[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: PROTECTING FRONTLINE 
                              COMMUNITIES

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 15, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-21
                           
                           
                 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                           

     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                        
                               ________
			
			
	            U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
			
47-095 			  WASHINGTON : 2022
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona                  (ex officio)
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of West Virginia, opening statement......................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                               Witnesses

Mildred McClain, Ph.D., Executive Director, Harambee House and 
  Citizens for Environmental Justice.............................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Submitted questions for the record \1\                          217
Angelo Logan, Policy and Campaign Director, Moving Forward 
  Network........................................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    19
    Submitted questions for the record \1\                          220
Elizabeth Yeampierre, Executive Director, UPROSE, and Cochair, 
  Climate Justice Alliance.......................................    25
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Submitted questions for the record \1\                          223
Derrick Hollie, President, Reaching America......................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
Shay Hawkins, President, Opportunity Funds Association...........    35
    Prepared statement...........................................    37
Adrienne Hollis, Ph.D., Senior Climate Justice and Health 
  Scientist, Climate and Energy Program, Union of Concerned 
  Scientists.....................................................    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   227

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 1512, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for 
  our Nation's Future Act, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 501, the Climate Smart Ports Act, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 516, the Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection 
  Act of 2021, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 861, the Alerting Localities of Environmental Risks and 
  Threats Act of 2021, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 862, the Climate Action Planning for Ports Act of 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\

----------

\1\ Dr. McClain, Mr. Logan, and Ms. Yeampierre did not answer submitted 
questions for the record by the time of publication.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111450.
H.R. 2021, the Environmental Justice for All Act, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 2394, the Climate Justice Act of 2021, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko \2\
H.R. 2396, the Ensuring Safe Disposal of Coal Ash Act, submitted 
  by Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 2397, the Protection from Cumulative Emissions and 
  Underenforcement of Environmental Law Act of 2021, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 2431, the Voices for Environmental Justice Act, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko \2\
H.R. 2434, the Environmental Justice Act of 2021, submitted by 
  Mr. Tonko \2\
Letter of April 15, 2021, from James A. Williams II, Vice 
  President of Government Affairs, Environmental Technology 
  Council, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. Tonko.    97
Letter of April 2021 from Abigail Ross Hopper, President and 
  Chief Executive Officer, Solar Energy Industries Association, 
  to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Tonko........   101
Policy statement of the Solar Energy Industries Association, 
  April 13, 2021, submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................   102
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Christine Santillana, 
  Earthjustice, et al., to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, 
  submitted by Mr. Soto..........................................   112
Letter of April 15, 2021, from Diane VanDe Hei, Chief Executive 
  Officer, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, and Adam 
  Krantz, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Clean 
  Water Agencies, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. 
  Tonko..........................................................   115
Letter of April 15, 2021, from Dan Hartinger, Director, 
  Government Relations, The Wilderness Society, to Mr. Tonko and 
  Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. McEachin........................   117
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Senator Tammy Duckworth, et al., 
  to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Mr. McEachin.....   120
Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, 
  ``Environmental Justice: Examining the Environmental Protection 
  Agency's Compliance and Enforcement of Title VI and Executive 
  Order 12,898,'' September 2016, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Julia Olson, Executive Director, 
  Our Children's Trust, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Mario Cordero, Executive Director, 
  Port of Long Beach, to Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. Tonko.....   122
Article of April 2, 2021, ``Biden's green energy plans clash with 
  pledge to create union jobs,'' by Rebecca Rainey and Eric 
  Wolff, Politico, submitted by Mr. McKinley.....................   123
Article of April 13, 2021, ``Secrecy and Abuse Claims Haunt 
  China's Solar Factories in Xinjiang,'' by Dan Murtaugh, et al., 
  Bloomberg, submitted by Mr. McKinley...........................   129
Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Gail Heriot to the U.S. 
  Commission on Civil Rights' Report ``Environmental Justice: 
  Examining the Environmental Protection Agency's Compliance and 
  Enforcement of Title VI and Executive Order 12,898,'' Research 
  Paper No. 17-247, 2016, submitted by Mr. McKinley \2\
Letter of April 14, 2021, from James C. McCurry, Jr., Chief 
  Administrative Officer, Georgia Ports, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. 
  Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Carter...............................   144
Letter of April 14, 2021, from Michel J. (Mike) Paque, Executive 
  Director, Ground Water Protection Council, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. 
  McKinley, submitted by Mr. McKinley............................   147
Letter of April 15, 2021, from Dan Naatz, Executive Vice 
  President, Independent Petroleum Association of America, to Mr. 
  Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. McKinley..............   150
Letter of April 12, 2021, from R.C. Klipsch, Mayor, City of 
  Petersburg, IN, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. 
  McKinley.......................................................   162
Article of April 6, 2021, ``The wage gap that threatens Biden's 
  climate plan,'' by Kelsey Tamborrino, Politico, submitted by 
  Mr. Johnson....................................................   163
Letter of April 14, 2020, from Mayor Louise Carter-King, City of 
  Gillette, WY, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. 
  McKinley.......................................................   170


----------

\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111450.
Articles, ``Structural Fill: Conserving Natural Resources Through 
  Projects Featuring Rigorous Engineering Standards'' by John 
  Ward and ``How Well Do You Know CLSM?'' by Thomas H. Adams, Ash 
  at Work, Issue 2, 2019, submitted by Mr. McKinley..............   172
Report of the Council of Economic Advisers, ``The Impact of 
  Opportunity Zones: An Initial Assessment,'' August 2020, 
  submitted by Mr. McKinley \2\
Fact sheet of the American Coal Ash Association, ``Coal Ash 
  Regulation and `Unencapsulated' Beneficial Use,'' April 12, 
  2021, submitted by Mr. McKinley................................   180
Letter of August 31, 2019, from Vi Waghiyi, Environmental Health 
  and Justice Director, and Pamela Miller, Executive Director, 
  Alaska Community Action on Toxics, to Rep. Raul Grijalva and 
  Mr. McEachin, submitted by Mr. McEachin........................   182
Letter of August 30, 2019, from Amanda Heier, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, to Rep. 
  Raul Grijalva and Mr. McEachin, submitted by Mr. McEachin......   184
Statement of Black Millennials for Flint, February 27, 2020, 
  submitted by Mr. McEachin......................................   187
Statement of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, November 15, 2019, 
  submitted by Mr. McEachin......................................   190
Letter of August 30, 2019, from Judith Robinson, Executive 
  Director, Coming Clean, to Rep. Raul Grijalva and Mr. McEachin, 
  submitted by Mr. McEachin......................................   191
Statement of Creation Justice Ministries, February 27, 2020, 
  submitted by Mr. McEachin......................................   194
Statement of Earthjustice, February 27, 2020, submitted by Mr. 
  McEachin.......................................................   196
Statement of the Environmental Defense Fund, February 28, 2020, 
  submitted by Mr. McEachin......................................   198
Statement on H.R. 5986, the Environmental Justice for All Act, by 
  Virginia Interfaith Power & Light, et al., submitted by Mr. 
  McEachin.......................................................   200
Letter from Moving Forward Network to Rep. Raul Grijalva and Mr. 
  McEachin, submitted by Mr. McEachin............................   202
Statement of the National Wildlife Federation, Feb. 27, 2020, 
  submitted by Mr. McEachin......................................   209
Statement of the Sierra Club, February 27, 2020, submitted by Mr. 
  McEachin.......................................................   210
Statement of the Union of Concerned Scientists by Adrienne 
  Hollis, Senior Climate Justice and Health Scientist, February 
  27, 2020, submitted by Mr. McEachin............................   211
Statement of the Western Environmental Law Center, February 27, 
  2020, submitted by Mr. McEachin................................   212
Letter of April 11, 2021, from Donald ``Happy'' Mobelini, Mayor, 
  City of Hazard, KY, to Mr. McKinley, submitted by Mr. McKinley.   213
Letter of April 11, 2021, from Donald ``Happy'' Mobelini, Mayor, 
  City of Hazard, KY, to Mr. Tonko, submitted by Mr. McKinley....   215

----------

\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111450.

