
Environmental Subcommittee, yet we still have not held a
hearing on the ongoing crisis at the southern border. I was
just down in Casa Grande cleaning up and exploring a known
superhighway of smuggling of drugs, human and sex trafficking
in through Arizona, and can assure you there is a crisis
occurring which we have yet to investigate. But I guess that is
why we gave the majority an F for oversight recently.
Mr. Biden, through his American Jobs Plan and other related
climate Presidential actions, has committed an environmental
injustice, putting climate at the forefront of national
security and allegedly leading us into a new green future that
will create American jobs and economic growth. Yet the reality
of his policy proposals actually undermines those very stated
goals. What do I mean by that? Let's begin with American Jobs
Plan: $174 billion investment in electric vehicles. We can take
it even higher from there because the entire electrified future
has a similar issue: reliance on mining and processing of
minerals.
Outside of just electric vehicles, the IEA recently
reported that the energy sector's need for minerals could rise
as much as six times by 2040. Even though the American Jobs
Plan calls for battery production, securing supply chains, and
more, Mr. Biden and radical environmentalists have attacked and
worked to shut down mines across the country, which produce
cobalt, lithium, nickel, and more, all things needed for
electric vehicles, batteries, turbines, solar panels, and more.
So, while we increase our demand--so, while we increase
demand but reduce American supply, we must look abroad from
minerals in nations which lack labor and environmental rules we
abide by here in the United States. We then get minerals mined
in Congo by child labor to make our electric vehicles and solar
panels for the electric grid that they want to get these
vehicles to from slave labor in China. Does this sound like
justice to any of you?
Let's look at this from another direction. In the
majority's memo for this hearing, they cite Mr. Biden's
Executive Order 14008, which put the climate crisis at the
forefront of the Nation's foreign policy and national security
planning. Yet one of Mr. Biden's first actions was an attempt
to ban oil and gas drilling or really any production or product
which is connected to fossil fuels. In fact, the chairwoman
highlighted this dirty oil and stuff coming out of Russia for
the most part. However, just because we cut domestic production
does not mean domestic consumption decreases. Why do you think
the American people are so worried about inflation and
skyrocketing gas prices? Because banning gas and oil production
does not correlate with less trips to the pump for the American
people, just more American oil and gas workers and companies
out of business.
So then, what do we do for energy sources, turn to foreign
nations which produced these resources, like Russia, Venezuela,
adversarial authoritarian nations? Does that sound like strong
American national security? These nations not only hurt our
national energy security, but they have much less strict
environmental regulations. Because of the lax regulations and
aging energy infrastructure, unlike in the U.S., we are
importing energy from nations whose pipelines emit more methane
than ours and are at risk of catastrophic accidents. Does
higher emissions and higher risk of pollution from foreign
energy sources sound like putting the climate crisis first in
foreign policy? When our environmental rules drive American
companies out, we don't stop using these resources. In fact,
many of these resources are fundamental to the majority's plan
for an electrified future. These globalist policies actually
create more injustices around the world, have little impact on
the actual pursuit of a green future, and sends the job and
economic growth promise to foreign nations as we ban every
domestic industry required to sustain America's energy needs
for the future.
The American Jobs Plan addresses none of these underlying
issues, and, in fact, lies to the American people by suggesting
it is accomplishing these issues--goals when, in reality, it is
shipping these human rights and environmental issues overseas
out of sight, out of mind. That is a dichotomy. Thank you,
Madam Chair, and with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, is now
recognized. Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this important
hearing, notwithstanding what we just heard from the other
side. The witnesses that you have invited today have just the
kind of extensive background working at the grassroots level
that we need, and particularly in the spirit of the President's
Justice40 Initiative. I want to start with Ms. Salter because I
am interested in enfranchisement and procedural justice, which
are so important to the process of designing programs that
actually work for the communities that they are meant to serve.
Ms. Salter, you recommend that the American Jobs Plan include
what you say are mechanisms for procedural and participatory
justice designed to include frontline communities in all
aspects of infrastructure investment decisions, so I would be
very interested in examples of how this has been implemented at
the state level.
Ms. Salter. Thank you so much. That is an excellent
question, and I will give you an example from New York State.
So, I mentioned that it was activists who pushed for the 2019
Climate and Community Protection Act and baked into the act
were several procedural justice matters. One was the creation
of a Climate Action Council, which is developing the state
scoping plan that includes community members, including myself.
Another key part of that process is a Climate Justice Working
Group that the statute required be appointed and include
environmental justice, frontline communities, and others. Now,
they are the ones who are deciding who is a disadvantaged
community under New York's Justice40. So, those are just a few
examples of the type of, you know, procedural justice pieces
where you actually get frontline leadership at the helm of
decision-making.
Ms. Norton. You have also pointed out that the--the funds
directed at frontline communities are provided for community
leadership. You indicate a number of things that they provide
for, so I really want to get to how the Federal Government can
best provide technical assistance.
Ms. Salter. Yes. This is--sorry, ma'am. This is just one of
those critically important areas, and I don't think that New
York state is doing enough in this area, but that, really,
frontline communities need a host of technical assistance if
folks are to actually participate in these proceedings. And
that means in some states, they have intervener compensation,
which gives actual funds to participate in hearings and
administrative dockets. I mean, that is just the beginning.
There needs to be help so that communities can process
applications, can access their own----
Ms. Norton. From the Federal Government? From the Federal
Government?
Ms. Salter. Yes, ma'am, so that when a community group
wants to apply, they can actually have assistance from an
engineer or a grant writer to help them fill out application.
That is one example.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Mr. Mitchell, let me turn to you. I
think I have a little time left. Which existing Federal
programs have been most important in serving the needs of the
environmental justice community, and, at the same time, what
Federal programs are actually missing the mark, and why do you
think that's happening?
Mr. Mitchell. I would say Health and Human Services, HUD,
EPA for their cleanups of many of these legacy sites. Who is
missing from the table, I would say, is the Department of
Commerce and Department of Treasury. And as our witness, Mr.
Hawkins, stated, that is a very important piece when you are
talking about the opportunity zones and the opportunities to
redevelop some of these sites where we can put into productive
reuse once they are cleaned up and put into productive
opportunities for job creation. And I would also add the
Department of Labor, as witness Salter stated. You know, this
is one of the things that the Department of Labor's work force
investment and what we see from our technical colleges in our
communities, that they could actually do the training and
provide resources to nonprofits directly for their operations.
Ms. Norton. Well, that's very important information that
this committee should receive and make sure that those agencies
are doing what you say is necessary. Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlewoman from North
Carolina, Dr. Foxx, is now recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I want
to thank our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Hawkins, can
you discuss how, in your opinion, the Green New Deal would
impact communities that are economically disadvantaged?
Mr. Hawkins. And so, thank you, Dr. Foxx. When we are
looking at the Green New Deal, for instance, it's the
combination of the problems and the potential negative impact
on distressed communities come in two forms: one, in a
regulatory environment that undermines job creation in these
communities, and then, two, in the potential costs. So, right
now, every month of 2021, we have seen an increase in
inflation, so it's not something that is deliberate, but you
could almost look at it as if--as if Congress imposed a
deliberate 12 percent tax on the poorest Americans in the
country. And so, we can't impose anything that would then add
additional taxes onto the workers and onto the residents of
these communities.
Ms. Foxx. And we know the American people, all of them, are
beginning to understand this, that the Biden Administration has
brought an inflation, almost crisis, on the heads of Americans,
and you are right, that always impacts the poorest in the
Nation. Can you talk a little bit more about how it would
impact, particularly, opportunity zones?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes. So, opportunity zones are areas that
Governors were able to designate for a specific type of tax-
advantaged investment, and these are areas that have a poverty
rate of at least 20 percent and an average income within a
state that is less than 80 percent of the state average, so it
is the poorest areas of any given state or territory. Thirty-
seven percent of these areas are what we call hyper-distressed
zones, and these are areas that have even more severe
statistics in these areas. So, these areas are typically the
first to be crammed down in a recession, and they are the last
to recover when an economy is picking back up. And so, anything
that would impose a more severe burden on these communities is
going to be devastating.
Ms. Foxx. Well, I think this is a pretty simple answer. I
think we have seen it in the past, and I believe we will see it
in the future, but you alluded to it in your first answer.
Would you say that increased government regulations and
bureaucratic red tape actually decrease jobs and economic
opportunities and decrease it in disadvantaged communities? I
think you have already said that, but I will let you say it
again.
Mr. Hawkins. Yes, it's problematic.
Ms. Foxx. Right.
Mr. Hawkins. The regulations should be limited to things
that directly impact public safety within these communities.
Anything else is just going to undermine job creation in those
communities, and the lack of economic opportunity is the
primary driver of distress in these communities.
Ms. Foxx. Right. Well, we know that C02 emissions in China,
India, and other nations are increasing while the same
emissions are decreasing here in America. Do you believe that
the Democrats' current proposal to curb emissions here, when
they are already going down, will put us at an economic
disadvantage compared to these other countries?
Mr. Hawkins. I think the current proposals would put us at
an economic disadvantage. You know, it is kind of like having,
you know, one hand handcuffed behind your back in a fight. What
we can say is that there are bipartisan proposals out there
that make significant investments in traditional
infrastructure, and, you know, clean energy that doesn't
require severe tax increases that would come on top of the
inflation tax that we are seeing on the poorest Americans.
Ms. Foxx. Right. I think we need to continue to call it an
inflation tax. I want to reiterate very quickly--I have a
little time left--that reducing mandates and red tape will
alleviate small communities, particularly economically
disadvantaged communities. I think you and I agree on that,
don't we?
Mr. Hawkins. We do.
Ms. Foxx. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized for five minutes. Mr.
Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. To begin with, it
gives me no pleasure at all to remind my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle who are complaining about which topics
that we bring up for oversight investigation. I just want to
remind them of what happened on January 6, and I watched my
colleagues run for their lives in the face of the attacks on
the Capitol. And then after the attacks on the Capitol, and the
loss of life, and the damage to the very building that we sit
in, I watched my colleagues on the other side of the aisle run
again, away from any investigation of the attacks on the
Capitol. So, please spare me these arguments about the choice
of things to investigate. If you want to investigate something,
investigate your oath of office. Investigate your oath of
office. Go look at it, when you solemnly swore to protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States and give true
faith and allegiance for all that it stands for, so help me
God. And then revisit your actions on that day and thereafter,
OK?
Now, I will turn to the subject. First of all, I want to
thank all these wonderful witnesses that have engaged on this
issue. I happen to represent the city of Brockton, which is a
minority-majority city. We have got elevated asthma. They have
had a very, very tough time dealing with this pandemic. We have
had a lot of loss of life and a lot of cases of COVID. And I
want to thank the chairwoman, Mrs. Maloney, for helping me. We
got an amendment through on the postal bill that would actually
convert all of the postal vehicles, post office vehicles,
237,000 vehicles, to zero emission vehicles in a very short
period of time, and I am very happy to say in the
transportation bill, I also got a bill called the Green Buses
for Every City Act. A lot of these smaller communities really
rely on the bus service, and they have got these old diesel
buses that are causing great havoc with the air quality in
these cities.
And I just want to ask Attorney Salter, you sort of hit on
this in your opening remarks. We're trying 100 different things
to address, you know, the environmental justice issue in black
and brown communities, but I'm worried about how we measure
that if we are trying all these different responses. Do we have
accurate tools that allow us to determine what are the best
practices? What are we doing that is of the greatest benefit to
these communities? Do we have those tools, do we still need to
develop them, and is there a clearinghouse or a group that is
tracking the improvement, because it may be incremental over a
certain period of time? But I would like to get your thoughts
on that, please.
Ms. Salter. Thank you so much. So, we do have tools, and we
also need to develop more, and part of this is sort of
resources to fund the full investigations of the infrastructure
that we already have. For instance, New York law, the CLCPA,
requires a full accounting and pilot programs to begin actually
going through areas and measuring--specifically measuring co-
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions so we can actually
develop that baseline that we need, and then implement these
case studies and these scalable solutions, and then actually
track and see how we do as we go. And so, we need the support
of the Federal Government and others to fund these types of
projects so that we can know what we are dealing with, bring in
the solutions that will work, and measure and track it. And
that's something also we truly hope this committee will
continue to do in oversight.
Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I see my
time has just about expired, so I will yield back. Thank you
very much.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you, and the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Hice, is now recognized for five minutes. Mr.
Hice?
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would just remind
my colleague that we have had multiple hearings on January 6,
and we don't really need the self-righteous preaching from him
when there were 574 other declared riots, and I don't recall
him or any of my colleagues on the left trying to do anything
about those, or address BLM or Antifa, or any such thing.