 
 THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: PROTECTING FRONTLINE 
                              COMMUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Paul Tonko 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, DeGette, 
Schakowsky, Sarbanes, Clarke, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Barragan, 
McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Pallone (ex 
officio), McKinley (subcommittee ranking member), Johnson, 
Hudson, Carter, Duncan, Palmer, Curtis, and Rodgers (ex 
officio).
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Adam Fischer, 
Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; 
Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez, 
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff 
Member; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director 
Outreach and Member Service; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and 
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital 
Assistant; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin J. 
Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Elysa Montfort, Press 
Secretary; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief 
Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Kylea Rogers, Staff Assistant; 
Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, Director of 
Communications, Outreach and Member Services; Rebecca 
Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy Staff 
Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer 
Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment; Nate Hodson, 
Minority Staff Director; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and 
Environment; and Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order.
    Today the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change is 
holding a hearing entitled ``The CLEAN Future Act and 
Environmental Justice: Protecting Frontline Communities.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will 
be participating via video conferencing.
    As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. And 
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone 
each time you choose to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik 
at the email address we have provided to staff. All documents 
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of today's 
hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change is 
hoping, as I indicated--this discussion on the CLEAN Future Act 
as it relates to environmental justice, and protecting our 
frontline communities. Due to all of the efforts as we continue 
to move forward, and make certain that we receive all input, 
recognize that all people will have a chance to enter into the 
record any statements.
    I believe members of this committee would agree that all 
Americans should be able to have clean air, clean water, and 
lives free from pollution. Unfortunately, this has not been the 
case throughout our history, and it is not the case as we speak 
today. And the burdens of this exposure have not been 
distributed equally or randomly. Americans who have paid the 
highest price for this pollution have mostly been people of 
color and those of low-income communities. Their exposure to 
pollution has resulted in higher rates of respiratory 
illnesses, of cancer, of premature death.
    And the consequences ripple out much further. For example, 
impacted communities tend to have greater vulnerability to 
damage and hardship caused by our climate inaction. In recent 
years this subcommittee has taken a leading role in reversing 
these trends, and many Members have championed efforts to right 
these historic injustices and support investments, public 
health protections, and pollution reductions in the communities 
that need them most, regardless of race, income, or ZIP code.
    Today's legislative hearing is an opportunity to examine 
some of these efforts. Our focus today includes title 6, 
subtitle F of title 4, and section 842 of the committee's CLEAN 
Future Act.
    But, of course, the CLEAN Future Act was not developed in a 
vacuum. It builds on input, ideas, and provisions from many 
stakeholders and Members of Congress. That spirit of 
partnership has made the CLEAN Future Act much stronger. And it 
is my hope that these improvements will continue today and in 
future hearings.
    In addition to the CLEAN Future Act, today's hearing will 
look at 10 bills to address aspects of environmental justice. 
So I do want to recognize and thank subcommittee members 
DeGette, Clarke, Ruiz, Barragan, McEachin, and Blunt Rochester 
for their work on these bills and commitment to putting 
environmental justice at the heart of our subcommittee's work. 
I share their commitment and look forward to working with all 
of our members to make certain the 117th Congress isn't merely 
a Congress for climate action, but a Congress for just and 
equitable climate action.
    And I have been pleased that, starting with President 
Biden's Executive order on tackling the climate crisis at home 
and abroad, that the administration has made a commitment to 
enhancing environmental justice.
    But these goals will not be achievable unless we act 
through an inclusive process that allows community 
organizations and people most affected by pollution to be 
involved. This means having community voices in the 
development, the consideration, the implementation, and 
certainly the enforcement of our Nation's environmental laws. 
Today's hearing is part of that.
    In that spirit I welcome our witnesses, and I thank the 
many environmental justice advocates who have taken time to 
meet with Members and our staffs to share your perspectives, 
because our goals depend on listening to the communities that 
have faced these disproportionate impacts and have been shut 
out of participation in processes for decades.
    No one bill will undo the generations of injustices, 
racism, and discrimination against frontline communities. That 
is why we need a comprehensive strategy that deals with 
disproportionate impacts and supports the revitalization of 
communities which will come from reducing and remediating 
pollution. That is why today's hearing includes coal ash 
protections, lead service line replacements, brownfield and 
Superfund remediations, and traditional air pollutants.
    We will also consider legislation to reduce emissions, 
emissions from ports to deploy air pollution-monitoring 
infrastructure, and build capacity of community-based 
organizations to enable greater participation in environmental 
and infrastructure decisionmaking processes.
    These bills also propose ways to strengthen and improve 
public participation, codifying Executive Order 12898 and its 
requirements for integration of environmental justice across 
Federal agencies, requiring EJ training of Federal employees, 
and meetings between EPA and community groups to improve 
collaboration and communication.
    Finally, the CLEAN Future Act, much like the Biden 
administration's commitment, requires that 40 percent of funds 
made available be used to support activities directly 
benefiting environmental justice communities. So I look forward 
to today's discussion and yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    I believe members of this committee would agree that all 
Americans should be able to have clean air, clean water, and 
lives free from pollution.
    Unfortunately, this has not been the case throughout our 
history, and it is not the case today.
    And the burdens of this exposure have not been distributed 
equally or randomly.
    The Americans who have paid the highest price for this 
pollution have mostly been people of color and low-income 
communities.
    Their exposure to pollution has resulted in higher rates of 
respiratory illnesses, cancer, and premature death.
    And the consequences ripple out much further. For example, 
impacted communities tend to have greater vulnerability to 
damage and hardship caused by our climate inaction.
    In recent years, this subcommittee has taken a leading role 
in reversing these trends.
    Many Members have championed efforts to right these 
historic injustices and support investments, public health 
protections, and pollution reductions in the communities that 
need them most, regardless of race, income, or ZIP code.
    Today's legislative hearing is an opportunity to examine 
some of these efforts.
    Our focus today includes Title 6, Subtitle F of Title 4, 
and Section 842 of the committee's CLEAN Future Act.
    But of course, the CLEAN Future Act was not developed in a 
vacuum.
    It builds on input, ideas, and provisions from many 
stakeholders and Members of Congress. That spirit of 
partnership has made the CLEAN Future Act much stronger, and it 
is my hope that these improvements will continue today and in 
future hearings.
    In addition to the CLEAN Future Act, today's hearing will 
look at 10 bills to address aspects of environmental justice.
    I want to recognize and thank subcommittee members DeGette, 
Clarke, Ruiz, Barragan, McEachin, and Blunt Rochester for their 
work on these bills and commitment to putting environmental 
justice at the heart of our subcommittee's work.
    I share their commitment and look forward to working with 
all of our Members to make sure the 117th Congress isn't merely 
a Congress for climate action, but a Congress for just and 
equitable climate action.
    And I have been pleased that starting with President 
Biden's Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home 
and Abroad, the administration has made a commitment to 
enhancing environmental justice.
    But these goals will not be achievable unless we act 
through an inclusive process that allows community 
organizations and people most affected by pollution to be 
involved.
    This means having community voices in the development, 
consideration, implementation, and enforcement of our nation's 
environmental laws.
    Today's hearing is part of that. In that spirit, I welcome 
our witnesses, and I thank the many environmental justice 
advocates who have taken time to meet with Members and our 
staffs to share your perspectives.
    Because our goals depend on listening to the communities 
that have faced these disproportionate impacts and have been 
shut out of participation in processes for decades.
    No one bill will undo the generations of injustices, 
racism, and discrimination against frontline communities.
    That is why we need a comprehensive strategy that deals 
with disproportionate impacts and supports the revitalization 
of communities, which will come from reducing and remediating 
pollution.
    That is why today's hearing includes coal ash protections, 
lead service line replacements, brownfield and Superfund 
remediations, and traditional air pollutants.
    We will also consider legislation to reduce emissions from 
ports, to deploy air pollution monitoring infrastructure, and 
build capacity of community-based organizations to enable 
greater participation in environmental and infrastructure 
decision making processes.
    These bills also propose ways to strengthen and improve 
public participation, codifying Executive Order 12898. and its 
requirements for integration of environmental justice across 
Federal agencies, requiring EJ training of Federal employees 
and meetings between EPA and community groups to improve 
collaboration and communication.
    Finally, the CLEAN Future Act, much like the Biden 
administration's commitment, requires that 40% of funds made 
available be used to support activities directly benefitting 
environmental justice communities.
    I look forward to today's discussion and yield back my 
time.

    Mr. Tonko. And I now recognize Mr. McKinley, our ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Environmental and Climate Change.
    Representative McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes 
for your opening statement, please.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 
          IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Chairman, recently 
I read an article citing the World Health Organization's 
definition of poverty. But their measurement of poverty simply 
in terms of per capita income seems inadequate. According to 
the article, among the poor, poverty is better understood in 
terms of shame, powerlessness, hopelessness, and humiliation.
    This hearing on environmental justice is central to an 
agenda to eliminate fossil fuels from the power sector by 2035, 
the consequences of which will leave workers, families, 
children, and entire communities in poverty. Mr. Chairman, 
where is the justice in that?
    Think about it. Extremism is spending years shaming coal 
miners and oil field workers, blaming them for causing 
wildfires, flooding and droughts, hurricanes, low-birth-weight 
babies, premature deaths, as you just mentioned, and asthma. 
And in this new environment, fossil fuel workers feel 
powerless, as liberal Democrats and administration team up to 
take away their lifelong jobs. And when their jobs are lost and 
there are no other opportunities in their area, hopelessness 
will take hold.
    Will they have to move away? Will they leave their home, 
their community, their church, their support base?
    And their house is typically, Mr. Chairman, their biggest 
asset. So who will buy a house in a dying community?
    We have asked for these letters to be introduced into the 
record.
    And then finally, coal miners and oilfield workers have 
produced a reliable, dependable income for their families. Now 
they are going to be humbled into welfare and food stamps and 
waiting for transition jobs that, historically, never 
materialize. Workers will be losing their dignity, not for what 
they did, but for what Government did to them.
    And the cruel irony of all this is, as America dismantles 
its fossil fuel economy, the rest of the world is expanding its 
use of coal, natural gas, and oil and emitting greenhouse gases 
at an alarmingly increasing rate. So by eliminating jobs in 
fossil fuels, Congress will be sentencing American workers all 
across the country into poverty. How is that outcome any 
different than the injustices created in the past?
    So maybe it is time, Mr. Chairman, that the men and women 
of Government lose their sanctimonious attitude and walk in the 
shoes of these families who are about to experience poverty, 
all in this guise of justice.
    Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, the workers will be offered 
unrealistic promises about just transition into jobs in the 
renewable sector. But even former Secretary Menezes has 
concluded that new replacement jobs and the green jobs will pay 
significantly less and will have an impact on their families. 
And workers in the coal and natural gas industries are well 
aware of how Government injustices in the past betrayed their 
fellow workers in steel, electronics, and textiles.
    Look, fossil fuel workers simply want to keep their jobs, 
not get a Government handout or a Government program. This 
misguided congressional pursuit of environmental justice will 
not--will no doubt create poverty, causing shame, 
powerlessness, hopelessness, and humiliation to hardworking 
Americans. So instead of perpetuating another generation of 
injustice, wouldn't it be more respectful to accomplish our 
mutual objective in reducing carbon emissions by using 
innovation, and research, and advancing efficiencies, 
renewables, nuclear, and batteries?
    So, look, poverty is poverty, Mr. Chairman. Injustice is 
injustice, whether it is in an urban area or in a rural 
community.
    Paul, I know you. If you can prevent poverty for just one 
family in your district in New York, I am confident you would 
fight like hell on their behalf. So I am confused. Why is the 
rest of your party turning a deaf ear to the pleas of men, 
women, and children with fossil fuel jobs and subjecting whole 
communities to poverty? Is that what Democrats call 
environmental justice?
    Hurting working families is not a justice that any of us 
should embrace.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McKinley follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley

    Recently I read an article citing the world health 
organization's definition of ``poverty.'' But their measurement 
of poverty, simply in terms of per capita income, is 
inadequate.
    According to the article: among the poor poverty is better 
understood in terms of, shame, powerlessness, hopelessness and 
humiliation. This hearing on environmental justice is central 
to an agenda to eliminate fossil fuels from the power sector by 
2035.
    The consequences of which will leave workers, families, 
children and entire communities in poverty. Where is the 
justice in that?
    Think about it extremists have spent years shaming coal 
miners and oilfield workers, blaming them for causing: 
wildfires, flooding and droughts, hurricanes, low birth weight 
babies, premature cancers, and asthma.
    In this new political environment, fossil fuel workers feel 
powerless as liberal Democrats and the administration team up 
to take away their life-long jobs.
    When their jobs are lost and there are no other 
opportunities in their area hopelessness will take hold. Will 
they have to move away to find work? Leave their family? Their 
community? Their church? Their house is usually their largest 
asset, but who will buy a house in a dying community?
    And finally coal miners and oilfield workers have provided 
a reliable, dependable income for their families. Now they will 
be humbled into welfare and food stamps. and waiting for 
transition jobs that historically never materialize. Workers 
will be losing their dignity not for what they did but rather 
for what their Government did to them.
    And the cruel irony of all of this--as America dismantles 
its fossil fuel economy the rest of the world will be expanding 
its use of coal, natural gas, and oil and emitting GHGs at an 
alarming pace.
    By eliminating jobs in fossil fuels Congress will be 
sentencing Americans all across the country to poverty. How is 
that outcome any different than the injustice created in the 
past? So maybe it's time for the men and women of Government to 
lose their sanctimonious attitude and walk in the shoes of 
these families who are about to experience poverty, all in this 
guise of justice
    Oh, yes, workers will be offered unrealistic promises about 
a ``just transition'' into jobs in the renewable sector. But 
even former Sec. Menezes concluded that new, replacement 
``green jobs'' pay significantly less. And workers in coal and 
natural gas industries are well aware of how Government 
injustices in the past betrayed fellow workers in: steel, 
electronics, and textiles.
    Look, fossil fuel workers simply want to keep their jobs, 
not get a Government program or a handout. This misguided 
congressional pursuit of environmental justice will no doubt 
create poverty causing shame, powerlessness, hopelessness, and 
humiliation to hard working Americans.
    So instead of perpetuating another generation of injustice 
wouldn't it more respectful to accomplish our mutual objective 
of reducing carbon emissions by using innovation and research 
and advancing efficiencies, renewables, nuclear, and batteries?
    Look, poverty is poverty, injustice is injustice. Whether 
it's in an urban area or rural community. Mr. Chairman: if you 
could prevent poverty for just one family in your district, I'm 
confident that you too would fight like hell in their behalf.
    So, I'm confused. Why is the rest of your party turning a 
deaf ear to the pleas of men, women, and children with fossil 
fuel jobs and subjecting whole communities to poverty? Is that 
what Democrats call ``environmental justice''? Hurting working 
families is not a ``justice'' that any of us should embrace. 
Thank you and I yield back

    Mr. Tonko. Representative McKinley yields back, and now the 
Chair recognizes Representative Pallone, the chair of the full 
committee of Energy and Commerce, our overtime, hardworking 
chair. We recognize him for 5 minutes for his opening 
statement.
    Welcome, Chairman Pallone.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Today we continue 
this committee's important work on environmental justice, as we 
examine 11 bills that address the pressing needs of 
environmental justice communities. And for far too long, low-
income communities and communities of color have borne the 
brunt of air pollution, exposure to contaminated sites, and 
unsafe water.
    Environmental injustice can be attributed to many things, 
from intentionally racist policies like redlining that lead to 
vulnerable communities being excluded from siting and 
permittiing decisions, to unequal investment in these 
communities. And climate change and deteriorating 
infrastructure are exacerbating these problems and this 
inequality.
    So it is time for Congress to act. As Chairman Tonko said, 
we must address the overlapping crisis facing our Nation, 
including inequality, climate change, and the economic downturn 
caused by this pandemic. And as President Biden has said, we 
need to build back better, and that means building back 
cleaner, healthier, and with greater equity.
    So I believe the 11 bills before us today can help us do 
exactly that.
    One of the bills is H.R. 1512, the CLEAN Future Act, which 
I introduced last month with Chairmen Tonko and Rush and 
several other committee members. And the CLEAN Future Act is a 
comprehensive and ambitious plan to combat the climate crisis 
and achieve net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by no later than 
2050. And environmental justice is the key component of the 
CLEAN Future Act and must be a focus of our efforts to address 
climate change and infrastructure.
    But many of the environmental justice provisions in the 
CLEAN Future Act are reflected in President Biden's American 
Jobs Plan. Both proposals prioritize investments for 
environmental justice communities and basically commit 40 
percent of investments to directly benefiting these 
communities. And both proposals seek to clean up the sectors of 
our economy like the ports that not only increase the amount of 
carbon in the atmosphere but also add to the amount of 
hazardous air pollutants concentrated in environmental justice 
communities. And both policy proposals make the long-overdue 
investments in cleaning up Superfund sites, replacing lead 
service lines, and updating the energy grid.
    Now, the other bills we are going to hear about today focus 
on important environmental justice topics, including climate 
justice, port climate readiness, cumulative impact assessments, 
and the tools available to identify environmental justice 
communities. And many of these bills align with the American 
Jobs Plan and can help us make that plan a reality.
    So I want to thank my colleagues for their engagement and 
help in refining and expanding the environmental justice 
provisions of the CLEAN Future Act. And I also commend them for 
their leadership on the other bills that we are developing or 
that we are discussing today.
    All these bills reflect thoughtful stakeholder engagement 
with communities of color and low-income communities, and I am 
proud to continue that engagement with today's hearings.
    But I also want to thank our witnesses who are leaders and 
experts in environmental justice communities. We are fortunate 
to have this panel with us today, and I hope we can have a 
constructive dialogue and work with these stakeholders to enact 
needed change.
    But let me just emphasize, if I can, Chairman Tonko, that 
environmental justice can and should be a bipartisan issue. 
Many of us were excited to pass environmental justice 
provisions out of the House as part of last year's energy bill. 
And although we did get about half of that energy bill in the 
final omnibus, we were disappointed because we couldn't find 
the bipartisan support we needed to get the environmental 
justice provisions included in that omnibus bill.
    So I hope we can find common ground and build on support, 
because I know that these problems that exist in environmental 
justice communities, you know, are throughout the country, not 
just in Democratic districts. In fact, I always point out that, 
when we did a brownfields bill, I don't know, 20 years ago now, 
it was with Congressman Gillmor, and it was with--it was when 
my former Governor, Whitman, was the EPA Administrator and 
George Bush was President. So there is no reason that this 
can't be bipartisan.
    And also, this--the notion of building back better does 
require bold action, and a focus on the communities most in 
need. So I think the bills before us today are a good start. I 
thank Chairman Tonko for calling this important hearing, and I 
look forward to working together to see environmental justice 
provisions enacted into law.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today we continue this committee's important work on 
environmental justice, examining 11 bills that address the 
pressing needs of environmental justice communities.
    For far too long, low-income communities and communities of 
color have borne the brunt of air pollution, exposure to 
contaminated sites, and unsafe water. Environmental injustice 
can be attributed to many things, from intentionally racist 
policies like red-lining that lead to vulnerable communities 
being excluded from siting and permittiing decisions, to 
unequal investment in these communities. Climate change and 
deteriorating infrastructure are exacerbating these problems 
and this inequality.
    It's time for Congress to act. We must address the 
overlapping crises facing our Nation, including inequality, 
climate change, and the economic downturn caused by this 
pandemic. As President Biden has said, we need to build back 
better, and that means building back cleaner, healthier, and 
with greater equity. I believe the 11 bills before us today can 
help us do that.
    One of the bills is H.R. 1512, the CLEAN Future Act, which 
I introduced last month with Chairmen Tonko and Rush and 
several other committee members. The CLEAN Future Act is a 
comprehensive and ambitious plan to combat the climate crisis 
and achieve net zero greenhouse gas pollution by no later than 
2050. Environmental justice is a key component of the CLEAN 
Future Act, and must be a focus of our efforts to address 
climate change and infrastructure.
    Many of the environmental justice provisions in the CLEAN 
Future Act are reflected in President Biden's American Jobs 
Plan. Both proposals prioritize investments for environmental 
justice communities and commit 40 percent of investments to 
directly benefit those communities. Both proposals seek to 
clean up the sectors of our economy, like ports, that not only 
increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but also add 
to the amount of hazardous air pollutants concentrated in 
environmental justice communities. And both policy proposals 
make long-overdue investments in cleaning up Superfund sites, 
replacing lead service lines, and updating the energy grid.
    Other bills we will hear about today focus on important 
environmental justice topics including climate justice, port 
climate readiness, cumulative impacts assessment, and the tools 
available to identify environmental justice communities. Many 
of these bills align with the American Jobs Plan and can help 
us make that plan a reality.
    I want to thank my colleagues for their engagement and help 
in refining and expanding the environmental justice provisions 
of the CLEAN Future Act. I also commend them for their 
leadership on the other bills we are discussing today. These 
bills reflect thoughtful stakeholder engagement with 
communities of color and low-income communities, and I am proud 
to continue that engagement with today's hearing.
    I also want to thank our witnesses, who are leaders and 
experts in environmental justice communities. We are fortunate 
to have this panel with us today, and I hope we can have a 
constructive dialogue and work with these stakeholders to enact 
needed change.
    Environmental justice can and should be a bipartisan issue. 
Many of us were excited to pass environmental justice 
provisions out of the House as part of last year's energy bill, 
and were disappointed we could not find the bipartisan support 
we needed to get those provisions enacted. I hope we can start 
to find common ground and build that support.
    Building back better will require bold action, and a focus 
on the communities most in need. The bills before us are a 
great start. I thank the Chair for calling this important 
hearing, and I look forward to working together to see 
environmental justice provisions enacted into law.