I have heard a lot of talk today about equality and equity,
which, of course, equity for my Democratic colleagues is just
another code word for ``socialism,'' taking from one and giving
to another. This is not how America operates. But Madam Chair,
I would just say yet again today, there is not equality and
equity in this committee room. We have five witnesses from the
majority side, only one for the minority. There is no equity,
there is no equality in that, and yet another one was added
even today or yesterday, and we didn't even know anything about
it. Coming to this hearing today, I think this is yet just
another example of a massive attempt of distraction from the
majority party to hide the devastation that is happening in our
country today, and we need real oversight. It's time for us to
do our job as a committee.
There is a lot of talk praising President Biden today. But
look, this committee ought to be discussing things like the
surge of immigrants that are crossing our border right now,
and, in light of that, let's give credit where credit is due,
and let's tag this one on President Biden's shoulders as well.
We just had an announcement by Customs and Border Protection of
over 888,000 enforcement encounters at our southern border in
June, last month, a 450 percent increase over June of last
year. Four hundred and fifty percent increase. It is
unbelievable. We have seen disturbing footage coming from our
southern border. The Rio Grande Valley sector chief agent
tweeted that they apprehended over 15,000 migrants in just one
week.
Simultaneously, this committee ought to be dealing with
things like skyrocketing cost of living costs. Americans are
paying more for goods and services because of out-of-control
Democratic-led spending. And now we are watching the
development of potentially of a $3-and-a-half trillion,
possibly $5 trillion package of more spending coming from our
Democratic colleagues. This is going to be devastating to the
American families who are already struggling to get by. And
speaking of spending, the government spent trillions of dollars
on COVID relief in the past year, but in recent months, we have
found that there has been a lot of fraud in all of that. In
fact, an NBC article stated that the Labor Department Inspector
General estimates over $63 billion of fraudulent disbursements.
This is unbelievable. In fact, they are saying that it could be
much higher than that, well in excess of $100 billion. Madam
Chair, I want to know, are we going to have any hearings about
this to investigate the fraud and abuse of the COVID relief
money that they went out? It would seem that this is the type
of waste, fraud, and abuse that this committee ought to be
looking into.
And rather than justice for the environment, why aren't we
talking about justice for people who are living in violent
cities? We are seeing crime has risen 23 percent overall. This
past year, according to the National Fraternal Order of Police,
they recently put out that homicides and shootings have
increased exponentially since President Trump left office.
Homicides are up to 58 percent in Atlanta, in my home state,
533 percent up in Portland, 37 percent up in Philadelphia.
Shootings are up 54 percent in New York City, in Los Angeles,
in Chicago. Listen, there are more people being harmed by the
rise of crime than there are from the environment in these
cities, I can assure you.
And finally, we have bills like the Green New Deal that is
ultimately really not even about the environment. The Green New
Deal ultimately, fundamentally is about changing our country
into being more socialist. We have a since deleted fact sheet
circulated from the representative who introduced the Green New
Deal, and they said that the real attempt, it is a ``massive
transformation of our society.'' They also said that it was
hopefully going to provide ``economic security for all who are
unable or unwilling to work.'' Stunning. So, this is what the
Green New Deal is. In fact, the former chief of staff of this
same member said, ``The interesting thing about the Green New
Deal is that it wasn't originally a climate change thing at
all. It was really a thing of how do you change the entire
economy thing.'' It is because of statements like this that we
know that this hearing, in itself, is a fraud.
It is time for us to do our job, stop the show, do real
oversight, Madam Chair. And I realize that will probably be
very uncomfortable if we actually did our job of oversight in
this committee, dealing with specifically the devastation
happening in our country due to out-of-control spending and
policies of the Democratic Party and the incoherent leadership
coming from the White House. But, nonetheless, that is our job,
our task to do oversight, and I urge us to get on with the
business that we are supposed to do.
Chairwoman Maloney. Your time has expired. The gentleman's
time has expired, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Connolly, is now recognized for five minutes. Mr. Connolly, you
are now recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, but I am willing
to yield my time, and then be recognized next round, to Mr.
Gomez, who I believe has a scheduling conflict. Mr. Gomez, do
you still wish me to yield?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, please.
Mr. Connolly. Absolutely.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much, Mr. Connolly. First,
Chairwoman Maloney, thank you so much for having this important
discussion on climate change. It is very important. But at the
same time, also discussing the fact that disadvantaged
communities, people of color, rural areas are also hit
disproportionately by climate change, especially when it comes
to pollution, when it comes to just a variety of factors, and
this impacts Democrats and Republicans, right, in rural areas
and in urban areas. So, we have to do--take extra steps to make
sure that when we combat climate change, it has a direct impact
on those people who are having the disproportionate impact of
climate change.
And that's one of the things that, in California, we have
focused on when before I got to the California State Assembly,
where I served starting in 2013 to 2017. And there we passed a
bill called S.B. 535 by Kevin de Leon that created the
CalEnviro Screen, on where we would target the greenhouse gas
reduction funds that we got from cap and trade and in what
communities. But when I got there, we discovered that that law
didn't work as intended because one of the things that it said,
is it said the money from the greenhouse gas reduction funding
would go--should benefit disadvantaged people, 25 percent.
So, one of the things that they ended up doing is, you
know, they would say that this project way over here, if it is
a train that passes a disadvantaged community that was hoping
to get cars off the road, that was cleaning up the air, that
was good enough, and that was benefiting. But you know what? A
train going by my communities doesn't benefit my communities.
It doesn't benefit the rural areas. So, I passed a bill called
A.B. 1550 that increased the amount to 35 percent of all cap-
and-trade dollars that must go to disadvantaged communities,
but directly in disadvantaged communities, not next door, not
somebody who is just driving a Tesla in my community that says,
you know, because it's not polluting, it is cleaning up my
communities. No, I wanted the benefits to be directly in the
communities I represent.
It passed. It is law. It is having a profound impact when
it comes to making sure those benefits, right, and the co-
benefits of reducing pollution, reducing poverty are all added
in. It's a huge deal. It passed with bipartisan support, with
Republicans voting in the affirmative, and it also went up to
35 percent in targeted low-income areas, including Republican
areas. That is how we actually bridge the green divide that
exists, making everybody--making sure that everybody benefits
from this kind of program. And that is what we have to continue
doing is focusing those resources to the communities that have
been left behind. So, I am proud of that bill.
And guess what? To my Republican colleagues, there was a
plant that opened up. It was an electric bus plant in
Bakersfield, and it was opening up an assembly plant that was
to provide electric buses for a lot of California. And who was
there at the ribbon-cutting? Kevin McCarthy, the leader of the
Republicans who was just attacking the cap-and-trade program a
few months earlier. So, for me, sometimes the Republicans like
to talk trash about what we are doing, but they love to try to
take the credit for what we are doing, everything from climate
change or to the American Rescue Plan.
So, we are going to keep moving forward because we know
this is going to benefit everybody, not just Democrats, not
just urban areas, but rural areas as well. And I know that
there was a release of the Justice40 Initiative, the
implementation guideline, by this White House. I want to ask
some of our panel what you guys thought about it. Mr. Moore,
let's start with you. What did you think of the Initiative, the
guidance, first blush?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Committee Member. You know, as I
stated earlier, you know, in this process, I think that we need
to understand that much of what has been recommended in the
Justice40 at this moment, interim guidance, is issues that have
been expressed by environmental and economic justice
communities for many, many years. So, what I will say, again,
to commend the work of the WHEJAC Council, but additionally,
that much of what is in that interim guidance is what was
recommended by our communities and what was reinforced by the
WHEJAC members. So, I feel very positive about the interim
guidance at this point. Last is to say it is an interim
guidance. There will be more opportunity for engagement around
the guidance, and so we totally support and will continue to
support that at the same time.
Mr. Gomez. Well, thank you. One of the things--I am going
to take a close look at it because words do matter.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Gomez. Words do matter. Directing benefits can lead to
just the same old, same old, or actually lead to a
transformative effect for these communities. So, with that,
Chairwoman Maloney, thank you so much for letting me go out of
order. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized for five minutes. Mr.
Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being
here to share your perspectives. As with many of the issues we
talk about, I think it is important to look at them in context
because many of the issues we face, we don't approach them
properly if they aren't in the proper context. Now, the chair
made the comment that the Nation is in a climate emergency, and
I found that interesting considering that the environment does
not stop at our borders. And so, it is important that we look
at a global environment from a global perspective, and the
truth is, is that the world's demand on energy is growing. That
is actually a good thing. That is people coming out of poverty.
That is people being able to heat their homes for the first
time or find mobility.
The question then comes, who will meet that demand, and I
am under the belief that it is better for U.S. companies to
meet that demand than nations certainly that are adversarial to
us. We began to see this as we made a transition from an
energy-dominant, or--energy-dependent to an energy-dominant
nation in the last few years. That led to us having strength at
the negotiating table for better trade deals, for even Middle
East peace deals. And when we are talking about the
environment, it is important to note that war is bad for the
environment. It is bad for the human condition, but it is also
bad for the environment. And so, the answer then, what we see
when we look at U.S. companies and U.S. industry versus
industry in other nations is that, by and large, while we have
room to improve, with every single generation, technology
should advance. We should get better, that--that U.S. companies
are doing this better than most of the world.
And so, the answer really here should be, let's look at
U.S. exports. Let's look at us having a larger share of the
world's energy production, and then let's look at what we can
do because the truth is, the greatest reduction in carbon
emissions right now has been led by the U.S. oil and gas
industry. And so, we can look at new technologies. We all want
clean air and water. There are new technologies that are coming
to bear even in the oil and gas industry with carbon capture
and the like, so this really should be an all-encompassing
discussion. We want clean air and water for our communities, we
want people to thrive and prosper, but we do need to look at
that.
And just to put it in context, you know, there is almost a
move, especially with the extreme interpretations of the Green
New Deal, to have us, in a sense, run back from the industrial
age as if that was a bad thing. But the truth is it was a good
thing. It had some, like every advancement in technology, cost
benefits. You know, there were some costs. There were some
benefits. We should look at the costs and figure out, like I
said, what the next generation had improved, but the truth is
that this is the life expectancy over the last bit.
And so, you can see the U.S. leads the world, but we have
been improving with each generation. The thing we don't need to
do is to draw back from that. Right now, this is U.S. access to
electricity versus the rest of the world, the U.S. virtually
almost 100 percent. Now, if people can't afford it, then that's
different, and what we have seen over the last few months is
a--is an effort to undermine energy production in the United
States. And so, we have inflation going up, we have costs going
up, and that puts a disproportionate burden on the
disadvantaged. What we need to do is get back to policies that
bring access, reduced costs to communities, so people can
afford their energy and have good jobs, and we can look to
companies and we should hold bad companies and bad actors
accountable. For sure we should, but there is a broader
perspective to be brought to this.
I think it is important to point out, too, and maybe, Mr.
Mitchell, do you know--the Administration--when we talk about
green energy, we have to talk about rare earth minerals. Every
discussion needs to start with that. Is the Administration
looking to domestically source the minerals that are needed for
transition? To--do you know? Are you aware? I wish we had an
Administration official here to ask, but you are the closest we
have so far, so.
Mr. Mitchell. No, sir, I will not speak on that.
Mr. Cloud. I am sorry?
Mr. Mitchell. I said, no, sir, I do not know the answer to
that.
Mr. Cloud. You don't know? OK. Right now, the U.S. is
reliant 100 percent on rare earth minerals from other
countries, and so the leading producer of rare earth minerals
right now is China. And so, we need to strongly consider, as we
look at this, if the world is a better place with the U.S.
being a dominant producer of energy or China being the
predominant producer and holder of U.S. energy exports and
resources. So, you know, if we are going to have a discussion
on green energy, it has to start with us having U.S. access to
rare earth minerals, and until we are willing to have that
discussion, we need to continue along the course that has led
to relative peace and prosperity for American families. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is now recognized. Mr.
Connolly?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you
for holding this hearing. I think we kind of maybe lost sight
of what it is we are discussing today, and maybe we could try
to get back to that. I got to admit I was kind of shocked by
the gentleman from Georgia and his long statement dismissing,
among other things, the whole concept of environmental justice,
that there are communities that are disproportionately impacted
by adverse environmental impacts, and they tend to be
disproportionately low-income communities, communities of
color. That is a historic fact, and that needs to be redressed.