    Mr. Pallone. And with that, I will yield back. Thank you, 
Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome.
    The gentleman, the chair, yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers. Representative Rodgers serves as 
ranking member of the full committee.
    And Representative Rodgers, you have 5 minutes now for your 
opening statement, please.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, everyone.
    Mr. Chairman, throughout these CLEAN Future Act hearings, 
Republicans have stressed that, to address climate change and 
the climate risk, the policies we develop must strengthen, not 
weaken, our communities. You cannot build back better if you 
are tearing down to do it.
    Policies must recognize the vital role affordable, reliable 
energy serves for expanding economic opportunity, for enabling 
new work opportunities, increasing community resilience, or 
expanding prosperity, for providing affordable power to homes 
when we need it. We do this by building on current achievements 
in energy, in environmental improvements, in economic 
opportunity, not dismantling them.
    We have all seen the human toll when economic opportunity 
abandons communities. Witnesses in the past have outlined the 
harsh economic, social, and physical harm that follows the loss 
of good, blue-collar, middle-class jobs as factories pull out, 
or power plants close. Whether the harm is due to lost economic 
opportunity or not having the opportunity in the first place, 
we should remove barriers and provide incentives to lift 
economic prospects for all Americans, but especially for those 
that need it the most.
    The legislation before us today covers so much ground, it 
is easy to overlook some of the ways the CLEAN Future Act harms 
economic prospects. We have warned in previous hearings that 
mandates like those in this bill will raise electricity rates, 
sideline small businesses, and increase energy poverty for 
those who need it.
    And consider some of the provisions under review today that 
would further weaken economic opportunity: section 606 of the 
CLEAN Future Act prohibits new and renewed permits for projects 
in census tracts identified as, quote, ``overburdened'' whether 
or not the projects contribute to the burden. There is no room 
here for State or local decisions, what workers or communities 
want.
    Amazingly, one trigger for prohibiting permits is set at 
air emissions levels that are within current air quality 
standards. That is not the way to foster economic opportunity 
or improve public health.
    Another provision, section 621, creates new regulations on 
carbon capture and storage for enhanced oil recovery, a key 
incentive for building out carbon capture for clean energy. 
This provision duplicates existing regulations and imposes 
impractical permittiing requirements that may undermine future 
development of this technology and the jobs it will create.
    Section 625 establishes a clear Federal role for hydraulic 
fracturing and forces new requirements on State regulation of 
hydraulic fracturing, a practice the States have handed--have 
handled without Federal intervention for many decades.
    These new changes would upend the regulatory structure that 
helped drive the shale revolution, transforming American energy 
security, lowering our greenhouse gas emission levels, and 
providing new economic life to scores of communities around our 
Nation.
    And in other provisions of this bill we are looking at an 
economic train wreck, not the way to help frontline 
communities. We can do better than this.
    We can start by recognizing the tremendous progress we have 
made, as a Nation, in the terms of environmental improvements 
under existing State and Federal policies. Fine particulate 
matter is declining, down an average of almost 40 percent since 
2000. Our air quality levels are 5 times lower than the global 
average, 7 times lower than China's, well below France, 
Germany, Mexico, and Russia, according to the EPA. And these 
positive environmental trends will continue, as will the 
economic and clean energy opportunities, if we don't block the 
way with convoluted new regulatory policies.
    Let's focus on incentives to economic development, 
especially for under-served communities with ground-up, 
bipartisan policies like opportunity zones.
    I am pleased that Mr. Shay Hawkins is joining us this 
morning to update us on how these policies help communities 
that are in need of economic opportunity.
    Mr. Derrick Hollie will remind us of the vital role of 
affordable energy for economic progress, and the risk of heavy 
regulation on energy.
    Mr. Chairman, we can drive clean energy policies, improve 
economic and environmental health, and foster prosperity for 
all families. But the ingredients for success are not more 
regulations, mandates, and central control that stifles 
opportunity and freedom. Let's recognize and let's--let's 
recognize that, and let's recognize our successes, and build on 
that.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Throughout these CLEAN Future Act hearings Republicans have 
stressed that--to address climate risks--the policies we 
develop must strengthen, not weaken our communities.
    You cannot build better if you're tearing down to do it. 
Policies must recognize the vital role affordable, reliable 
energy serves for expanding economic opportunity for enabling 
new work opportunities, increasing community resilience, for 
expanding prosperity--for providing affordable power to homes 
when they need it most.
    And we do this by building on current achievements in 
energy, in environmental improvements, in economic opportunity, 
not dismantling them. We've all seen the human toll when 
economic opportunity abandons communities.
    Witnesses in the past have outlined the harsh economic, 
social, and physical harm that follows the loss of good blue-
collar, middle-class jobs, as factories pull out or power 
plants close.
    Whether the harm is due to lost economic opportunity or not 
having the opportunity in the first place, we should remove 
barriers and provide incentives to lift economic prospects for 
all Americans, but especially for those areas most in need. The 
legislation before us today covers so much ground, it is easy 
to overlook some of the ways the CLEAN Future Act harms 
economic prospects.
    We've warned in previous hearings that mandates like those 
in this bill will raise electricity rates, sideline small 
businesses, and increase energy poverty for those most in need. 
And consider some of the provisions under review today that 
would further weaken economic opportunity:
    Section 606 of the CLEAN Future Act prohibits new and 
renewed permits for projects in census tracts identified as 
``overburdened''--whether or not the projects contribute to the 
burdens. There's no room here for State or local decisions, 
what workers and communities want.
    Amazingly, one trigger for prohibiting permits is set at 
air emissions levels that are within current air quality 
standards. This is not the way to foster economic opportunity 
or improved public health. Another provision, Section 621, 
creates new regulations on carbon capture and storage for 
enhanced oil recovery--a key incentive for building out CCS for 
clean energy.
    This provision duplicates existing regulations and imposes 
impractical permitting requirements that may undermine future 
development of this technology, and the jobs it will create.
    Section 625 establishes a clear Federal role in hydraulic 
fracturing and forces new requirements on State regulation of 
hydraulic fracturing--a practice the States have handled 
without Federal intervention for many decades.
    These new changes would upend the regulatory structure that 
helped drive the shale revolution, transforming American energy 
security, lowering our Greenhouse Gas emissions levels and 
providing new economic life to scores of communities around the 
Nation.
    Add in other provisions of this bill and we're looking at 
an economic train wreck--not the way to help frontline 
communities. We can do better than this.
    And we can start by recognizing the tremendous progress we 
have made as a Nation, in terms of environmental improvements 
under existing State and Federal policies. Fine particulate 
matter is declining, down an average of almost 40% since 2000.
    Our air quality levels are five times lower than the global 
average... seven times lower than China's and well below 
France, Germany, Mexico, and Russia, according to the EPA.
    And these positive environmental trends will continue, as 
will the economic and clean energy opportunities, if we don't 
block the way with convoluted new regulatory policies. Let's 
focus on incentives to economic development, especially for 
underserved communities, with ground-up bipartisan policies 
like opportunity zones.
    I'm pleased Mr. Shay Hawkins is joining us this morning to 
update us on how these policies help communities in need of 
economic opportunity. And Mr. Derrick Hollie will remind us of 
the vital role of affordable energy for economic progress--and 
the risks of heavy regulation on energy.
    Mr. Chairman, we can drive clean energy policies, improve 
economic and environmental health, and foster prosperity for 
all families. But the ingredients for success here are not more 
regulations, mandates, and central control that stifles 
opportunity. Let's recognize that, recognize our successes and 
build on them. Thank you.

    Mrs. Rodgers. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, the gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made 
part of the record.
    I now will introduce the wonderful witnesses that we have 
for today's hearing. And we again thank them for joining us and 
for sharing info with us.
    Dr. Mildred McClain is our first witness to be introduced. 
She is the executive director of Harambee House/Citizens for 
Environmental Justice.
    We then have Mr. Angelo Logan, campaign director, Moving 
Forward Network.
    Ms. Elizabeth Yeampierre--I hope I said that correctly--and 
she serves as executive director of UPROSE.
    And Mr. Derrick Hollie, who is founder of Reaching America.
    Mr. Shay Hawkins, who is president of Opportunity Funds 
Association.
    And finally, Dr. Adrienne Hollis, senior climate justice 
and health scientist of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    I remind all of our witnesses to please unmute as you are 
called upon to share your thoughts for 5 minutes, and we will 
begin now by recognizing Dr. McClain for 5 minutes to provide 
an opening statement.
    Dr. McClain, please unmute, and the floor is yours.

   STATEMENTS OF MILDRED McCLAIN, Ph.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
 HARAMBEE HOUSE AND CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE; ANGELO 
 LOGAN, POLICY AND CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, MOVING FORWARD NETWORK; 
ELIZABETH YEAMPIERRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPROSE, AND COCHAIR, 
 CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE; DERRICK HOLLIE, PRESIDENT, REACHING 
      AMERICA; SHAY HAWKINS, PRESIDENT, OPPORTUNITY FUNDS 
ASSOCIATION; AND ADRIENNE HOLLIS, Ph.D., SENIOR CLIMATE JUSTICE 
  AND HEALTH SCIENTIST, CLIMATE AND ENERGY PROGRAM, UNION OF 
                      CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

              STATEMENT OF MILDRED MCCLAIN, Ph.D.

    Dr. McClain. Good morning. I hope you can hear me, because 
I can barely hear you.
    Mr. Tonko. We can hear you, and----
    Dr. McClain. Thank you so much for inviting me to testify 
today. My name is Mildred McClain, I am the executive director 
of the Harambee House/Citizens for Environmental Justice, 
located in Savannah, Georgia. And we are a community-based 
organization that has worked for the last 32 years with 
families, organizations, communities throughout this country, 
in building the capacity of regular people to have their voice 
heard in environmental decision making.
    I have submitted written testimony, so I just want to 
highlight a couple of things this morning verbally.
    There are a number of legislative proposals under 
discussion today, and I am going to focus my comments on H.R. 
2021, the Environmental Justice for All Act. This is a 
promising start, but it is not where we want to finally end up. 
It is a bill that was built up from the ground up, and that is 
very, very, very important.
    For far too long, environmental justice communities have 
suffered the devastating impacts of having to 
disproportionately bear the burdens of exposure to multiple 
sources of pollution, including alarming rates of respiratory 
illnesses, cancer, and premature death, as has been said 
earlier. Rightly, this bill attempts to address this problem by 
investing in local communities, increasing transparency, and 
empowering impacted stakeholders to hold polluters accountable.
    The process by which this bill was developed deserves 
particular attention. Representative McEachin and Chairman 
Grijalva have developed this legislation from the ground up, 
with impacted communities leading and driving the development 
of the bill. To address environmental injustice, the process 
really does matter.
    I want to pull out two important parts of the Act that are 
very important, two key features, and one looks at the 
cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts requires consideration 
in permittiing decisions under the Clean Air Act and the Clean 
Water Act and ensures that permits will not be issued if the 
project cannot demonstrate a reasonable certainty of no harm to 
human health. Cumulative impacts is all about the concentration 
of polluting industries in heavily burdened neighborhoods. 
There must be consideration of denying a permit if there is any 
chance of harm. Let us put the burden of proof on the 
applicant.
    Secondly, a feature that I want to uplift is the Executive 
Order 12898, which codifies and bolsters President Clinton's 
1994 Executive order by directing Federal agencies to develop 
EJ strategies and to regularly report on implementation and 
progress. It also ensures that Federal agencies include diverse 
communities in public health research, data collection, and 
analysis. But it is not a law, it is an order. When codified 
and put into law, made a legal obligation, this allows for 
accountability in Federal agencies.
    The fact is many agencies do not comply with Executive 
orders. Therefore, they must be required under the law. This 
gives community, the public, tools to hold folks accountable. 
Where agencies do not comply, the public can then complain 
about noncompliance and do something about it.
    A lack of enforcement of existing laws and regulations from 
EPA and State permit regulators is a major component of the 
challenge that needs to be addressed. That is to say, there is 
often a breakdown between the regs on the books and how that 
translates to improving residents' lives on the ground. The 
Clinton Executive order takes steps to address this.
    But as I said earlier, an Executive order can be overturned 
with the stroke of a pen. That is why we need Congress to 
codify agency accountability mechanisms into law, like the 
Environmental Justice for All Act does with the Executive Order 
12898, as well as with the recent Biden Executive order on 
tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad that calls for 
interagency coordination as well as accountability.
    I want to just highlight one thing in my written testimony 
before I close. We are calling for you to legislate consistent 
and enforceable regulatory tools to end the disproportionate 
and cumulative impact of multiple pollution sources and toxic 
exposures on overburdened environmental justice communities. As 
this committee proceeds with its work, I urge you all to be 
thinking about how we can even add greater protections and 
programs to the Environmental Justice for All Act, and build on 
the communities' framework that is reflected in this important 
legislation.
    I close with a quote from Martin Luther King: ``Injustice 
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an 
inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of 
destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all 
indirectly.'' We are Americans, and as the bill title suggests, 
this is our vision: environmental justice for all.
    And so I thank you for allowing me to talk today, and I 
will be open for answering any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. McClain follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. We thank you, Dr. McClain.
    And I please ask people to stay within the 5-minute 
boundaries, please. So thank you so much. We will now move to 
Mr. Logan.
    You are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes, please.