Mr. Mitchell, speaking of that redress, you talked about if
we are going to go forward with plans to address this subject,
we have got to have, you said, a willing partner in the Federal
Government. Do you believe that the Administration's Justice40
Initiative sets the table to be that willing partner you are
seeking?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir, I feel that we--the Administration,
we have the tools. We just need to commitment. And I think for
the first time, being able to listen to those that are on the
ground and find out what those needs are, to plug into some of
the problems that we see, like the 100-plus-year-old lead pipes
that are in the ground, replacing those. You know, that's job
creation there as far as being able to create jobs and train
folks in those communities to be able to remove those 100-plus-
year-old lead pipes, and especially to water infrastructure
issues that we see facing a lot of our communities, especially
in the Black Belt. This would help spur development when you
remove things of that nature and begin to invest back into
communities.
And I think this is the positive side of what we see out of
Justice40, is being able to springboard back into these
disadvantaged communities. And I will say, troubling, like I am
hearing here today, the comments back and forth, but I would
like to do something even, like, with our witness, Mr. Hawkins,
being able to bring in these opportunity zone opportunities to
communities where we often have heard it being opportunist
zones because where those opportunities zones were designated,
as was stated earlier, from our Governors and developers, many
of these opportunities zones were not designated and looked at,
you know, into these communities that we are talking about. And
this is not coming from me. This is coming from Ja'Ron Smith,
who headed up that from the Trump Administration, who stated,
yes, we missed the mark on not identifying and being able to
locate in those communities of color, as we have heard.
I saw the testimony and hearing on the opportunity zones,
but I have failed to hear and see where those designations were
and the impacts. Of what--I have heard the rhetoric about how
it has pushed the needle. Yes, it has pushed it, but I would
like to get those capital investments of what has worked, as
Mr. Hawkins stated, into a lot of these communities that we're
talking about now. And if we take that kind of an effort to
move forward, we can turn and make this a more prosperous
country.
Madam Chairwoman, I would say that Nikki Haley, Mick
Mulvaney, and Congressman Norman, who is here today, supported
my environmental justice bill in South Carolina because they
saw the economic impact, not the rhetoric of blue and red
states. You know, when they took their oath, they said that
they were serving everybody, and that is----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell, you are actually
addressing me, Mr. Connolly, not the chairwoman, and I really
appreciate your comments and your insights, but I am running
out of time, and I would like to get in one other question to
another panelist, Mr. Guerrero. You also--you talked about, Mr.
Guerrero, Colorado's Just Transition Program, and you said
that, again, you would need the Federal Government if that is
going to be ultimately implemented and successful. Could you
elaborate on that Federal Government role you were referring
to?
Mr. Guerrero. Yes. Thank you, Representative Connolly. So,
what we understand is that the program could cost as much as
$100 million a year to fully implement. The state of Colorado
actually used American Rescue Plan funds for its initial
investment into those programs, but it is going to require
sustained investment over time for it to actually work. And
this is an absolute necessity if we really want to do this
transition correctly, both in terms of investing in
environmental justice and the transition of workers and
communities that are going to be impacted.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much, and Madam Chairwoman,
thank you again for accommodating the switch with Mr. Gomez. I
appreciate it.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Sessions, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much, and I
appreciate this hearing today. I, too, like our ranking member
and also Mr. Cloud, I believe that there is no one here to
answer questions because, in fact, I don't believe the
Administration has the answers to the questions that we bring.
But with that said, I would like to engage Mrs. Salter, or Ms.
Salter, the gentlewoman from New York who is a lawyer, who has
offered her fine testimony today. And I would like to engage
her off the issue of LIHEAP and have her tell me what the plans
are for LIHEAP, because she talked about the New York plans
being really models for the country. And I would like for her
to describe LIHEAP and the pieces of home heating fuel that
they accomplish each year in New York City.
Ms. Salter. Thank you for that question. So, he is
referring to the energy assistance program in New York, and
that is something that is absolutely a fact. All throughout
this country, customers are facing utility shutoffs. They are
holding onto energy burdens that they cannot afford, and the
need for energy assistance far outstrips the resources
available, and that is something that will be critical for the
American Jobs Plan to address.
Mr. Sessions. OK. Could you talk to me about what kind of
energy and fuel you use in New York City related to that home
heating fuel plan that New York City utilizes?
Ms. Salter. Well, the heating program is a statewide energy
assistance program, and so there are several types of fuel that
are used, and what we want to do is move to clean energy.
Mr. Sessions. OK. So, you have had a chance in the state of
New York to move, a number of years ago, to natural gas, and
there was huge and widespread disagreement by labor as well as
other environmental rights people. And yet you continue to use
diesel and dump diesel directly into your LIHEAP plan to fuel
New York City, and then there is a complaint that you have got
all these sick people. Can you talk to me about what the plan
is then that you--that you talked about, the early action plan?
Ms. Salter. We need to take early action to reduce those
co-pollutants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New York
City and throughout New York state, and that is exactly what we
are planning to do is move to clean electrification of
buildings, move away from fossil fuels throughout the state,
and that is indeed the plan.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am. I heard mention, you know, that
you would use cellular, you know, the new technologies. Will
that work during the winter in New York City?
Ms. Salter. I am not sure what new technologies that you
are----
Mr. Sessions. Well, there's--one would be a reliant base,
as I understand it, of having a grid system, that you would
rely on the sun.
Ms. Salter. Grid modernization and addressing the issues of
updating our grid infrastructure is absolutely critical, and
that is what we need to move forward on in New York. As we know
the Federal--Fed of Dallas estimated that just the outage due
to the natural gas interruption because of weather in Texas
cost between $80 and $130 billion. So, that is the challenge
that we want to take up in New York is to address--modernize
our infrastructure so that we do not see those type of short-
term interruptions devastate our entire state economy.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am. So, would that include natural
gas that you are speaking about, or would that be nuclear power
then?
Ms. Salter. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection
Act says there will be clean electricity and not natural gas.
Mr. Sessions. And with that clean electricity, what would
the source be?
Ms. Salter. We are looking at deep investments in energy
efficiency. We are looking at solar, offshore wind, increasing
transmission so we can also have local renewables of similar
types, and also hydropower.
Mr. Sessions. So, you now went to solar, which is what I
had wanted the gentlewoman to address. Does solar work during--
could that be a reliable source for New York City in the
wintertime?
Ms. Salter. Solar--the combination of large-scale storage
and solar can indeed handle the intermittency and get us to
where we need to go.
Mr. Sessions. OK. Well, Madam Chairman, I would suggest
that this is an important hearing and would bring us really
closer to understanding, but I believe it is kind of like the
Amazon 25,000 jobs that were offered to New York City from
Amazon that they turned down. Well, so they are also turning
down natural gas, to begin building that today as opposed to
dumping home heating fuel, which is diesel, which is causing
these people to be sick. And so, it's my hope that New York
City or that this investigation would reveal that we would
encourage them immediately to go to natural gas because we have
supplies that would be available. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, is now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I certainly want
to thank you for holding this very informative and important
hearing. We have witnessed firsthand the impact of carbon
emissions, which have caused stronger storm patterns and
catastrophic weather events all over the world, but not all
communities are impacted equally. Unfortunately, communities of
color and low-income communities often pay a higher price for
our collective failure to address climate change. According to
a study by the University of Michigan, when Hurricane Katrina
struck Louisiana in 2005, the damage was most concentrated in
low-income African-American communities. In Chicago, from 2007
to 2016, 87 percent of flood insurance claims were made by
communities of color, and in 2017, Hurricane Harvey devastated
low-income minority neighborhoods in Houston. Ms. Salter, I
thank you for your testimony, as I do all of the witnesses. You
were living in New York when Superstorm Sandy caused over $19
billion in damage. Is that correct?
Ms. Salter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Which communities were hit the hardest?
Ms. Salter. It won't surprise you that low-income
communities of color were hit the hardest, sir. In fact, I know
many folks who lived in public housing, one friend in
particular, whose entire apartment was flooded, and she was
houseless until she was able to resettle. It was a devastating
event. Many recall that famous picture from Hurricane Sandy
where the entire of Manhattan was black, except for Goldman
Sachs. They had resilient backup power at the bottom of
Manhattan. So, yes, sir, low-income communities of color were
indeed the hardest hit.
Mr. Davis. Well, let me ask you, what can we expect the
economic impact to be in 50 years if we do not start
prioritizing climate change considerations in new energy and
community development projects now?
Ms. Salter. Sir, that is exactly the question of the day
because the costs of inaction far outweigh the cost to take
action. We mentioned $130 billion of value lost in Texas in
just that recent gas interruption, $63 billion from Hurricane
Sandy, $125 billion from Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Katrina,
on and on and on. So, that is--we use some of those baselines
in New York but think about what we are looking at even from
flooding, and the costs are astronomical. So, it is about
survival, and it is about making those investments now.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Given this urgency, I really want to
commend you and the great work of many of your fellow
colleagues, community leaders, and activists for the progress
you have made on New York's Climate Leadership and Community
Protection Act, or the CLCPA. You mentioned in your written
statement that the law's 40 percent spending mandate has been
incorporated into some major spending programs so far, like the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the New York Clean
Energy Fund. Can you give some examples of the differences
these redirected resources have made so far?
Ms. Salter. Yes, sir, and we are--we have been working very
hard to see that these funds get redirected in what we are
looking at, and that is where I can also emphasize that we need
to really think about this metric as dollars spent because that
is where we have seen the success. We have seen in the Clean
Energy Fund just recently, in the next five years, hundreds of
millions of dollars will be directed directly, in particular
from the Newark to Green Bank, to disadvantaged communities, in
particular energy efficiency and building electrification,
getting off the dirty fuels that I spoke about before. So, that
is one example of how, when you talk about it in terms of
dollars spent and that you see the funds redirected, you can
actually get funds flowing to the communities that need it.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much and let me quickly turn to
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, do you anticipate facing similar
challenges with Federal implementation?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Committee Member. I think, as we
said, in terms of the interim guidance, I think very clearly
that the guidance is providing the type of guidance that is
necessary with the Federal agencies, so I think as an interim,
moving toward a full guidance, I think we are all right. I just
want to say, Committee Member, also the comments that the
honorable Harold Mitchell has made, that then we have the
challenge of when those funds go to the state, then what is the
accountability and the responsibility, but the accountability
on the part of the state, to make sure that those resources are
put back in the hands that are the most highly needed in
grassroots communities, communities of color, and native
indigenous communities. Thank you, Committee Member.
Mr. Davis. Thank you both very much, and I want to thank
all of the witnesses. Again, I thank you, Madam Chairman, for
holding this hearing, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, is recognized.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. I want to
welcome Harold Mitchell. We go way back in the state General
Assembly. Thank you for coming. And, Shay, thank you for coming
again. Great witness before. Ms. Salter, let me just follow-up
on what Congressman Sessions asked. Is natural gas a dirty
fuel?
Ms. Salter. Yes, sir, it is a fossil fuel, and certainly
pursuant to the New York law.
Mr. Norman. And what percentage of New York is dependent
now on natural gas and other fossil fuels?
Ms. Salter. We are working on our plan for building
electrification that will not need to use fossil fuel, and that
is the movement in New York away from fossil fuel to clean
energy.
Mr. Norman. And did I hear you say that solar panels,
passive solar is a reliable alternative to the current fossil
fuels that are used in New York?
Ms. Salter. Solar paired with long-term storage and a deep
energy efficiency can be a solution to peak energy, yes.
Mr. Norman. Ms. Salter, I am one that is in the development
world. We have looked closely at passive solar, particularly
for water, heating water. It is not a reliable source. We
looked on it as a--it could be an alternative source, but not
reliable. When you look at, you know, providing hot water, you
cannot use that. And I don't know--who is paying for this
electrification and change over, which is a massive change
over? Who is footing the bill for that, in your opinion, or who
do you want to foot the bill for it?
Ms. Salter. There are many examples throughout the country
and throughout the world of how clean energy can address the
heating and cooling needs of urban areas, of suburban areas, of
the exurbs. It can include things like geothermal, and, yes, it
can include things like long-term battery storage----
Mr. Norman. Who is paying for that? I get that, but to make
the transition, can you tell me who is going to bear the brunt?
Who are you suggesting get involved and make this massive
transition?
Ms. Salter. We need to have the transition. We need--in New
York we have pursued legislation, for instance, the Climate and
Community Investment Act, where we can actually put a fee on
carbon so that the polluters are the ones who pay for the
transition. But we do need----
Mr. Norman. OK. So, you are saying the taxpayers pick up
the tab.
Ms. Salter. What I said was that the polluters themselves
would be the ones who would need to pay polluter damage.
Mr. Norman. Well, let me----
Ms. Salter. That is--that is one solution.
Mr. Norman. Those companies that are currently on fossil
fuels that you say are so dirty pay taxes to New York. They are
the ones who foot the bill for whatever taxes that now have
been greatly reduced, but you put that kind of carbon tax on
them to force them without the private sector being involved.
And like Harold mentioned, on opportunity zones, that is a
perfect example. In South Carolina, and I was just at one with
Senator Scott this weekend, they were put in disadvantaged
areas based on a census tract, and companies are coming in
because it is advantageous from a 5-year and 10-year tax plan,
which is a good thing. They were put in property that would not
be used, Kershaw County, dense county. It has income ranges of
all sizes, but this opportunity zones were in areas that would
not be developed without this. That is a good thing. It is
private investment involved, but it is a massive undertaking.
For you to say--basically, you are saying you are going to
tax the companies to make them change when they are struggling
right now. They have been shut down for a year and a half. Mr.
Connolly mentioned the inequality that is going on in this
country. The biggest inequality that is going on is the--is the
gas prices that we are paying due to this administration
cutting off the pipelines for producing gas in the United
States and giving it to countries that are not our friends.
That is the most ludicrous plan I could ever think of. And the
jobs that have been cut and permanently put out business, it is
an injustice. And that is one of the biggest inequalities
because everybody uses gas now, right, wrong, or indifferent,
and it is not just filling up your car. It is the food that you
buy at the grocery stores. It is the airplanes that you fly on.
If you are going to have a massive transition, it is going to
come a tremendous cost, but you are going to have to have the
private sector lead the way, not government. I yield back.
Ms. Salter. Well, I can assure you, sir, that the injustice
to the oil and gas and fossil fuel industry is not the primary
injustice that is happening. And it is well known that
opportunity zones provide opportunity to new businesses and to
hedge funds, and not to local small businesses.
Mr. Norman. Who is paying the price on gasoline now? Is it
one particular segment now?
Ms. Salter. I am not sure what you mean by ``paying the
price on gasoline,'' but----
Mr. Norman. When you fill up----
Ms. Salter [continuing]. But I can tell you with absolute
certainty, sir, that the damage caused by polluters to
communities, to individuals, far outweighs any perceived
injustice. They have done very well and they continue to do
very well.
Mr. Norman. And we are not putting any restrictions on
China, who is the biggest polluter of greenhouse gases.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
Raskin, is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Madam Chair, thank you very much, and I move to
strike the last word. We are in a global civilizational
emergency with climate change right now. A hundred and seventy-
one Germans were just killed in Dresden and in other eastern
regions of the country in unprecedented flooding that will cost
upwards of $6 billion for the German government to try to
repair. We have seen shocking and unprecedented heat waves
throughout the western part of the United States, affecting
people in California, Idaho, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, 115-
degree weather, 120-degree weather. This heat wave at the end
of June was made 150 times more likely by climate change. This
was described by meteorologists as a 1 in 1,000 chance event,
and now these kinds of heatwaves are becoming regular and have
sparked out-of-control wildfires, some spreading distances of
more than hundreds of square miles.
The fossil fuel companies knew about the link between
carbon emissions and climate change for many decades, and yet
suppressed the evidence of it and, in fact, funded climate
denial campaigns that they understood were a direct attempt to
mislead the public, also that they could continue to build more
oil and gas pipelines. And in the process, they took advantage
of discriminatory land use policies to buy up cheap land and
push through hazardous projects, leaving especially communities
of color vulnerable to dangerous environmental toxins. These
practices have led to the devastating health issues that we
heard from witnesses today. And in some cases, residents were
even harassed to sell their land as the companies worked to
clear property for their projects in African-American
communities, Native-American communities, and communities of
color, without real consent from the residents. And when they
resisted, the companies often got eminent domain permits that
allowed them to acquire the private property and simply
trampled rights of the residents.
One example of this is the Eastern Maryland Shore pipeline
project, which cuts through Somerset County, which is the
poorest county in my state, in Maryland. A Chesapeake Climate
Action Network study found, ``The majority of the census tracts
in the pipeline's path include large numbers of people of color
and low-income people,'' but the project was approved despite
the efforts of environmental and civil rights groups. It is
clear that we need to work to protect our communities against
corporate interests that have no concern whatsoever for the
public health, much less the health and well-being of specific
communities in the pathway of the pipelines. Ms. Salter, do you
believe that communities should have a meaningful say in which
corporations are able to buy up property and take property for
the purposes of constructing pipelines?
Ms. Salter. Absolutely. Well, we would like to see the end
of fossil fuel pipelines for sure, and, absolutely, communities
should have decision-making power and involvement in all of
these infrastructure decisions. And, certainly, the types of
companies that you are talking about, the companies that have
long known the damage they are causing, can hardly be trusted
to lead a clean pathway forward. But yes, the idea of community
engagement, and leadership, and consultation through methods
like participatory budgeting, I believe are essential for just
energy outcomes.
Mr. Raskin. Well, why do you think that FERC is so
dominated and captured by the industries it's supposed to be
regulating? Why don't the regulatory agencies serve the public
interest rather than the interest of the corporations?
Ms. Salter. Well, it is certainly the mission of most
energy regulatory bodies to serve the public interest. That is
absolutely what they should be doing, and if they are not, I
would encourage great oversight into that. We know that the
politics are awash with money from the fossil fuel industry. We
know that is happening.
Mr. Raskin. Alright. Thank you that. Mr. Mitchell, what
measures should be taken to ensure that enforcement agencies at
all levels are working to protect communities against these
kinds of predatory environmental harms?
Mr. Mitchell. The harms, I think, of the oversight, that if
folks would just do their jobs, if they would actually enforce
the enforcement and do their jobs, I think we will come to
resolve and reverse these problems that have impacted
communities. As you stated, community engagement, community
involvement, no one wants these, and when you look at it, they
are going disproportionally through the people of color
communities. You don't see these types of pipelines going
through the affluent neighborhoods and communities, impacting
them. It is always on the backs of those that are burdened and
the vulnerable communities that are taking the brunt. And this
is where I am hoping that this oversight would take a look at
the disproportionate impact in these communities and
communities of color, and just basically do the job.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Madam Chair, my time is up, but it
is time for us to act, and thank you for calling this very
important hearing.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman from Kentucky,
Mr. Comer, is recognized for five minutes for his questions.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin my
questions for Mr. Hawkins, I wanted to correct something that
my good friend, Ro Khanna, said early on in his opening
statement when he suggested that China was doing a better job
than the United States in climate change. That is absolutely
incorrect. China is the world's biggest polluter. I see very
little they are doing to change that. And when I finish my
questions, I am going to have to run to the House floor to
speak against an environmental bill on the floor now that the
majority party is trying to pass that will have an adverse
effect on a lot of union jobs in my district because it would
shift production from the United States to China, and not
require China to comply with the same environmental rules that
we have in the United States. So, this is a big problem we
have. I think both parties want to protect the environment. I
am a farmer by trade. I care about the land. The land has been
in my family for many generations. I want to see it continue to
be in my family long after I am gone and in better shape than
when I started farming it. But we have to take into
consideration the economic effects and the fact that China
doesn't play by the same rules.
So, with that, Mr. Hawkins, President Biden's American Jobs
Plan will be paid for by massive tax increases. Do you believe
this is the best way to bolster economic growth in America's
most vulnerable communities?
Mr. Hawkins. No, I don't, and, again, because those tax
increases are going to land on the most vulnerable. So, you
know, when you look at that plan and when you look at what has
been proposed in terms of the pay-fors, you see significant
corporate tax increases, and so those corporate tax increases
make Americans less competitive internationally, for one. And
two, those taxes are not landing on the corporations
themselves. Corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers,
shareholders, and workers pay those taxes: consumers in the
form of higher prices, workers in the form of decreased job
opportunities, and shareholders in the form of decreased share
prices. And so, you know, the pay-fors are the most problematic
part.
And when you look at what has been happening in terms of
inflation, that has been a consistent theme throughout this
hearing because it is so impactful on the lowest-income
Americans. You know, we can't level additional tax burden on
top of that. We can move forward with traditional
infrastructure, including a lot of what has been discussed by
the other witnesses today. We can move forward on that
traditional infrastructure--grid upgrades, roads, bridges--in a
way that does not increase the tax burden. There are bipartisan
proposals out there right now to do so.
Mr. Comer. Great. Let's talk about your opportunity zone
investments. How much money would you estimate will be
generated by opportunity zone investments over the next five
years?
Mr. Hawkins. So, the IRS indicated that--so far, we are
about three years into the policy--$24 billion, with a ``B''
has come into the Opportunity Funds. These are the vehicles to
make opportunity zone investments, typically in the case of a
new operating business or a real estate project that is levered
up with additional debt. So, the Council of Economic Advisers
estimates that about $75 billion will come into the opportunity
zones over the next 10 years, and we are on track to do better
than that.
Mr. Comer. And in the remaining time I have, Mr. Hawkins,
can you describe briefly how your organization serves the needs
of economically challenged populations?
Mr. Hawkins. Sure. And so, what we exist to do is to make
the public aware of the great work that many of our members are
doing in opportunity zones, but also to advocate and to, you
know, to come to you all and advocate for reasonable expansions
of the opportunity zone policy. So, one thing that is relative
to what we have discussed so far is the prior administration,
through executive order, coordinated the community development
resources across government agencies to favor opportunity
zones. So, a great example of the, you know, $65 million that
was given out in brownfield remediation funds, you know, over
about 157 different brownfields, right? A hundred and 18 of
those brownfields were, by design, opportunity zones, OK? And
so, Mr. Mitchell, my fellow witness, spoke earlier about
brownfield remediation in coordination with opportunity zones
in South Carolina. That was made possible by that executive
order and coordination. What we would suggest is that this
committee look into making, through a statutory change, that
would encourage that coordination across all agencies to really
buildup community development policies like opportunity zones.
Mr. Comer. Well, Madam Chair, I will close by saying this.
I certainly support the opportunity zones. I think that is the
key to trying to help lift people out of poverty in
economically challenged areas. We have to have a private sector
investment in these areas. I believe that government programs
create traps that keep people in poverty, and I represent a
very poor white district in America, and there are pockets of
poverty all over my congressional district. I live in
Appalachia, and you have situations where people get addicted
to government programs and they never get out of poverty. So, I
appreciate that and look forward to more great work from your
organization in the future. Madam Chair, thank you, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, is recognized. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair,
yesterday, the White House released interim guidance to begin
implementing the Justice40 Initiative, and this was a seminal
moment for the environmental justice movement which has been
decades in the making. And I want to focus on one aspect, the
whole-of-government approach enshrined in the Initiative. I
have tried to embrace this approach on the Appropriations
Committee. Last year, I proposed a strategy to imbue the
Federal spending process with a focus on equity and justice,
and I also proposed a plan to use all 12 appropriation
subcommittees to combat climate change, because I believe we
desperately require a whole-of-government approach to confront
inequality and injustice, as well as the most challenging
environmental problems of our time. That is why Justice40
resonates with me. Justice40 has the potential to improve on
previous Federal environmental justice efforts by adopting a
coordinated interagency approach that ensures government
agencies are working in concert.
My first question is for Mr. Moore. Why is this coordinated
approach so essential to pursue, but so challenging to
implement?
Mr. Moore. I think part of it, Committeewoman, is that even
in the past, sometimes when we have had good support from
various administrations, the actual implementation that that we
were referring to had not taken place within the Federal
family. And so, then based upon that, the Justice40 approach in
the interim guidance right now very clearly lays out how those
Federal agencies need to go about the implementation of the
Justice40 recommendation, so that is very, very crucial. You
know that we have been involved in this for many, many years,
as you have said, and we think that implementation, that
interim guidance, is crucial to moving forward through Federal
agencies.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I appreciate that
feedback. Ms. Ndumele, your written testimony seems to suggest
that the design of Federal grant programs sometimes prevents
them from reaching the recipients that are most in need. Can
you give us some examples of how these programs face challenges
to benefit frontline communities and how they should change?
Ms. Ndumele. Yes, thank you very much for that question.
There are many hurdles for disadvantaged communities trying to
receive grants and other funds from the Federal Government.
This has to do with weak program criteria, lack of protection
against community displacement, cumbersome application and
reporting requirements, and technical assistance gaps in
communities, as well as capacity constraints at agencies. So,
CAP, along with others, have suggested some implementation
recommendations for Federal agencies to consider, and some
particular ones that I will draw your attention to have to do
with reviewing and tailoring Federal program criteria to ensure
they maximize their impact in under-served communities. You
asked for some examples of particular programs. I will name a
few. In some cases, this involves loosening eligibility
requirements and expanding the program scope.