                   STATEMENT OF ANGELO LOGAN

    Mr. Logan. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking 
Member McKinley, and members of the committee. My name is 
Angelo Logan, and I am with the Moving Forward Network.
    The Moving Forward Network is a national coalition of over 
50 organizations in 20 cities committed to environmental 
justice, with a focus on ports and freight transportation.
    Ultimately, you cannot address environmental justice 
without addressing ports and freight transportation, focusing 
on self-determination, cumulative impacts, toxic exposure, 
investing in EJ communities and just transition. As a major 
environmental justice issue, ports and, more broadly, freight 
transportation is a complex system that weaves seaports, 
freight corridors, rail yards, intermodal facilities, inland 
ports, and logistics centers. The communities where these 
facilities are located not only contend with freight impacts 
but are also inundated by a wide variety of other impacts, such 
as refineries, trash incinerators, Superfund sites, and many 
more. So, without a doubt, freight communities are clear 
examples of the need for cumulative impact policies.
    Environmental justice communities are hit first and worst 
by the climate crisis. The freight system is a major source of 
diesel pollution, which creates CO2, a major 
greenhouse gas. Freight transport contributes approximately 3 
billion tons of CO2, globally. The freight sector 
accounts for roughly 9 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions. And in the next couple of decades it is expected 
that oceangoing vessels alone will account for about 17 percent 
of all manmade carbon dioxide emissions.
    The 13 million people that live near ports and rail yards 
are majority communities of color and have increased health 
risk. Freight transportation alone puts African Americans at a 
high risk that is three times their proportion of the U.S., and 
Latinos make up two times their proportion. To that end I would 
like you to consider taking the following actions.
    One, advance proposals that center community voices, self-
determination, local solutions, and have incorporated a 
comprehensive community process. One of the proposals before 
you today, H.R. 2021, has incorporated a comprehensive, 
community-led approach. The committee-facilitated Environmental 
Justice Working Group resulted in the committee establishing a 
statement of policy principles for this environmental justice 
legislation.
    Two, do not advance parts, pieces, or sections of proposals 
that harm environmental justice communities. Proposals that 
incorporate market mechanisms, trading schemes, biomass, and 
other strategies that continue to burden EJ communities are 
nonstarters, and have been strongly opposed by environmental 
justice communities for many years.
    Three, tackle environmental racism, address cumulative 
impacts head on. Continuous permittiing of polluting facilities 
in already overburdened communities perpetuate environmental 
racism. Any serious environmental justice proposal must contain 
a cumulative impacts policy that includes permit denials within 
the strategy.
    Four, invest in clean air plans, zero-emission freight 
vehicles, and equipment at ports. On one hand, environmental 
justice for port communities includes creating local solutions 
and planning. The development of clean air plans for ports that 
identify the problem, solutions, and actions. The need to 
eliminate local toxic pollution and climate pollutants is 
critical, and it must start with a community-led process. On 
the other hand, the approach to reducing local toxic emissions 
and climate pollutants must involve investing in the deployment 
of zero-emission freight vehicles, equipment, and 
infrastructure. Eliminating diesel pollution is critical if we 
are going to protect community health and address the climate 
crisis.
    It is critical that both H.R. 501 and H.R. 862 include 
organized labor engagement, and that investments require labor 
protections. Community residents should have the right to both 
a healthy environment and high-quality careers.
    Five, environmental justice includes a just transition. As 
polluting industries are phased out, pathways for workers in 
those industries must be developed to support a transition to 
new, quality careers.
    Six, do not enable freight automation. Zero-emission 
technologies at ports do not mean automation, nor should 
technologies that would negatively impact freight--frontline 
workers be supported.
    Seven, require EPA to adopt regulations that reduce and 
eliminate emissions from the freight sector. The following 
should be the next generation of national emission standards 
prioritized by EPA: national standards for heavy-duty trucks, 
new standards for oceangoing vessels, national standards for 
locomotive engines. These rules should include timelines and 
requirements for the deployment of zero-emission technologies.
    In closing, I would like to emphasize that community 
engagement for developing solutions and strategies is 
paramount. To that end we encourage the committee continue 
engagement directly with the MFN membership. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Logan follows:]
    
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much, Mr. Logan, and next we will 
recognize Ms. Yeampierre.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.

               STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH YEAMPIERRE

    Ms. Yeampierre. Buenos dias, Chair. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Elizabeth 
Yeampierre, and I am cochair of the Climate Justice Alliance, a 
national organization that links more than 75 organizations 
across the U.S., Guam, and Puerto Rico. I am also executive 
director of UPROSE--oldest Latino community organization. We 
work at the intersection of racial justice and climate change 
and are part of the national frontline climate justice movement 
representing those most impacted by climate change.
    Like climate change, the conditions of our communities are 
the consequence of a long history of extraction. We share 
legacies of fighting colonialism as well as race, class, and 
gender oppression while advocating for environmental justice. 
Our communities are the first and most impacted by the storms, 
fires, floods, and droughts and are disproportionately burdened 
by pollution, poverty, and systemic violence associated with 
the multinational corporations driving these ecological crises.
    Years of grassroots organizing and frontline community 
leadership by members of New York Renews won the hard-fought 
battle for New York's Climate Leadership and Community 
Protection Act, the most progressive climate policy in the 
Nation, paving the way for models and processes that are 
community-led solutions grounded in racial justice and equity. 
These community-led models serve as a foundation from which the 
Federal Government can accelerate a just transition.
    Congresswoman Yvette Clarke's proposal for a just--for a 
climate justice working group represents an important step 
forward for the prior and informed consent of frontline 
communities and a just and equitable transition towards a 
clean, zero-emission economy that protects and prioritizes our 
communities. We applaud the bill for centering representatives 
from frontline community-based organizations as advisers and 
experts on matters pertaining to the impacts of climate change 
and environmental pollution in our communities.
    In order to transition away from fossil fuels, improve 
health conditions in severely-polluted communities, and 
strengthen social cohesion, we must redress past harms, create 
new relationships of power that ensure the self-determination 
of communities, and include the expertise of frontline 
leadership.
    UPROSE is located in Lenape Territory, also known as Sunset 
Park, Brooklyn. It is a diverse, working-class community, where 
the majority of the residents are people of color. Housing 
affordability is a major crisis, with nearly half our neighbors 
being rent burdened and the city undergoing extreme 
gentrification that will only worsen with the expansion of 
opportunity zones. It is also an industrial waterfront 
community exposed to flooding from hurricanes and storm surges, 
as we saw in 2012 with Superstorm Sandy.
    We know the history of environmental racism led to the 
disparate impacts of COVID-19, a public health crisis where 
infection and death rates were significantly higher among our 
people. This bill's proposed climate justice working group 
would work to protect and prioritize frontline communities and 
greenhouse gas emission reduction, copollutant reductions and 
investments.
    A set of criteria to identify climate-burdened communities 
not only looks at the public health impacts but also takes on a 
necessary holistic approach. This transition away from fossil 
fuels in the extractive economy must be just and equitable, 
redressing past harms and creating new relationships of power 
for the future through reparations, living-wage jobs, and an 
economic and social development that aims to address historical 
harm and systemic racism.
    All around the country, there are examples of frontline 
communities developing projects that engage in innovative 
infrastructure, further local control, and create jobs. Some of 
these projects are in their early stages. My organization, 
UPROSE, partnered with the New York City Economic Development 
Corporation, Solar 1, and co-empowered it to create the first 
community-owned solar cooperative in New York State. Projects 
like these are scalable and replicable community-led models of 
development and investment.
    As the bearers of the historical and present-day brunt of 
environmental degradation and climate change, our communities 
must be at the forefront of solutions. Investment in just 
development plans around the Nation through mandatory funding 
for block grants earmarked for community-based organizations 
and community development funds would go even further to repair 
historical harm and center community innovation for water, 
land, air, energy resources in both urban and rural areas as 
well as Indian countries.
    Our hopes are that our Government will work with us to 
build a regenerative economy, and a just and equitable future.
    Gracias.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Yeampierre follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. You are most welcome, de nada. And next--we 
thank you, Ms. Yeampierre, and next we will welcome Mr. Hollie.
    Mr. Hollie, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please, for 
your opening statement.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Hollie. Am I unmuted? Can you hear me?
    Mr. Tonko. I can hear you.

                  STATEMENT OF DERRICK HOLLIE

    Mr. Hollie. Greetings, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
McKinley, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity and allowing me to speak today. I am Derrick 
Hollie, president of Reaching America, an education and policy 
organization I developed to address complex social issues 
impacting African-American communities.
    One of the issues I do the most work on is reducing energy 
poverty. Energy poverty exists when low-income families or 
individuals spend upwards of 30 percent of their total income 
on their electric bill. I believe it would be fair to say that 
many Americans who struggled with rising energy costs before 
the COVID-19 pandemic are struggling even more now. And with 
millions still out of work, many Americans are experiencing 
energy poverty for the first time in their life. And with 
moratoriums over, some folks' power is being turned off in 
these same vulnerable communities that these new laws and 
regulations claim to protect.
    We know that communities around the country, particularly 
low-income, minority, and senior citizen communities, suffer 
from a lack of access of reliable energy sources and spend a 
disproportionate amount of their income, much higher amounts of 
their income, on electricity costs. And when this happens, it 
results in energy poverty.
    Eliminating energy poverty is a goal I think we are all 
interested in achieving, but in working towards that goal we 
need to be mindful of how policies will impact the communities 
we are trying to serve. When the Government creates policies, 
its first priority should be the welfare of the people, 
especially those impacted the hardest. And with the uncertainty 
that still exists from this virus, it would not be prudent to 
eliminate safe, reliable energy sources like oil and natural 
gas for unproven and unreliable renewable sources. Certainly, 
not right now.
    Under this current administration, the oil and gas industry 
is under attack from pipelines to hydraulic fracturing, which 
has revolutionized how we access our natural resources. A study 
done by Shale Crescent USA shows end users have saved $1.1 
trillion over the past 10 years due to increased natural gas 
production that has reduced the price of natural gas in the 
United States. Meanwhile, California, which is rich in its own 
natural resources, increased crude oil imports from foreign 
countries from 5 percent in 1992 to 57 percent in 2018.
    This is a glaring example of hypocrisy, and here is why. 
Just 2 years ago, booming shale production helped the U.S. 
overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's top oil 
exporter for the first time ever. How can our natural resources 
be worthy enough to supply the other countries and the rest of 
the world but not good enough for us right here at home?
    My grandfather was a Black coal miner in southwest 
Virginia, and I had the opportunity to visit that area. And the 
poverty that exists in rural America is different. And these 
communities have never recovered from the mines that were shut 
down years ago, decades ago. My fear, Mr. Chairman, is that the 
same will happen to these thriving communities that have relied 
on good-paying oil and gas jobs for generations. I know plenty 
of Black folks in Houston, Dallas, and Louisiana who have 
worked in the industry, and they are not in agreement with new 
policies and regulations that will ultimately destroy their 
lifestyle.
    I am a licensed captain, and I fished the Atlantic, the 
Gulf, and I am an environmental steward. I recognize we have to 
protect our planet. However, the bottom line here is the 
Federal clean energy standard that is being proposed is overly 
ambitious, and it will undoubtedly raise electricity rates for 
low-income, minority, rural, and senior citizen communities. It 
will also put fossil fuels, including natural gas, which has 
been a game changer, at a complete disadvantage.
    There are also provisions in this bill concerning eminent 
domain that will stop pipeline permittiing. We have more miles 
of pipeline in this country than we have roads, and most people 
are living and breathing just fine. I think we all agree that 
American people have gone through enough. And with the 
uncertainty that still exists from this global pandemic of 
COVID-19, the last thing we need to do is take away good-paying 
jobs and disrupt people's lifestyle more than it already has, 
and is destroying an industry that we have relied on for 
industries. The same industry--for centuries, excuse me.
    The same industry that has allowed us to create a life that 
Americans have grown to appreciate from petrochemicals, 
including plastics, fibers, pharmaceuticals, and your yoga mat, 
are all at risk of going away right now. We need market-
oriented energy policy that will allow America to keep 
exploring and developing our own natural resources safely and 
allow us to maintain our energy independence, which will 
ultimately impact our national security.
    Thank you, I yield my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hollie follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Hollie, and now we will move to 
Mr. Hawkins.
    You are recognized, Mr. Hawkins, for 5 minutes, please.