So, one example of that would be the Weatherization
Assistance Program, which supports home energy efficiency
improvements, but a lot of households don't quite have the
needed repairs to be eligible for the program. And so,
therefore, it doesn't reach all of the under-served
communities, and it could better support those communities by
expanding its scope to include more basic home repairs. The
inverse problem of that could be if program criteria is too
loose or there is not enough guidance, then it may not go
directly to the communities in need, and often programs don't
have criteria that prevent gentrification and displacement,
which is also key to effective implementation of this program.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I appreciate that. I want
to shift gears in my final minute to focus on coastal community
challenges. I represent a densely populated district that
includes several urban and coastal communities. My South
Florida district also happens to be squarely in one of the most
hurricane prone areas in the country, and that is why I was
encouraged to see the White House and OMB focus on the
Department of Homeland Security's Flood Mitigation Assistance
Program in the Justice40 interim guidance that was released
yesterday. That Flood Mitigation Assistance Program provides
funding to states, local communities, tribes, and territories
for projects that reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive
flood damage to buildings.
So, my question for the panel, and you can choose who wants
to answer, how can we help coastal communities, especially
diverse, densely populated communities like mine in South
Florida that are consistently affected by flood damage and
intensifying storms? I have heard some pundits admonish that we
should just all move somewhere else, and that is a very
impractical and privileged opinion. So, I would love of some
feedback on that, to anyone who chooses to answer.
Mr. Guerrero. Representative Ms. Wasserman Schultz, thank
you for the question. I could take a shot at it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Please.
Mr. Guerrero. I think rightfully emphasizing the whole-of-
government approach, I think, is really critical, and we would
not want to create more displaced communities. This is an
opportunity, I think, in terms of creating jobs and rebuilding
the infrastructure of this country and the kind of
infrastructure that we need to protect those communities that
are going to be impacted by climate disasters in the future. We
should give people the opportunity to relocate and support that
if they so choose, but I think there is an opportunity for us
to actually invest and support those communities for the kind
of infrastructure they need to be able to protect their
communities.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I appreciate that
feedback, and my time has expired. Thank you so much. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlewoman from New
Mexico, Ms. Herrell, is recognized.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
Committee. This is obviously very eye opening, and my first
question is for Mr. Hawkins. So, I live in New Mexico. I
represent a district that employs over 100,000 people in the
oil and gas industry. I am concerned about the environmental
justice and impacts it will have. If we were to go completely
green, what are your thoughts on how would we backfill these
lost jobs in a state like mine who is so heavily reliant on the
oil and gas industry as a whole?
Mr. Hawkins. Right, and I think that is the critical
element. You know, if the private sector leads us toward
cleaner forms of energy like, you know, like natural gas and,
you know, and other technologies, then that transition and that
backfill will be applied in the process--in the normal
processes of the private sector. When the government leads this
process, you are in a situation of picking winners and losers,
and that is harmful from the standpoint of jobs, but it is also
harmful from the standpoint of consumers. I mean, we have
folks--you know, we have tribal communities up in Alaska, for
instance, that are heavily dependent, in ways that cannot be
avoided, on air travel, air travel for supply chains, air
travel for moving workers around. And so, an increase in the
fuel that is used for those airplanes that is produced in your
district, you know, the increase in those prices are going to
negatively impact those communities, many tribal communities,
in ways that we can't even contemplate down here in the lower
48.
Ms. Herrell. Well, that is great because that kind of leads
me to my next question, because I believe this environmental
justice is not intended to save our environment as much it is a
movement for power, because as we diminish the jobs that are
especially prevalent in New Mexico, what we are doing is we are
transferring energy independence or energy dependence on China
and other foreign countries that do not have the same
safeguards and environmental protections in place as we do in
America, so this is very concerning to me. My next question
would be for Ms. Salter. I am sorry. I can't see your name tag
all the way. I just have a question. Earlier in your response,
you were saying ``the polluters,'' ``the polluters.'' Can you
be specific on who are the polluters? Are those the people who
commuted to work today, rode an airplane, turned on their heat
or cooling, people that are starting their vehicles, people
that are driving our economy right now? I mean, who
specifically are the polluters?
Ms. Salter. Well, certainly you make an important point
that we need to think about, you know, there are about 100
companies responsible for a lot of the pollution.
Ms. Herrell. Can you give me the name of two or three?
Ms. Salter. The top 10 of them are international and
domestic oil companies that are causing----
Ms. Herrell. Can you give me a specific name?
Ms. Salter. Oh, well, you know, Chevron is one of those
companies, and these are the companies that are certainly
causing the pollution.
Ms. Herrell. But did you realize that these companies are
also investing a lot of research and development in lower
emissions and cleaner air?
Ms. Salter. What we want to have happen and what we are
working on in New York state is, you know, the concept of a
just transition so that we can move away from fossil fuels, but
make sure that the communities and the sectors that are
currently dependent on them are not left behind.
Ms. Herrell. Right.
Ms. Salter. And we want to have those clean energy
industries. Right now, China is dominating in many of those
areas. We want to have that local manufacturing, those local
businesses there, and we want to support communities through
that transition.
Ms. Herrell. Right, and in the transition for clean energy,
you talked about long-term storage for electricity. Is there a
way to do that as of right now?
Ms. Salter. Yes, there is technology available now to pair
large-scale storage and local renewables to enhance reliability
and to provide power, absolutely.
Ms. Herrell. But the cost to the consumer would be
astronomical because we know that it is more affordable and
cleaner to utilize, such as, you know, natural gas, so I am
concerned about the expense. And I personally do not think we
have a grid that is safe, reliable, and free of China-made
components, so what about the grid or the ability to actually
move the electricity to the end user?
Ms. Salter. You are exactly right. That is what we are
talking about right now. We have a dirty, aging, and polluting
grid, and generations now of under-investment in our grid
infrastructure leaves us not only open to international
competition, but, you know, as we have seen again and again,
security, it is not in our national security interest to have
such a dirty and polluting grid. That is exactly why we need
the American Jobs Plan to invest in clean, upgraded grid
infrastructure.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlewoman from
Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Maloney, for
holding this important hearing. Ms. Salter, you know, can a job
fix cancer?
Ms. Salter. Can a job----
Ms. Tlaib. Can a job----
Ms. Salter. Well, yes, an oncologist----
Ms. Tlaib. Well, I mean, I am talking about, when people
say, jobs, jobs, investment, investments, economy, like doing
all that, can that fix cancer, because that is what we are
creating is more cancer, more disease, more issues. I mean,
that is why I keep telling my colleagues jobs cannot fix
cancer. They can't fix the high amount of public health impact
that we continue to have when we look away about pollution and
so much more. I mean, you know, I continue to see this kind of
denial to understand the human impact, and that is why this
hearing is so important. And we need to focus on that because,
when you focus on those numbers and not the facts, then you are
not focusing on how many people are getting cancer, respiratory
disease, and so much more.
I just came back from a PFAS, a press conference. I mean,
this is forever chemicals in people's bodies. Did you know the
vaccine is not working in children that have been exposed to
PFAS? The COVID vaccine, it is rejecting it. So, it is so
incredibly important to understand, again, we are talking about
the human cost here, and so it is really important. So, I do
want to get take us in a different direction, and I think it is
important. We have heard a lot about opportunity zones, y'all,
and I am going to tell you I have some issues with opportunity
zones.
To start, I like to enter into the record, Madam Chair, an
article from ProPublica entitled, ``How a Tax Break to Help the
Poor Went to NBA Owner, Dan Gilbert,'' a billionaire, and
another article, Madam Chair, Washington Post, titled, ``After
Nevada GOP Pushed, Treasury Changed Lucrative Policy
Benefitting One County,'' into the record, if I may.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Tlaib. The key question here about opportunity zones is
that who does it? Who is the opportunity for exactly? Mr.
Mitchell, I am going to tell you because this happened right in
my backyard. As the Urban Institute concluded, the opportunity
zones are providing the biggest benefits to projects with the
highest returns, which are rarely aligned with equitable
development. For example, in Detroit, the Trump Administration
revised its original list of opportunity zones, which are
supposed to go to poor census tracts, to include one of the
downtown communities in Detroit that does not meet the poverty
requirements under the program. Opportunity zones, we are going
to do affordable housing. Mmh-mmh. These are bougie buildings,
and they are getting these big tax breaks that are not
accessible to my residents. The primary beneficiary here was
billionaire Dan Gilbert, who coincidentally gave three-fourths
of a million dollars to the Trump Inaugural Committee.
This is hardly an isolated case. I just talked about
Nevada. Nevada, a major GOP donor, Lance Gilman, successfully
lobbied their treasury department to include Storey County in
the opportunity zone program, despite the fact that the income
levels were initially deemed too high to qualify for
opportunity zones. And surprise, surprise, Mr. Gilman made his
largest political contribution ever in the midst of that
lobbying effort. So, my colleagues hype up this opportunity
zone handout, and it is both Republicans Democrats hyping up
opportunity zones here, and they created billionaires and
Republican campaign donors. I am telling you, we are currently
looking at the fact that we have no reporting. We don't even
know how many jobs they are creating. Did you know that? They
are not even required to report how many jobs they created.
This is a capital gains tax break for the rich.
So, you know, Ms. Ndumele--I am so sorry--can you speak to
the human cost of generational government-sponsored
disinvestment in communities of color, and how Justice40 is an
executive initiative that can seek to rectify some of these
injustices in place right now?
Ms. Ndumele. Yes, absolutely. Thank you very much for the
question. And going back to the focus of Justice40 and
environmental, economic, and racial justice, we know that
tribal communities, black and brown communities
disproportionately suffer the effects and harms of climate
change. They bear the brunt of dangerous climate impacts, and
they are also most at risk for not receiving the benefits of
clean energy. So, what are some of the benefits of Justice40?
There are several categories of benefits: climate change, clean
energy and energy efficiency, clean transportation, affordable
and sustainable housing, training and work force development,
remediation and reduction of legacy pollution, development of
critical clean water infrastructure. All of these things would
benefit communities who are most in need and have experienced
the most chronic disinvestments.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much. And I do want to say, as we
are talking about this, you know, more black neighbors--my
black neighbors in Michigan died at a higher rate of COVID,
even though they make up less than 15 percent of the total
population. Why? Because of preexisting conditions and
environmental--literally environmental racism. If you look at
where the high rates are, Madam Chair, of deaths of COVID among
my black neighbors, it is where they have the polluting
industry. They are dying at a higher rate. And so, I just think
it is important when we talk about opportunity zones and other
things, that we speak this truth that it has been hijacked by
the billionaires per usual. And I am done. I am done
subsidizing pollution. I am done subsidizing these
billionaires. Our residents deserve better. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, is now recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to
thank the witnesses for being here today. The United States
Energy Information Administration reports that domestic energy
production has grown substantially in the past decade, largely
thanks to investments in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal
drilling. Since 1990, the oil and gas industry in America has
reduced methane emissions by 23 percent, while simultaneously
increasing production by 71 percent. As of 2019, petroleum and
natural gas make up nearly 70 percent of the energy we use
annually.
The area that I represent in Northeastern and North Central
Pennsylvania produces up to 10 percent of the Nation's dry
natural gas on any given day, contributing an enormous amount
of our economic activity, job growth, and energy savings to our
local communities. By contrast, and despite billions of dollars
in taxpayer-funded subsidies, renewable energy's share of the
consumption market has grown by only four percent in the past
60 years. America cannot just simply shift from fossil fuels to
renewables via sweeping Federal mandates. The result would be a
significant loss of jobs and more reliance on foreign energy to
power our lives.
Proposals, such as the Green New Deal, would necessitate
significant increases in renewable energy, such as hydraulic--
excuse me, hydroelectric, solar, and wind. However, according
to the American Energy Alliance, the entire world does not have
the mining ability to produce the required materials.
Additionally, the Electric Power Institute expects the price of
electricity to at least double as a result of President Biden's
energy policies. It is clear that America's energy independence
will require an all-of-the-above approach to energy that
employs renewables, such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, to
complement fossil fuels, which leads me into questions.
Mr. Hawkins, can you discuss how proposals like the Green
New Deal and other Federal mandates would impact economically
distressed communities?
Mr. Hawkins. Again, the, you know, the primary negative
impact will be in the cost and the taxes that will be required,
you know, to foot that bill. Depending on how you specifically
interpret that proposal, you are looking at a cost between $3
and $6 trillion, significant tax increases. And, you know,
again, those are overlaid on folks that are already seeing
significant--significantly higher energy costs, significantly
higher gas prices, and inflation across the board, again, like
a 12-percent sales tax implemented from Congress.
Mr. Keller. OK. Thank you. U.S. C02 emissions are declining
while emissions from China, India, and other nations are
increasing. President Biden, as one of his first acts after
being inaugurated, got us back into the Paris Climate Accords.