                   STATEMENT OF SHAY HAWKINS

    Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Thank you, Ranking 
Member McKinley and the other members of the subcommittee, for 
having me. This is my third time testifying in front of 
Congress, but my second time testifying in front of this 
committee. So I appreciate you having me.
    My name is Shay Hawkins. I am the president of the 
Opportunity Funds Association, a trade association focused on 
investors, entrepreneurs, and developers in opportunity zones. 
Prior to founding OFA, I was the majority staff director for 
the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, 
and Infrastructure, and I served as tax counsel for Senator Tim 
Scott for South Carolina, where we developed the opportunity 
zones provision based on the Investing and Opportunity Act, a 
bipartisan proposal with 88 House cosponsors--44 Democrats, 44 
Republicans--and 16 Senate cosponsors--8 Republicans and 8 
Democrats.
    Opportunity zones, according to the accounting firm 
Novogradac, $15 billion have been raised into the vehicles for 
opportunities on investing opportunity funds, and 3 billion of 
that has been raised in the midst of this pandemic. The Council 
of Economic Advisers estimates that 1 million Americans will be 
lifted out of poverty over the next 10 years through this 
policy.
    Opportunity zones overlap 294 Native lands--I am sorry, 244 
opportunity zones overlap Native lands. And, as you all know, 
these are communities that are disproportionately affected by 
environmental challenges. And so, as we go move forward and 
look at legislation to serve frontline communities, we have to 
be very careful that we don't exacerbate these disparate 
impacts in these communities with unique challenges.
    So, for instance, you know, when we look at Alaska Native 
communities, policies that would raise oil prices or fuel 
prices through additional taxation would have a disparate 
impact on those folks who are dependent on air travel for 
freight but also for passenger travel in a way that those of us 
down here in the lower 48 just couldn't relate to. And so that 
is just something that we need to bear in mind as we look for 
bipartisan solutions to serve these frontline communities.
    Frontline communities overlap opportunity zones, and vice 
versa. We are seeing some amazing things happening in 
opportunity zones. I was just down in Panama City, Florida, 
where the St. Joe Company broke ground on a waterfront hotel 
and stand-alone restaurant. The parcel that the hotel is built 
on is city-owned, and the city will lease it to St. Joe 
Company, providing an immediate benefit of revenue to the 
residents of Panama City as well as 150 direct jobs created by 
that project.
    You know, out in San Bernardino, California, a leading real 
estate investment firm, RevOZ, will be cutting the ribbon on an 
11,000-square-foot office project. The facility will house San 
Bernardino County's Children's Department of Behavioral Health, 
and that will provide mental wellness care to some of the most 
vulnerable and underserved members of that community.
    And we also see operating businesses taking root in 
critical industries such as clean energy. There are 475 solar 
energy installations in opportunity zones, 127 wind farms have 
been developed, and 15 battery plants, all providing 
electricity right now.
    And so I look forward to speaking more with the committee 
and offering whatever I can to help these frontline communities 
through investment but also through reasonable, low-cost energy 
that is secure in its delivery.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. And now we will go to 
our final witness, Dr. Adrienne Hollis.
    And you are recognized Dr. Hollis, for 5 minutes, please.

              STATEMENT OF ADRIENNE HOLLIS, Ph.D.

    Dr. Hollis. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Tonko, 
Ranking Members Rodgers and McKinley, and members of the 
subcommittee, for providing me the opportunity to testify here 
today. And good morning also to my esteemed copanelists. My 
name is Dr. Adrienne Hollis, and I am a senior climate justice 
and health scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. I am 
here to share my perspectives on the impacts of environmental 
assaults on EJ communities.
    We are in the midst of a syndemic. A syndemic occurs when a 
set of two or more linked health problems affect the same group 
of people at the same time and negatively compound each other's 
effects. EJ communities have existed in the middle of a 
syndemic for decades, facing challenges of structural racism, 
environmental injustice, and climate change. Any of these 
factors on their own is deadly, but together the damage is 
immeasurable. Add that to existing adverse conditions in 
communities that survive despite the presence of systemic 
racism, where poverty exists and incomes have never been 
healthy--and, in some circumstances, neither have the 
communities.
    We must acknowledge that the underlying factor, systemic 
racism against Black, brown, Native Americans, and indigenous 
peoples, affects every aspect of our lives, from education to 
employment, from housing to healthcare, from the food we eat 
and the water we drink to the air we breathe. We contribute the 
least to environmental pollution, and yet we have the most 
exposure to undrinkable water and unbreathable air. We 
contribute the least to climate change, yet suffer most from 
its consequences.
    Let me share a perfect illustration of a syndemic. It 
happened last year in western Lake Charles, Louisiana.
    First, because of systemic racism, activities like 
redlining, and the practice of NIMBY-ism--Not In My Back Yard--
factories and other polluting facilities were placed in EJ 
communities--in this case, near the familiar Cancer Alley. 
Residents have been exposed to toxic chemicals in the air, 
water, and soil for years.
    They--then Hurricane Laura struck. Laura's landfall was a 
borderline category 5, the strongest since 1856. Hurricane 
Laura devastated the area. People who could evacuated, and 
those who could not stayed. Remember, this is right in the 
middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Then a chemical fire broke out at a biolab facility and 
burned for three days, sending what was thought to be millions 
of gallons of chlorine gas into the nearby EJ community and 
beyond. A shelter-in-place order was issued. And because of 
that order and directions to keep windows and doors closed and 
not use air conditioners, people may have been at an increased 
risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse health effects from the 
chlorine gas, on top of the danger from emissions occurring 
during facility shutdowns in advance of the hurricane.
    The temperature was also a sweltering 90 degrees.
    The chemical fire--the chemical plant fire put residents at 
risk of breathing in toxic air, which contributes to the 
underlying health conditions that make COVID-19 more likely to 
kill. Research has shown that Black, Latinx, Native American, 
and indigenous communities in the high environmental risk areas 
have higher death rates.
    All of this is on top of the danger and trauma from a 
climate change-fueled storm. Hurricane Laura killed 32 people 
in Louisiana and was predicted to cause unsurvivable storm 
surges.
    This is a perfect example of the confluence of conditions 
that make up a syndemic. Communities should have been made 
aware of the presence of dangerous, toxic chemicals and should 
have been part of any plan to address releases of toxic 
substances.
    Furthermore, there is no standardized Federal guideline for 
keeping people safe from COVID-19 transmission during 
evacuations. The final challenge with COVID-19 in communities 
of color is the lack of racial and ethnic data. That data would 
have been instrumental in developing policy around vaccine 
administration, for example, and that way the most impacted 
would have been vaccinated first. Instead, people in harm's way 
have to hope that their local leadership has a plan.
    It is beyond time for this country to address and alleviate 
the factors that make up this syndemic. And for that reason, I 
am very pleased that this hearing is occurring. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hollis follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Welcome, and thank you all to our witnesses. We 
thank you all for your participation again in your opening 
statements. We will now move to Member questions, and I will 
start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Logan, I want to start with you because I believe you 
were named as a member of the White House Environmental Justice 
Advisory Council. Do you believe the Biden administration has 
properly elevated the importance of environmental justice in 
its energy, environmental, and climate policies?
    Mr. Logan. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Definitely, the 
administration has elevated environmental justice to a point 
that we have not seen before at this level. But really, there 
is a lot of work to do. And I encourage not just the 
administration across all the agencies but also legislators at 
the Federal level, the State level, and the local level to join 
in because this is a crisis that we really need to address in 
totality and as a collective effort.
    So it is a good start. It is probably the best we have seen 
in terms of really focusing and addressing environmental 
justice, but there is a lot of work ahead of us and a lot of 
learning to do, as well.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. The Justice40 initiative has been 
one of the priorities of this administration, and this 
committee has adopted a similar requirement that 40 percent of 
the investments in the CLEAN Future Act directly benefit 
environmental justice communities.
    So, Mr. Logan, again, do you have any thoughts on the 
ongoing development of the Justice40 commitment and how we can 
make sure that it is implemented in a way that leads to 
meaningful engagement and investment in frontline communities?
    Mr. Logan. Thank you again, Chairman Tonko. And just to be 
clear, I am not representing the White House Environmental 
Justice Advisory Council on this panel, so I just wanted to be 
really clear about that.
    There is tons of work to do in terms of that investment, 
making sure that we get the amount of resources to the 
communities that are in most need. So developing the mapping 
tools, identifying the communities, identifying the resources, 
and making sure that those resources are not leveraged through 
particular mechanisms that will create more harm, in effect 
zeroing out the benefits of the Justice40 communities because 
of creating, basically, sacrifice zones. So there is, again, a 
lot of work to do.
    I think the intention is great, but there is work to do in 
terms of identifying where to get those resources to what 
communities that are most in need.
    Mr. Tonko. Right, and Dr. Hollis and Dr. McClain, is there 
anything that you would like to mention about the importance of 
the Justice40 initiative?
    Either of you.
    Dr. Hollis. Actually, I agree with Mr. Logan. I don't have 
anything to add.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. And anything else from our other witness?
    Ms. Yeampierre. Yes, yes, thank you--Elizabeth Yeampierre.
    So I just want to say, on behalf of the Climate Justice 
Alliance, that we are encouraged by the ambition in the 
American Jobs Act--Plan.
    With that said, we are concerned about the numerous 
provisions included that debase the overarching intention of 
the plan. Last year, when Congress passed its omnibus bill to 
keep the Government open and functioning, nearly 10 billion was 
appropriated for false solutions like carbon capture and 
storage, carbon capture utilization of sequestration, and so-
called green hydrogen. And so, when we learned that President 
Biden intends to double down on these fossil-fuel-backed, 
unproven mechanisms, we found that troubling, because we think 
of them simply as Big Oil bailouts at the expense of the 
environmental justice communities that bear the brunt of the 
disproportionate burden.
    The other thing that is really important is that we think 
that the administration has made clear the difference between 
benefits and actual investments in EJ communities. Rather than 
subjecting impacted communities to subjective ideas of what 
qualifies as a benefit, Federal dollars should be allocated in 
a way that strengthens social cohesion. So we look forward to 
discussions about this, but we are really concerned, because 
there is a difference between investments and benefits.
    And then finally, the last thing that I would say about 
that is that the 40 percent, because it comes out of New York 
State's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, was 
always intended to be a basement and not the ceiling, that 40 
percent shouldn't be the goal. It should be the minimum of what 
is required to address communities that have been enduring a 
legacy of extraction for generations.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, I know we are going to hear a lot today 
about energy affordability, which I agree is important, 
especially for people with high energy burdens. You mentioned 
community solar. Can you give us a sense of how community solar 
and weatherization projects have resulted in reduced 
electricity bills for people in frontline communities?
    Ms. Yeampierre. I was just----
    Mr. Tonko. But do it quickly, so we are--I am running out 
of time here, so just----
    Ms. Yeampierre. Sure, thank you. I will try to talk fast.
    You know, ours is the first community-owned solar 
cooperative in the State of New York. It means that both small 
businesses and residents are able to access renewable energy 
and reduce their cost, which is important for low-income 
communities.
    We have also been able to bring offshore wind to Brooklyn 
and work with NYSERDA to invest $200 million and bringing 
thousands of jobs to the industrial waterfront. We are looking 
at an industrial waterfront that has a history of not only 
polluting and hurting us but has the possibility of building 
for climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience. And we are 
seeing investments already happen as a result of local 
legislation in New York City and at the State level.
    With resources from the Federal level, we are talking about 
the complete transformation of sectors that in the past created 
environmental burdens and can be building for a future that 
brings jobs, renewable energy, and also addresses issues of 
health.
    So those are some of the things that we are doing, and they 
involve thousands of jobs.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. My time is exhausted, so I 
now go to--recognize Mr. McKinley, our ranking member.
    Five minutes for questioning, sir.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. Look, in my 
opening statement, Paul, I discussed the increase in poverty 
and injustice as we--as the Democrats do away with fossil fuels 
by the year 2035. But in so doing, we have to understand--and I 
understand, when we go to renewables, we are going to be--it is 
our desired long term, but it means we will be increasingly 
dependent on renewables. Therefore, we need to consider the 
battery storage to back them up.
    So, just for the sake of this conversation today, let's 
focus on the injustices involved with the supply chain for 
batteries. And I would say, Paul, no one wants to see sausage 
made, but they all love eating it. The same goes for batteries. 
Two of the key ingredients in batteries are lithium and cobalt. 
But have you ever seen how they source that material?
    Here is--and CNN did an article, let me see if I--we got 
that. This is an article that CNN posted of children in Congo 
being forced into labor to harvest cobalt. Here is another 
picture of those--in another cobalt mine in the Congo. These 
are--we are continuing to have child labor, or enabling these 
dictators to use child labor.
    Or what about lithium? Have you ever seen the ravaging 
effects of lithium? Here is a picture of a lithium mine. Look 
at that, look at the depth in the community. These are ravaging 
effects we are having on communities all across this world in 
our pursuit of having battery storage.
    So--and for those of us that have been concerned with 
mountaintop mining, this is mountaintop mining on steroids. And 
according to Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute, he says we 
are going to have--and he testified it--we are going to have 
to--he testified that we are going to move 250 tons of earth to 
produce just 1 electric vehicle battery, 250 tons. And we--and 
this bill--there are 650,000 cars in the Federal fleet. So just 
do the math, and it comes to about 163 million tons of dirt we 
are going to have to excavate around the world.
    Now, maybe this idea of doing away with fossil fuels makes 
Democrats feel good. And--but keep in mind, this procurement is 
not going to happen in the United States. It will happen in 
other countries, kind of out of sight, Paul, away from us. We 
are exporting our guilt. It seems like environmental justice 
stops at the border. We don't care what is happening in other 
nations, what we are doing, as long as we get ours. Shame on 
us. We are devastating these countrysides of other nations to 
satisfy our thirst for batteries.
    So let's stop for a minute. We are creating poverty, 
perpetuating child labor in China and South America, and 
destroying the environments of other countries. That is 
justice? Give me a break.
    So if I could ask a question to Derrick Hollie. Last month 
before the committee, former Secretary Moniz said we need to do 
more of this mining of these critical minerals in the United 
States. Do you agree with him?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. McKinley. Derrick Hollie, you are muted.
    Mr. Hollie. Can you hear me?
    Mr. McKinley. Yes, now I can.
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir, I agree with you, and everything that 
you said about the mining, and it is an absolute travesty, how 
we--and you said environmental justice stops here at the 
border, where we go and get everything we need from other 
countries.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So wouldn't it make more sense to 
invest in innovation here in America, so that we don't----
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Our fossil fuels to balance out 
our needs, and do it in a cleaner way? Wouldn't that make more 
sense?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir, it would.
    Mr. McKinley. So, again, with these policies, we 
understand--we have had testimony--our utility bills are going 
to increase, our neighbors are going to be unemployed, we will 
still have extreme weather conditions, and all the while we are 
alienating other nations as we ravage their countrysides. Is it 
worth it, Mr. Hollie? Is it----
    Mr. Hollie. No, sir, it is not. No, sir, it is not. And we 
talk about the precious minerals that we need for--to produce 
the stuff that we need. We have one mine up in Minnesota right 
now that produces cobalt, and environmental groups want to shut 
that down. And it is just an awful travesty. It is just a 
shame.
    Mr. McKinley. And the President just stopped a mine, a 
copper mine that we need in Arizona. I just think this is just 
a hypocritical issue, in many respects on it. And I don't think 
we, as a country, we are doing justice to the world by what we 
are trying to accomplish here.
    So I thank all of you, and I yield back, Paul, my--any 
time.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes Chairman Pallone from the full committee for 5 
minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Pallone?
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. I wanted to focus 
on the environmental justice title of the CLEAN Future Act, and 
just a few examples.
    With regard to Superfund, the CLEAN Future Act creates 
several new requirements. First, it requires the Federal 
Government to identify all Federal Superfund sites that are 
vulnerable to extreme weather associated with climate change, 
and to clean up all of those sites within 10 years. So let me 
start with Dr. Hollis.
    How can cleaning up those sites quickly protect 
environmental justice communities?
    Dr. Hollis. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, that is a great 
question. What we found is that what--these facilities, these 
Superfund sites, have been in existence for years, and they are 
vulnerable to activities like climate change. We have seen 
that, for example, in Port Arthur, Texas, in instances of 
extreme flooding, where contaminants from the site have washed 
literally down the street where communities live, increasing 
their exposure and increasing the amount of cumulative exposure 
to contaminants.
    And we have also seen the fact that some of these 
facilities, which are already unsafe, become--are exacerbated 
in situations of extreme weather. And we know that the--they 
have not necessarily been the focus of cleanup in years. And 
for that reason, and--we need a faster cleanup. We need to 
think about the communities that are located around these 
facilities and how impacted they are and do our best to 
mitigate that.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. And then the CLEAN Future Act also 
creates new financial responsibility requirements that 
incentivize chemical facilities to adapt for climate change to 
prevent toxic releases during extreme weather events like 
hurricanes. And we know that these facilities are often located 
in environmental justice communities.
    So let me ask Dr. McClain, why is it important for 
fenceline communities to prevent these releases whenever 
possible?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Pallone. Is Dr. McClain--were you guys able to hear my 
question?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Pallone. Maybe not. I don't know if they were able--
Chairman, were you able----
    Mr. McKinley. We can hear you, Frank. We can hear you. I am 
not sure where Dr. McClain is.
    Mr. Pallone. Dr. McClain isn't there.
    Mr. Tonko. Chairman Pallone, you might--we have having some 
technical difficulties. You might direct your question to Dr. 
Hollis, please.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Dr. Hollis, do you want me to repeat that 
for you?
    So under the CLEAN Future Act we create new financial 
responsibility to adopt for climate change to prevent toxic 
releases during extreme weather. We know that these facilities 
are located often in environmental justice communities. So 
could you explain why it is important for fenceline communities 
to prevent these releases when possible?
    Dr. Hollis. Yes, and a quick answer would be the example 
that I gave earlier about the syndemic, what happened in Lake 
Charles, Louisiana, when the community, which is a fenceline 
community, was potentially impacted from chlorine gas, if it 
had been released at higher amounts, in addition to the 
exposure that communities face when facilities shut down for 
either maintenance, or in anticipation of extreme weather 
conditions.
    So it is important that we, once again, stop that exposure. 
Some of it is immeasurable. We don't know the quantity, but we 
do know that people at the fenceline and in the communities are 
becoming ill. Thank you.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. The bill----
    Ms. Yeampierre. May I add something to this?
    Mr. Pallone. Who is that?
    Ms. Yeampierre. It is Elizabeth again. May I add something 
to this, please?
    Mr. Pallone. Yes, but then I wanted to ask you a question 