Any of the other nations in the Paris Climate Accords, have
they met the C02 emissions in anything that they were supposed
to meet as a result of those Paris Climate Accords?
Mr. Hawkins. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Keller. Not anywhere that I have been able to find
either. So, you know, just looking at that, it is an important
part point to make that nations that are going to be allowed to
pollute more aren't doing it as well as we are here in America,
which is certainly not going to help our environment globally
and help it here in the United States either. Do you believe
that the proposals like the American Jobs Plan, Paris Climate
Accords, and others designed to curb emissions will put the
U.S. at an economic disadvantage?
Mr. Hawkins. Absolutely.
Mr. Keller. OK. And anything to elaborate on why you
believe that?
Mr. Hawkins. Right. And so, again, you know, it is based on
a hostility toward an all-of-the-above energy approach. So, all
of us want energy that is more secure, more affordable to folks
in distressed communities, and also cleaner. And so, we were
moving consistently in that direction on all those fronts, you
know, with a policy that was more oriented toward an all-of-
the-above approach and public/private partnerships. And so, my
fear would be that a government-led approach, where you are
picking winners and losers, particularly favoring elements of
clean energy that do not account for a significant a portion of
our energy production by megawatt, you know, could be very
damaging. And, again, the cost and the taxes necessary and that
tax burden overlaid on an already overburdened American people
would be devastating.
Mr. Keller. I think also to note would be the critical
minerals that would be needed to be mined to produce the
batteries, and so forth and so on, for all the electricity in
the switch to the Green New Deal.
Mr. Hawkins. Absolutely.
Mr. Keller. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is recognized.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Maloney.
You know, another day, another line about Green New Deal
hysteria, right? But right now, New York City and people in New
York City can't even see a couple neighborhoods down if they
are up in a building because of the smog and the smoke from
wildfires in Colorado and on the West Coast. Isn't that right,
Ms. Salter?
Ms. Salter. Well, I won't speak for the Colorado wildfires,
but even before the wildfires, the smog, the soot, and the
pollution make it hazy and hard to see, absolutely.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mm-hmm. So, I have a pretty simple
question, and I want to talk about physical infrastructure
investments that we have made so far, as well as those that we
are looking to make in the future. When the water comes and
when the floods come, which communities are going to be
endangered and vulnerable the most?
Ms. Salter. We know from past events, including Superstorm
Sandy that it is absolutely the low-income black and brown
communities and, in particular, women and children.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. When the fires come, which communities
do not have--do not have facilities outfitted with HEPA filters
and other sorts of access to clean air?
Ms. Salter. Once again, it is low-income communities,
primarily communities of color.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. When the storms come, which communities
have the most fragile power grids?
Ms. Salter. Once again, and, yes, it is our distribution
system which is the weakest link, and it is low-income
communities of color, and these are where the investments
certainly need to be.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. On the flip side, when the fires come,
what sorts of communities have their homes outfitted with HEPA
filters as well as their schools or other public facilities?
Ms. Salter. Anecdotally, I can certainly with confidence
say that it is the high-income communities that have the best
school and residential home infrastructure.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, I think it is important for us to
note this because this is not just about future investments.
This is about a betrayal from our past because policymakers,
many of the same ones who are defending the fossil fuel
industry today----
Ms. Salter. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez [continuing]. Also deliberately under-
invested in resilient infrastructure for the communities, some
of whom they may even represent, for the most vulnerable
communities in their states and districts. So, one of the
things that we saw recently was just unprecedented flooding in
the Detroit area, and particularly in this area of Dearborn,
Michigan. There was one part of Dearborn that was completely
flooded--basements, first floors, et cetera--and on the other
side of Dearborn was fine. You would have thought it was just a
small storm. Now, what we know is that years ago, the local
government decided to put almost all of the water pump systems
in the affluent area of Dearborn, and almost none of the water
pump systems, which is what brings the water out when it is
flooding, in low-income, immigrant, working class communities.
White working class, black, brown working-class communities,
they had almost no water filtration systems, leaving all of
their homes to flood. Tell me about what impact that has on
generational wealth for these communities.
Ms. Salter. It is a devastating impact, and that is exactly
why the American Jobs Plan needs to ensure not only early
action on emissions and co-pollutant reductions in frontline
communities, but also take into account the cumulative impacts,
the cumulative impacts of past policy on current wealth, past
wealth, in addition to health.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. Our
panelists have been here since 10, and we are going to take a
five-minute recess to accommodate witnesses' requests.
The committee stands in recess for five minutes. We will
resume in five minutes. In recess. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, before I ask a question, I would just
kind of like to make a statement a little on the pollution
situation in this country. I think for anybody listening in,
they may be under the impression that we have an unprecedented
problem with air and water pollution, that this young
generation have things so tough. And I think this defeatism is
kind of dangerous because I am afraid some young people
watching on C-SPAN are going to just give up on life, given all
the things we are told about the mess we have.
I just want to rattle off a couple of statistics. In the
last 40 years in this country, the amount of carbon monoxide,
and these are EPA figures, carbon monoxide in the air has gone
down 75 percent. The amount of lead has gone down 99 percent.
The amount of nitrogen oxides has gone down 70 percent. VOCs
have dropped 60 percent, and particulate matter has dropped 64
percent. I remember growing up and seeing pictures of Los
Angeles in which it was just fog all the time. Same thing in
places like Pittsburgh. In my hometown, you couldn't fish in
the local river, and now there is fish all over the place and
people are fishing away, which I think is very typical of the
rivers and urban areas of this country. So, I suppose you can
always take a little more pollutants out of the air, but we
have done such a fantastic job over the last 50 years. And 50
years ago, when I was a young person, nobody was telling
anybody they couldn't make it in society because of the
pollution. Now that we have, you know, 70, 75 percent of that
pollution out of the air and water, it seems ridiculous to tell
young people how hard they are having it.
But, first of all, a general question for any one of you
folks. I believe I heard this morning on the radio, but I don't
know that I did and maybe I dreamed it, I don't know, that
inflation has a disproportionate impact on people of color, on
women. Is that true? Do we know? Does anybody know?
Mr. Hawkins. It is across the board, it has a
disproportionate impact on people who are low income, and so
folks who are people of color are more likely to fall into that
category. What we will see also is that, for both women and
people of color, the items that are leading the inflationary
trend. So, when you look at energy, when you look at gas, when
you look at consumer goods, and when you look at the ability
for property owners and others to pass through their
inflationary pressures to folks in the low-income category, you
know, you are going to see it disproportionately impacting
people who are low income, people who are women.
Mr. Grothman. Right. One of the things that concerns me,
and I don't know how to look into the future on this, is it
seems to me on all these issues, which largely involve, you
know, raising the cost of energy, be it your electric bill, be
it your gas bill, there is always going to be a conflict
between the billionaire class in this country--the Bloombergs,
the Gates, the Cubans, those type of people--and on the other
hand, your person just struggling to make ends meet. And I have
always felt, and I want you to comment whether this is true.
You know, proportionately, the amount that the average guy
spends for gas in their 2005 Chevy and the amount that is spent
on a billionaire's Tesla, I mean, as we drive up the cost of
that energy, it seems to me it hurts the average guy much more.
So, we have got a policy thing here in which two different
powerful groups in America, you know, the disadvantaged people
who maybe don't have as much power and the billionaire class
who likes to virtue signal, are at odds. Who do you think is
going to wind up winning that fight, Mr. Hawkins? Is it going
to be the billionaire class, despite the fact we are so much
cleaner than we used to be, or is it going to be the poor guy
who is just trying to make ends meet in his `05 Chevy?
Mr. Hawkins. Well, hopefully it is not the billionaire
class. You know, the entire country benefits from affordable
energy, but particularly folks who are middle and low income
benefit disproportionately because their energy prices in the
form of transportation costs or in home energy prices----
Mr. Grothman. Right.
Mr. Hawkins [continuing]. Are a much larger percentage of
that person's overall spending.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. When I look, I sometimes don't know
whether a Bill Gates or a Michael Bloomberg knows how much they
are paying for their air conditioning. They probably have some
fancy accountant paying their bill. Meanwhile, the person just
struggling to get ahead as we ramp up that energy cost, they
see it. Don't you think that is true?
Mr. Hawkins. Absolutely, and again, across the board, we
all benefit from more affordable energy, and we shouldn't do
anything that undermines the affordability of those energy
prices.
Mr. Grothman. OK. And remember, kids----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, remember, kids, your grandparents made a
go of it when nitric oxide was over twice what it is today. But
thank you, Mrs. Chairman.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady from
Missouri, Ms. Bush, is now recognized. Ms. Bush?
Ms. Bush. St. Louis, and I thank you, Madam Chair, for
convening this important hearing. I am excited to see
environmental justice being taking up as a priority by the full
committee. Too often black neighborhoods are on the frontlines
of environmental justice as well as brown. In St. Louis, this
injustice takes the form of dangerously polluted soil next to
the Skate King Roller Rink and the Herbert Hoover Boys and
Girls Club, or having our air polluted with bullets and fossil
fuels, or potentially radioactive water from Cold Water Creek
regularly flooding our basements, our vegetable gardens, and
our public school playgrounds.
The creek is a stunning case. It was contaminated by
weapons research during the Manhattan Project of World War II,
and it is still poisoning my community right now. Just this
month, the body of a 12-year-old girl from our St. Louis
community was discovered in the creek after she was killed by a
terrible climate-induced flood. Her name is Alyeyia Carter. She
was found on the day of her planned 12th birthday party.
Imagine the unspeakable layer of violence of a dead child and
her rescue team wading through dangerously contaminated water.
Around Cold Water Creek, members of our community develop
rare cancers at alarming rates at all ages. The Departments of
Energy and Defense have estimated that pollution and some black
neighborhoods along the creek won't be cleaned up for 20 years,
and many people aren't even aware of the dangers. It is no
coincidence that I am a black woman and potentially dangerous
water flooded my home. This is the reality for so many black
children, families, and people across St. Louis and beyond.
Now, imagine layering this government-caused environmental
disaster on top of climate crisis-induced dangerous heat and
chaotic flooding. Imagine what these twin crises do to our
polluted low-income and black neighborhoods, in Hazelwood,
Missouri, Florissant, and in St. Louis, Missouri.
Directing 40 percent of climate investments to our
communities that are being hit by climate change first and
hardest is not only common sense, but it is a matter of life
and death. My Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection
Act with Senator Markey would collect, map, and layer data on
environmental racism to ensure that, at a bare minimum, 40
percent of funds go to reduce emissions and cleanup the
communities most in need. My Green New Deal for Cities with
Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez will fund climate justice efforts
in every single community with 50 percent of funds directed to
frontline communities.
Guidance released by the White House yesterday gives me
hope that our momentum toward the goals of Justice40 continues.
I am eager to ensure that we apply these standards as a minimum
for all infrastructure reconciliation spending. We need at
least $400 billion out of every $1 trillion spent to go to
frontline communities. Part of this would be achieved by
directing funding to local governments and organizations who
know where brownfields are in places like St. Louis.
So, Mr. Moore, briefly, can you explain the challenges we
expect the Council on Environmental Quality to face in creating
a climate justice screening tool?
Mr. Moore. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, ma'am. I do
want to say in response to your question, for those of us that
live in and live around situations of environmental injustice,
economic injustice, and environmental racism, it amazes me many
times that there will be climate deniers that speak, too, and
we are looking at that here in New Mexico. I mean, is it
because we don't have the complexion for protection? I just
have to state that, Miss.
You know, the challenge will be--I think that part of that
challenge, as I said, will be, as Harold Mitchell expressed,
the implementation on the ground. And we don't go just bragging
about, and comments were made earlier, you know, with
administrations and whatever. But this climate justice, this
particular moment, this historical moment, where history has
consistently spoke over and over again around the environmental
racism and the environmental injustices that our communities
are imposed by, so yes, it is going to be a challenge. The
implementation will be the challenge, but we think the
recommendations made in the interim guidance will help us move
not only several steps forward, but many steps forward around
this particular plan.
Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mitchell, really
quickly, what do you see as the biggest hurdle for our efforts
to deliver a minimum of 40 percent of climate investments to
frontline communities?
Mr. Mitchell. If there are no strings attached to the
funding and initiatives that would go down to the states,
because you would have some in this political climate that will
basically not allow these resources to come into these
communities, like we saw before with the ERA Funds. We saw many
folks, actually with the expanding of Medicaid, where we saw a
disproportionate number of folks that needed access to
healthcare, and the pandemic showed just that. Those that
didn't have that access and a medical home were the ones that
we saw that tested positive and died. So, without the proper
oversight and the tools or the strings attached for these state
and local governments, those funds will not get where they need
to, and that is on the ground in these fence-line, frontline
communities.
Ms. Bush. Thank you. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner, is recognized for five
minutes. Mr. LaTurner? Thank you.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank
you for holding the hearing today. The impact on the American
people of environmental changes and the proper response of the
Federal Government are important issues that merit a balanced
and thoughtful response. Unfortunately, the policies proposed
in the American Jobs Plan and the Green New Deal are hardly
balanced and thoughtful. Rather than common sense reforms that
focus our efforts on what we already know works, these
solutions would eliminate job opportunities across our Nation's
economy, particularly in our energy, transportation, and
agricultural sectors, and devastate states like Kansas, who
depend heavily upon these critical industries.
First and foremost, it would call for the elimination of
all fossil fuel energy production, both oil and natural gas,
within 10 years. The plan calls for transitioning off nuclear
power, a source of clean and renewable energy produced by
industry leaders like the Wolf Creek power plant back home in
my congressional district. Additionally, the Green New Deal
calls for the eventual end of air travel, a move that would
threaten nearly 100,000 jobs in my home state with an economic
impact of over $20 billion. These proposals fail to take into
account the progress that we have already made in moving toward
a cleaner energy economy. Per capita emissions were lower in
2019 than they have been at any time since 1950, and the U.S.
has been the leading reducer of emissions worldwide since 2005.
Instead of building on this success, the proposed policies
favor heavy-handed directives that will cripple our economy. In
order to achieve the proposed goal of zero percent greenhouse
gas emissions within 10 years, farmers would have to change the
way they farm and harvest crops. The cattle industry would
likely be altogether eliminated. In Kansas alone, the cattle
industry employs nearly 40,000 people, contributing almost $9
billion in the state's annual economy, and these workers have
already made great strides in effectiveness that my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle seem all too ready to ignore.
The U.S. beef industry currently produces 18 percent of the
world's beef with only six percent of the world's cattle, and
producers have managed to reduce emissions by 30 percent from
1975 to 2017 without any government mandates.
Unfortunately, the so-called Environmental Justice Plan
doesn't explain what will happen to the hundreds of thousands
of Americans who will lose their job, livelihood, and ability
to take care of their family after these industries and the
others are completely wiped out, and no one has indicated
exactly how all of these changes will be paid for, other than
calling for a massive investment of funds. Some estimates have
indicated the cost could be as high as $93 trillion. That would
cost every American household around $65,000 per year, which is
more than the average household income in my home state of
Kansas. The bottom line is that America can't afford the
Democrats' partisan plan. Rather than forcing through proposals
that are supported by few outside of the progressive left, I
would encourage my colleagues to come together to address this
issue in a way that actually works for all Americans.
Mr. Hawkins, can you please discuss, in your opinion, how
the Green New Deal would impact economically disadvantaged
communities?
Mr. Hawkins. I think the net effect would be negative,
again, because of what we discussed in terms of the potential
cost in terms of jobs, and the fact that these communities are,
again, the first to be impacted by recession and the last to
recover in the case of recovery. And so, you know, if you are
looking at the type of disruption, from a jobs standpoint, that
the various interpretations of the proposed Green New Deal
would create, it would be devastating.
Beyond that, again, the cost. The cost will be--will be in
higher taxes. The people who are going to be most impacted by
those taxes are the people who are in the least position to
avoid those taxes, and so folks in distressed communities are
going to be, I believe, overall, negatively impacted.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Madam Chairwoman, I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Georgia, who has been here the entire time
listening intently, Mr. Johnson, is recognized for five
minutes. Thank you for your attendance.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
holding this hearing. Across the country, we are witnessing
environmental infrastructure disasters, from the massive Texas
power grid failure to the Jackson, Mississippi water failure
that left millions without utilities for a week, or for weeks
actually. These issues stem from our country's lack of
investment in environmental infrastructure, and this systemic
failure disproportionately harms working families in minority
communities. Mr. Hawkins, I don't see how you can get around
that, sir, and I question whether or not you have been paid off
to be here or not by these Republicans, because you talk like
you have been paid off. But if we are to withstand----
Mr. Hawkins. Yes sir. I can address that, Congressman, if
you'd like.
Mr. Johnson. I will give you a chance, but if we are to
withstand future climate events, then we must reinvest,
restore, and redesign our system. Ms. Ndu-mee-kay--I mean,
excuse me--Ms. Ndumele, what does a true systemic rebuilding of
America--of American infrastructure, a rebuilding of American
infrastructure, what does that look like and why is that
investment critical in the fight to achieve both racial and
economic justice?
Ms. Ndumele. Thank you for your question. I will start with
the last part about why this is necessary for environmental,
racial, and economic justice. From extraction, to refinement,
to burning fossil fuels and other pollutants, environmental
hazards are absolutely disproportionately threatening the
public health of communities of color at every turn. Pollution-
generating industrial facilities are concentrated in black and
brown communities. Heavily trafficked roads and highways, many
of which were built near or deliberately through black
communities and brown communities, pump a constant cloud of
pollution from cars and diesel fuel trucks. There has been
chronic disinvestment in these communities and in
infrastructure ranging from jobs, housing, parks, and the like.
A recent study found that fine particulate matter, the
deadliest air pollutant emitted by almost every major fossil
fuel, disproportionately affects black, Latino, indigenous, and
Asian-American communities regardless of zip code and income.
And what we are seeing is that much of this is the result of
government policies and structural and systemic racism within
economic and infrastructure policies. And so that is why the
Justice40 Initiative is so important because it is a whole-of-
government approach to right these wrongs and to address the
systemic injustices that have plagued these communities, and
cumulatively plagued these communities through years and
decades, and, in some cases, centuries of disinvestment and
discrimination.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Guerrero, I want to thank you
for highlighting my Stronger Communities Through Better Transit
Act in your written testimony as a solution to help create
family sustaining jobs that address equity and community needs.
What do you see as the merits of that legislation to capture
communities that are excluded from Federal infrastructure
planning?
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Representative Johnson. Yes, I
think it is a tremendous example of what potential we have and
what we can do in rebuilding our communities to address
environmental justice and inequity. The fact is that supporting
operations is super important, but public transit is one of
those areas and industries that creates good jobs throughout,
from operations and maintenance, manufacturing, et cetera. The
fact that we can address some of the transit deserts in this
country and give access to people to get to work, that helps to
lift them up economically as well, so there are just so many
benefits, both economically and if we electrify the system and
make it much more climate friendly. There is just no end, I
think, to the potential of what building out public transit can
do in this country, and really commend you for your bill.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you. Mr. Hawkins, which corporations
paid for your travel to D.C. today to testify in this hearing?
Mr. Hawkins. I paid for my own travel, Congressman, and
what is important to note here is, you noted these Republicans
covering my travel. Congressman, I am a registered Republican,
and I am very proud of the work that I did as tax counsel for
Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, covering both his tax and
trade portfolio, advising him throughout all of tax reform, and
advising him through the renegotiation of NAFTA as South
Carolina is the third most trade dependent state in this
country.
Mr. Johnson. And you guys----
Mr. Hawkins. If you know me and you read my bio----
Mr. Johnson. You guys impress me as being deniers of
systemic racism, and I have got a real problem with that. And
with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, is now recognized. Mr.
Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
appreciate it. Can you hear me?
Chairwoman Maloney. I can hear you, but I can't see you.
Mr. Fallon. Oh, OK. Let me do that. The video should be on.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. I see you now. You are recognized.
Mr. Fallon. OK. Thank you. You know, I ask myself what this
committee hearing today was about, and I thought long and hard
about it. It seems to be labels and labeling. Some in the
political arena, and particularly today, are excellent, they
excel at labels, and they give flowering aims to certain bills
and legislation that oftentimes mask their true intent and
their actual purpose and impact. So, what is this hearing
really about, and it seems to be labeling America in 2021 as
hopelessly racist. And how can a systemically racist society be
redeemed? Through a massive redistribution of wealth. How can
the poor be uplifted and their circumstances be improved?
Apparently, some believe not by the virtues of hard work, and
determination, and education, and private investment, and free
enterprise. No, only the heavy-handed use of tax dollars by the
government can these ills be solved. Central planning at its
finest.
So, it is not only that some people believe that society is
inflicted with systemic racism and unprovable assertions, like
unconscious bias, but we have learned in the past year or so
that some believe that COVID, a virus most likely originating
from Wuhan, China, was racist, and fossil fuels being racist,
the climate being racist, and today there is an argument to be
made that pollution apparently is racist. And where is the
actual hard data that would stand up to the scrutiny of peer
review and employ randomized sampling and scientific
methodology? Well, in page 1 of our background material it
said, ``People of color are disproportionately exposed to
pollution from a wide range of sources. Black Americans, and,
to a lesser extent, Hispanic and Asian Americans, all have a
higher risk of premature death as a result of pollution,'' and
they cite a study from the American Lung Association. So, I
read that study found, and the study, it diverged because it
said that income did not drive the difference, and then in the
very next paragraph, it said socioeconomic position also
appears tied to greater harm from air pollution, so I don't
know which one it was. And then in this very short information
that was cited in a footnote, they use the word ``may'' or
``could'' 10 different times, and then contradicted their whole
conclusion by saying, ``However, since few rural counties have
monitors, the primarily older, non-Hispanic white residents of
these counties lack information about air quality in their
communities.'' So, this seems to be junk science at its finest.
So, the argument could be made, you know, these folks on
the other side of the aisle, many say that white privilege is
real. So, if in the United States white privilege was a
reality, if you break Americans down demographically, who would
be at the top of the economic food chain? It would clearly be,
if you believe in white privilege, it would be white Americans
on average. But when you break us down demographically and use
data and science, the congressional Research Service found in
2019, in median incomes, the top demographic, ethnic or
demographic, was Indian Americans, Asian-Indian Americans, with
an average of a $120,000 median income. Asian Americans were
next, not whites. Asian-Americans. So, Indian-Americans make 57
percent more on average than white Americans. Asian Americans,
it was $98,174. They make 30 percent more than white Americans.
Then coming in third were white Americans at $76,000, Hispanic
Americans at $56,000, and black Americans at $45,400. So, if
there is white privilege, white folks are incredibly bad at it.
Mr. Johnson. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Fallon. No, I do not yield. I do not yield. I have five
minutes. I am going to take it, sir. Then----
Mr. Johnson. That is what you are so afraid of.
Mr. Fallon. Well, I didn't interrupt you. What are you
afraid of? Ma'am, I would reclaim my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The time belongs to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, what we have here
is when you look at these demographics, you know what the one
consistent thing is? It is not race. It is education levels.
Indian Americans, on average, are the most educated. Then who
is next? Oh, the group that comes in second, Asian Americans.
Who is third? White Americans. Who is fourth? Hispanic
Americans. Who is fifth? Black Americans. This is about
education in America. There are 22 million white Americans that
live in poverty in this country. There are 21 million black
Americans that are middle-class or above. Let focus more on
data and facts and far less on emotions and suppositions. Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
appreciate the opportunity. I want to explore this concept of
cumulative impacts. Ms. Ndumele, can you explain what the term
``cumulative impacts'' means and why they are so dangerous for
minority communities?
Ms. Ndumele. Thank you for the question. In terms of
cumulative racial impacts, we are talking about the ways that
various policies have compounded over time to
disproportionately impact people of color. In response to some
of the questions that were just raised, there has been a long
history of systemic and institutional racism that has led to
the concentration of dangerous pollutants in black and brown
communities. And these type of government policies that are
facts and data, ranging from redlining, discriminatory housing
and lending practices, to chronic disinvestment in equitable
and climate resilient infrastructure in black and brown
communities, to Federal highways that tore through the heart of
these communities and further cut them off from economic
opportunities, to inequitable access to high-quality schools,
jobs, financial services, banking. All this has led to high
levels of segregation, environmental, and economic injustices,
and a persistent and widening racial wealth gap.
And I think part of what is important about the idea of
``cumulative'' is that this is a generational problem. This is
centuries of discrimination that is then passed on to each
generation. One of the concepts of wealth is that interest
compounds to the benefit of the wealthy in the same way that
detriment compounds to the detriment of individuals who have
been systemically deprived of wealth--the wealth accumulation
and maintaining wealth--and passing it on to the next
generation.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, and I appreciate your
pointing to kind of the generational accumulation of this
impact. But let's talk about it in the specific context, for a
moment, of how policy we make gets applied when it comes to the
granting of permits, things of that nature. I will give the
example of there is, as we all know, this stretch--85-mile
stretch along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans where there are around 150 fossil fuel and
petrochemical plants that are pumping out pollutants by the
hour. The air is filled with toxicity. Communities around the
plants face extreme cancer risk. In fact, this stretch of land,
as we know, is referred to as Cancer Alley.
Poor communities across the country are surrounded by
hundreds of giant polluting plants, but right now this is all
legal under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. How is
that possible? It is possible because the law actually doesn't
require consideration of the cumulative impact before a
governing body can grant a permit for an individual plant,
which cuts directly against the spirit of what we are trying to
present here today with the hearing. So, Ms. Salter, how does
this policy failure, in your view, open the floodgates for
companies to target poor communities and communities of color?
Ms. Salter. Well, there are many things that allow private
developers to target communities of color. Certainly, a failure
to consider cumulative impacts means that solutions that are
brought to bear are incomplete and don't adequately cover what
is needed for the remediation of harm, or adequately consider
what is needed going forward on policy, certainly.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, and even as we sort of try
to push against the negative cumulative impacts when we think
about environmental justice and how we can bring the Justice40
Initiative to embrace these kinds of efforts, we can also think
about the positive cumulative impact that we can put together
in the environmental arena, particularly as it impacts poor
communities across the country. I am very proud to have worked
with other members to lead a bipartisan bill called Tackling
Residential Energy and Economic Savings Act, or the TREES Act,
which would provide resources to help homeowners plant more
trees, with a focus on communities that have traditionally
lacked that canopy, that tree cover, which is so critical. We
certainly are seeing data coming back every minute now with
these heatwaves across the country what that means,
particularly in urban areas where you lack canopy. So, we can
both address and, I think, overcome some of these cumulative
negative impacts, but also think creatively about how to
establish a kind of positive loop here, positive feedback, and
deal with these issues of environmental justice. Thank you very
much, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
Gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is now recognized for five
minutes. Ms. Kelly?
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair. In my district in
Chicago, the 10th Ward has faced issues around pollution far
too often. On the surface, we have what we need to overcome
climate change, create jobs, and combat inequality. We have the
science. We have the technology. We have the mandate. So, what
is the holdup? Simply put, we need the Federal Government to
catch up with states that are leading the way. We need to use
the tools that states have already developed to take the
cumulative impacts of pollution into account in every decision
so we can implement fundamental environmental protections. Mr.
Moore, you are one of the chief drivers behind the movement to
take cumulative impacts into account. How do cumulative impacts
affect our communities?
Mr. Moore. Well, thank you very much, ma'am. I think if we
look at--if we take several examples, one would be the example
of Manchester in the Houston area when we are discussing the
cumulative impact. Another is if we take Mossville, Louisiana,
for example, and the impact on our largely African-American
community in Mossville. Alaska, Puerto Rico. We could go on and
on and on and list the states. The cumulative impact is
crucial, and that is why I had stated earlier that the EJ for
All Act is crucial additionally in terms of supporting and
backing up many of the recommendations that are made through
the Justice40. So very, very clearly, for those that live
around these facilities, fence-line communities that live
around many of these facilities are very highly impacted by air
contamination, water contamination, and soil contamination.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Kelly. And what does government miss without a
comprehensive approach to measuring the true impact to
communities?
Mr. Moore. Very definitely I would say to that, that we
have this historical moment to repair much of the environmental
injustice, and then, based around that then, the combination--
the combination of these different programs and projects coming
together are crucial to assist in repairing the damage that has
been done in our communities.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Ms. Salter, how can government
agencies and corporations, from renewable energy development
authorities to public utilities, speed up a transition to a
just renewable economy?
Ms. Salter. Well, first, I will say, an example from New
York is that we need to take early action on prioritizing those
emission and co-pollutant reductions in disadvantaged
communities. We need to take the lead on doing that, and a lot
of the things that we need to really start focusing on doing
really are very common-sense measures. We need to be doing
accounting to understand where money is flowing. We need to be
doing monitoring to understand what our baseline is for
pollution so that we can systematically move toward
remediation, repatriation. This is something that we can begin
now. We should begin now. Should have been done.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much. Finally, Justice40 provides a
centralized interagency approach that will allow us to identify
cumulative impacts and ensure investments to get where they are
needed. They will also bring government decision-making up to
speed with the very best in epidemiology and environmental
medicine. I am proud to support the Justice40 Initiative as
championed by the White House and local leaders, and I do look
forward to the Oversight Committee's continued engagement to
make sure we get this done. If we get it right, it will truly
be transformational in delivering long-overdue resources
directly to the people and communities primed to lead the way
to a stronger, fairer, more prosperous America. Thank you so
much and thank you for your patience. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady from
Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is recognized.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. Extreme heat
kills more Americans every year than every other weather-
related disaster, and, heatwaves, because of climate change,
are growing in intensity and frequency. As the climate crisis
continues warming the planet, some communities are suffering
more than others. If folks are tired of us pointing that out,
imagine how tired people are of actually living these disparate
realities. This is especially true in my district, the
Massachusetts 7th. Across neighborhoods predominately comprised
of low-income people of color, from Roxbury to Chinatown, to
Chelsea to East Boston, the intense heatwaves are longer,
hotter, and more frequent than in whiter, more affluent
neighborhoods. I might also add they have close proximity to
highways. They are environmental--communities that
disproportionally bear the brunt of environmental injustices,
proximity to toxic waste, and also a lack of tree canopies.
I ask for unanimous consent to enter a Boston Globe article
titled, ``Boston's Heat Islands Turn Lower-Income Neighborhoods
From Hot to Insufferable,'' by David Abel into the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Pressley. It is no coincidence--I want to underscore
that--it is no coincidence that the urban heat island effect is
more pronounced in the same neighborhoods--the same--that have
been historically redlined. Ms. Salter, yes or no, would you
call this racism?
Ms. Salter. Absolutely, I would call it racism,
segregation, environmental degradation, demonization,
dehumanization, leading to sacrifice zones and disparate
environmental effects to people of color in particular.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And given all of those things, the
fact is that severe heat intensity disproportionately impacts
black, Hispanic, Latinx, and Asian communities because they are
forced to live in densely packed, highly polluted areas.
Moreover, these neighborhoods lack significant green space and
tree cover, which can mitigate these high temperatures. Mr.
Mitchell, how can Federal investments as part of the Justice40
Initiative mitigate the extreme heat crisis impacting
communities of color?
Mr. Mitchell. An across-the-board investment, No. 1, from
HUD and a couple of the other agencies that can address those
issues, that from a lack of investment in the past, is pretty
much where and why we are where we are at right now, looking at
those investment opportunities of addressing these impacts. It
is going to get worse. What we see with the heat, the storms,
the rising sea levels, all of this is going to get worse. And
so right now, it is a point of investing in the resiliency that
is needed in most of these communities, and this is what
Justice40 will be able to do. And those that are on the ground
at the state and local level, they know the problems that they
are facing. This pandemic has stripped local governments, and
right now this would be the springboard and the shot to address
these injustices in black and brown communities in order to
inject the right type of resilience in our black and brown
communities that have been disproportionately not invested in
before.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And, Ms. Ndumele, your written
testimony includes several recommendations which describe the
intersectional harms of the climate crisis, for example, social
determinants of health, like where someone lives and where
someone works, are directly impacted by environmental policies.
Ms. Ndumele, can you provide some examples of how environmental
policy decisions by lawmakers may on their face not appear to
be racist, but, in fact, disproportionately harm communities of
color?
Ms. Ndumele. The broader point I would underscore is what
the prior witness just pointed to, which is where we have
energy efficient and resilient investments, and the chronic and
lack of investment in those opportunities in communities of
color has led to this situation. But it is also something where
we have the opportunity now to turn the tide and make more
equitable investments in the communities that so sorely need
it.
Ms. Pressley. And, you know, I was speaking a moment ago
about how none of this is naturally occurring. It is no
coincidence. It is by design. I think it has everything to do
with divestment, under-investment, policy violence. Mr.
Mitchell, as a former legislator and an environmental justice
community leader, do you think that there are ways that
policymakers will be better at what they do if they have the
tools that demonstrate how their decisions impact marginalized
communities?
Mr. Mitchell. I would say, yes, if they have the tools, and
currently, right now, there are many that are looking,
especially with this Justice40 oversight that we have
introduced in South Carolina and some other states that are
looking to adopt, whether it is through executive orders
through their Governors or the legislative process itself, of
being able to get these resources. And the push of Justice40 of
what it would do to these states and local governments, they
are desperately looking for this. And the proper oversight of
this committee to put just the right oversight in itself, of
getting these resources down, is what they are desperately
looking for. Just like the citizens that most of you all
represent, legislators and Governors are actually depending
upon Justice40 because we have never seen this type of
investment before.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. I am encouraged by
the Biden-Harris Administration's efforts to prioritize these
frontline communities. We need these investments now. Thank
you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back, and before
I close, I want to offer the ranking member an opportunity to
offer any closing remarks he may have. Ranking Member Comer,
you are now recognized.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, again, I want to
thank all the witnesses who participated in the hearing today.
I think there are many areas of agreement with respect to how
to best proceed with climate change policy between the
Republicans and Democrats. I would love to have situations
where in the House, when we look at legislation, we sit down
and try to work together in a bipartisan way, like the
bipartisan group of senators are trying to do, despite Senator
Schumer's efforts in the Senate right now on infrastructure.
So, I think there are areas that we can agree on but we have to
be mindful of the fact that any type of legislation we do, we
have to be mindful of the fact that China and other countries
are going to continue to be polluters. And we have to ensure
that we have policy, whether that be led by President Biden or
John Kerry--we still don't know exactly what John Kerry's role
is as climate czar--we need to make sure that China, and India,
and other countries that are manufacturing competitors of ours
that have the potential to take jobs away from the United
States, we have to make sure that we are playing on a level
field.
And with respect to the opportunity zones, you know, I
think most Republicans support that. Most Republicans believe
that the best way to get someone out of poverty is to create an
environment where that person has access to a good-paying job.
We have a scenario in America now where there are over 8
million jobs available, so I believe it is a great time in
American history to focus on getting people off welfare, off
extended unemployment, and into the work force into good-paying
jobs. And we have to have private sector investment in under-
served communities and lower-income communities, and
communities that have, quite frankly, been left out, for
whatever reason, of private investment before. So, I think
there are areas where we can work together on this issue moving
forward.
And, again, I want to thank the witnesses who came here
today. And, again, Mr. Hawkins, thank you for all the great
work you have done and the work with the Oversight Committee in
the past. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. And I,
first, in closing want to thank all of our panelists. It has
been a long day. You provided very, very insightful and
thoughtful testimony for all of us, and I want to commend my
colleagues for participating in this very important
conversation. We now find ourselves at the end of a very long
hearing, but the beginning of our work to implement the
Justice40 Initiative and to turn the new White House guidance
into reality. I particularly want to thank the panelists that
participated in framing the Justice40 Initiative, working with
the Biden Administration, working with their communities to
bring this idea to the white House.
The testimony we have heard today has been devastating:
lives torn apart, communities poisoned, children sick, and
countless Americans left behind. Yet some of my Republican
colleagues have said that this hearing was a waste of time, in
so many words. Their argument essentially is that fixing
climate change is simply too hard and too expensive or
shouldn't be thought about at all. To them I say the cost of
inaction is far higher. It is a climate catastrophe if we do
not act.
The signs of this are already around us. Our cities are
being attacked with floods. Our towns are choked by fire. Ms.
Salter stated in her testimony that in my home city of New
York, in certain communities, destructive particles, known as
PM 2.5, kill 3,000 New Yorkers each year. And last year, this
committee issued a report projecting as many as 413,000 New
Yorkers could die prematurely if we don't reduce air pollution
and tackle climate change, and this is the story all across
America. We can fix this and strengthen the American economy
with a strong approach to environmental justice. As our
witnesses told us today, Justice40 is an opportunity to combat
the climate crisis, create jobs, and advance racial and
economic equity.
The data shows that action on climate change will not only
save lives, but it will save the U.S. economy over $700 billion
or more each year. So, we have answers. We have technology. We
just need the political will to act. So, I urge all my
colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to work together to
ensure that the ongoing climate emergency does not become a
climate catastrophe. Again, I thank so many of our panelists
and my colleagues for their life's work.
Whoa, I have got to say something very important, that,
without objection, all members will have five legislative days
within which to submit extraneous materials and to submit
additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair,
which will be forwarded to the witnesses for your response. I
ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are
able.
Chairwoman Maloney. And with that, this very long hearing
is adjourned.
[all]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg45370_chrg-117hhrg45370.htm
- Size
- 202,624 bytes
- SHA-256
- 8759d3bd1e87f58a31e804163dd987b7ba182b3f27fc0b6e55e2a0c3181a4591
- Original
- No public link identified.