too, so we are running out.
    Ms. Yeampierre. OK.
    Mr. Pallone. Let me go to you next, all right?
    Ms. Yeampierre. All right.
    Mr. Pallone. I just wanted to mention that, under the bill, 
facilities that did not adapt will pay user fees into the 
Superfund Trust Fund, which supports the Superfund cleanups. 
And that funding is important, because it would build on the 
President's effort in the American Jobs Plan to reinstate the 
Superfund tax.
    But on brownfields I wanted to ask you, with regard to 
brownfields, the CLEAN Future Act includes 6 billion over 10 
years for brownfields redevelopment. And that has long been, as 
I said before, a bipartisan issue. So what I wanted to ask Dr. 
Yeampierre is--I mean Ms. Yeampierre--based on your experience, 
how could this brownfields investment help environmental 
justice communities build back better?
    And if you want to mention the other two, that is fine, but 
I wanted to ask you----
    Ms. Yeampierre. Yes, so--thank you so much. So quickly, I 
served as chair of the National Environmental Justice Advisory 
Council and predicted that industrial waterfronts will be hit 
by extreme weather events. And we saw that happen in Katrina. 
We saw it happen in New York. We saw that happen in Puerto Rico 
with Hurricane Maria, a place that has 23 Superfunds, a tiny 
island like that. So those investments really need to work to 
prevent toxic exposure, the exposure to toxics and toxicants.
    These--when this happens, when a cat 5 hurricane hits one 
of these islands, or one of our communities, those toxicants 
and those toxics are released in the air and the ground water. 
They land in people's buildings. They literally are everywhere. 
And there is no baseline research to determine what the 
exposure is. There is no way of comparing it.
    So that resource--those resources have to be investing in 
not only redeveloping those properties and using them as 
vehicles for economic development in our community but 
addressing the kind of environmental harm that has actually 
cost lives already.
    And there is a study that came out of that year--it 
happened before--right after Superstorm Sandy--that documents 
all of the different communities all over the United States 
where that was possible. And then we saw it happen in Houston. 
So I would urge you to look at that study, and make sure that 
we operationalize the recommendations that came out of that 
advisory group, because I always feel that we are starting from 
scratch, but we have been----
    Mr. Pallone. I am going to have to----
    Ms. Yeampierre [continuing]. Talking about this.
    But thank you so much for the question, it is an important 
one.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. Oh, you are welcome. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, Representative 
Rodgers, for 5 minutes. She is our full committee ranking 
member.
    So welcome.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to start 
with some questions for Dr. Hollie, or Mr. Hollie.
    I appreciated you outlining how important affordable energy 
is for people, and especially for people most in need. And that 
has been a key focus, as we are reviewing the bills before us.
    My State of Washington, the State of Washington, enjoys 
some of the lowest electricity rates in the country, and that 
is thanks to abundant hydropower. Nearly 70 percent of our 
electricity comes from hydropower, and we hope to keep it that 
way. You know, it helps families and it helps us grow our 
economy. It is an economic advantage to us, a competitive 
advantage.
    You know, but as you look across the country, low rates are 
not everywhere. And in those places where not, it creates 
burdens for low-income communities. A review of Department of 
Energy data shows that States with the highest low-income 
energy burdens are in the southeastern United States. And this 
is where most of our electricity is used for heating and 
cooling. Low-income households in those States use almost 40 
percent more electricity than the national average for low-
income households.
    The good news is that in these southeastern States they 
also enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation. 
So, Mr. Hollie, what happens to low-income households in 
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina if climate 
policies force them to pay the same rates as residents in 
California or even Connecticut, where prices are nearly twice 
as high?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, I can't speak--because I am not in 
everyone's household, I don't know what everybody's income is, 
but it will certainly drive up the electricity rates for 
everyone in these communities.
    And I would also add, Ranking Member, that the same--these 
same communities that are screaming environmental justice are 
the same communities that are being impacted by energy poverty.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, and maybe speak a little bit to the 
economic opportunities that would also be harmed if businesses 
and industries had to pay those higher rates.
    Mr. Hollie. No, I don't think anyone can afford these 
rates. And just as a small business owner, I know how we have 
been impacted right now with COVID. And so I don't think it 
would be prudent to implement any of these policies that will 
essentially raise the rate for consumers and business owners.
    Mrs. Rodgers. So there is provisions in the legislation 
before us where it would mean that projects will not be able to 
get permits if they are ``overburdened,'' if they are found in 
one of these overburdened census tracts, even if it doesn't 
contribute to--even if they aren't the ones contributing to the 
burden. So what is your view of that?
    Mr. Hollie. I just think, you know, with the Federal 
Government, we need to leave some of this responsibility to the 
States. They know what they need in these areas. So I think 
that, when we start--the Federal Government starts meddling in 
the States, sometimes that creates an overburden because, 
again, they know what they need down there in those States more 
so than we do.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Mr. Hawkins, the White House Council of Economic Advisers 
analyzed the potential for opportunity zones last year. Can you 
talk about what they estimated those impacts on poverty would 
be, and how many people would be lifted out of poverty with 
good-paying jobs?
    Mr. Hawkins. Sure. And so the Council of Economic Advisers 
estimates that over a million Americans would be lifted out of 
poverty over the next 10 years as a result of this policy.
    They also estimate that the residents----you know, when we 
look at opportunity zones, and kind of isolate those census 
tracts across the country, that the poverty rate in opportunity 
zones will drop by 11 percent.
    Mrs. Rodgers. That is great, that is great, I just really 
appreciate your work on it too.
    So the Republicans on this committee have released a 
package of bills. We call it Securing Cleaner American Energy.
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, yes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. It is part of our agenda, and it is focused 
on creating cleaner, more affordable, more secure energy, which 
is so important from a national security perspective but also 
an economic perspective, and also about creating jobs and 
lifting people out of poverty.
    Mr. Hawkins. Sure.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Would you just speak to what you see in that 
bill and how you believe it may impact distressed communities?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, I think the most exciting parts are the 
parts that deal with innovation, so the CCUS Innovation Act, 
the Clean Energy Hydrogen Innovation Act, those policies both 
have elements where you are partnering with the loan guarantee 
program at DoE and you can see that kind of across-agency 
coordination that we have seen possibly--potentially, between 
DoE and opportunity zones, similar to what we saw from EPA 
around brownfield remediation in opportunity zones. So that--
those elements were very exciting.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes, I completely agree. American ingenuity 
leading the way, bringing down carbon emissions, creating more 
opportunities.
    Mr. Hawkins. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Rodgers. I have exceeded my time. I yield back. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome.
    The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentlelady from Colorado Representative DeGette, who serves as 
our chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight.
    So Representative DeGette?
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This is a 
really important hearing, and I just want to say the name of 
the hearing, because I think my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle may have forgotten about what this hearing is about. 
It is called ``Protection from Cumulative Emissions and 
Underenforcement of Environmental Law Act.'' And that is my 
bill, and then there is a bunch of other bills that are 
included in the hearing that are talking about environmental 
justice, and how we clean up environmentally contaminated 
sites.
    In my congressional district I have some neighborhoods, 
Swansea, Elyria, and Globeville. These neighborhoods are 
classic environmental justice communities. They suffer from 
highways going right through the middle, from railways, 
refineries, other historical polluters. They are neighborhoods 
full of working-class Americans who have suffered incredible 
health damage and other damages from this pollution.
    Now, I--so what my bill does is it requires the EPA to 
develop and implement a protocol for addressing cumulative 
health impacts of multiple sources of pollution.
    I can understand how my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would like to talk about renewable energy versus 
traditional energy and how they would like to debate that and 
how they would like to change the subject. I guess I can 
understand that. But what I really can't understand is how not 
either of their witnesses or one of the Members is willing to 
talk about how we address cleanup of these environmental 
justice areas.
    Now, I must say Mr. Hawkins did talk about opportunity 
zones, and he did do some good work with his former boss, 
Senator Scott, on that. I support opportunity zones, but those 
are about economic development. It is not talking about cleanup 
of environmental contamination in these neighborhoods. And that 
is what we need to talk about. And so I want to--I have some 
questions, and I want to ask the witnesses about what this 
hearing is about.
    Dr. Hollis, I am going to start with you. When the EPA 
develops a standard for a given pollutant, does the Agency 
typically consider the other pollutants that a community might 
be exposed to?
    Dr. Hollis. No, that is not necessarily the way EPA does 
their calculation when they----
    Ms. DeGette. Yes.
    Dr. Hollis [continuing]. Establish standards.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Now, when the EPA or State environmental 
agency issues a permit, are they required to issue--to consider 
the other pollutants the community be exposed to? Same thing?
    Dr. Hollis. Same thing.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, is it possible that, if you have 
different pollutants, they can interact with each other or even 
make each other worse in attacking our health?
    Dr. Hollis. Absolutely.
    Ms. DeGette. And are you familiar with the--I think you 
talked about this a little bit in your opening statement--the 
Harvard study about the relationship between chronic exposure 
to air pollution and COVID.
    Dr. Hollis. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. Can you talk to us for a minute about that 
study?
    Dr. Hollis. The study from Harvard, which was also done in 
Beijing and Italy, suggests a relationship between particulate 
matter and COVID-19, that the virus particles actually sort of 
hitch a ride on the particulate matter. And particulate matter 
is found at higher concentrations, of course, in the 
environmental justice communities from emissions, from 
polluting facilities like that. So communities who are already 
at risk because of where they live are more at risk because the 
particulate matter allows the COVID-19 to embed itself deeper 
into the lung.
    Ms. DeGette. Right. And we know that multiple sources of 
pollution are a hallmark of environmental justice communities. 
And what complicates that is EPA actually only carries out a 
relatively small number of enforcement actions.
    And so what my bill does is it says, ``EPA, identify 100 
communities nationwide where there appears to be chronic 
underenforcement, and work with State and local agencies to 
figure out what needs to happen to clean that up.'' Would you 
agree that underenforcement of environmental laws is a classic 
example of an environmental--of environmental injustice?
    Dr. Hollis. Absolutely.
    Ms. DeGette. And why do you think that happens? What do you 
think the reasons for that are?
    Dr. Hollis. Gosh, I don't know the answer to that question.
    Ms. DeGette. You have got 26 seconds, OK?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. DeGette. OK, let me move on. Do you think that this 
hurts the ability of the local neighbors to actually move 
forward in supporting their communities, when they see that the 
Government just doesn't even care?
    Dr. Hollis. Absolutely.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
    Representative Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start, 
I ask unanimous consent to enter an article into the record. 
This article from Politico, published a week ago, is entitled, 
``The wage gap that threatens Biden's climate plan.''
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Johnson, we will do all the requests at the 
end of the hearing, and we will recognize your request.
    Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you. I am going to quote a couple of 
excerpts from this article. And I quote, ``Energy industry 
workers employed by solar and wind power companies earn 
significantly less than those who mine coal or drill for 
natural gas. Energy workers on the whole earn more than the 
typical American, but the highest-paying positions are skewed 
heavily toward nuclear utility and natural gas and coal 
industry workers, the new data shows. The wind, solar, and 
construction jobs that would surge under Biden's policies were 
well below them on the median pay scale.''
    When we are faced with the facts presented in this article, 
I can't help but ask my Democratic colleagues and their 
witnesses today, is this what my constituents in an oil, gas, 
and coal-producing district have to look forward to?
    If the legislation we are discussing today was to become 
law, thousands of men and women I represent, millions across 
our nation, will be forced to take a significant pay cut. Now, 
I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very just to me.
    So, Mr. Hollie, let me start with you. When we review the 
legislation in front of us today, the CLEAN Future Act doesn't 
hide its bias against fossil fuels. There is a title in the 
bill itself, title 10, that actually lists out the fossil 
energy jobs that will be lost under this green transformation. 
These include resource production, power generation, and 
manufacturing.
    So, Mr. Hollie, the shutdown of these industries would mean 
the loss of thousands of good-paying blue-collar jobs that 
would be replaced with vague promises of lower-paying green 
jobs in far-off places. Would this help or hurt the communities 
you advocate for?
    Mr. Hollie. Oh, it would totally hurt them, devastate these 
communities, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Section 902 of that CLEAN Future Act would 
halt permittiing for the domestic manufacturing of plastics, 
including their feedstocks, which we all know is natural gas 
and the petrochemical products harvested in the extraction 
process of natural gas.
    So your testimony talks about energy poverty, that idea 
that low-income Americans suffer the most when policies are 
enacted that raise the cost of gasoline, electricity, and 
natural gas to heat their homes and cook their meals. So, Mr. 
Hollie, would you agree that this same concept of energy 
poverty could be realized if there is reduced access to the 
thousands of affordable products derived from petrochemicals or 
plastics that Americans rely on every day, those materials used 
in clothing, food packaging, electronics, transportation, 
common home furnishings, and other basic necessities?
    Can you talk about what happens if we devastate the 
plastics manufacturing sector?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, and I couldn't include all 
that in my testimony in 5 minutes, but that is--I think a lot 
of times people don't understand just how much the oil and gas 
industry provides to us, and petrochemicals, but all the things 
that we need to supply us and that we need to function daily, 
even down to, like I said, your yoga mat. And I think, at the 
end of the day, when you start taking away these jobs, taking 
away the industry, it will ultimately drive up the cost for all 
these goods that we need and that are a part of our life every 
single day.
    Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. You know, I--one of the things 
that my Democratic colleagues are pushing so hard for is all-
electric vehicles. And, you know, I am not opposed to all-
electric vehicles. But I wonder, do my colleagues realize how 
much plastics manufacturing goes into the process of making an 
all-electric vehicle? It is possible because plastics are 
lightweight, and much of the material that goes into an all-
electric vehicle is plastic.
    And a lot of the components of solar panels and wind 
turbines are also made out of petrochemical products. So I 
think we are missing the point here in many, many cases. But, 
Mr. Hollie, I thank you for your responses.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, the gentleman yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 
Representative Schakowsky, who also chairs our Subcommittee on 
Commerce and Consumer Protection.
    Representative Schakowsky?
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So nearly a decade 
ago I met with a young constituent who was concerned about the 
impact of oil and gas operations on drinking water. And as a 
result, I introduced the SHARED Act--of course, that is an 
acronym, and it is called the Safe Hydration is an American 
Right in Energy Development--to require testing of water 
sources near hydraulic fracturing operations, and then the 
public disclosure of their results. It is a very simple and 
commonsense way to protect communities from environmental harm, 
and I believe that it is a valuable addition to the 
environmental justice conversation.
    The SHARED Act--that is H.R. 2164, I keep introducing it, 
and hopefully it will be part of the--all the bills that we are 
passing now, but--and it would require oil and gas companies to 
report on the impact of their fracking activities, and how--
what they--how they--what impact they have on the water. And 
companies would be required, then, to test the water sources 
within a half-mile radius of fracking sites. And those results 
would have to be made publicly available to the community.
    So, Dr. Hollis, I am wondering if you could discuss the 
importance of both monitoring pollution--polluting causes such 
as fracking by fossil fuel operations, and publicly disclose 
that information. What do you think of that?
    Dr. Hollis. I can do that. I will do it quickly.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
    Dr. Hollis. The issue with hydrofracking is that evidence 
has shown that it contaminates the water, the groundwater, the 
drinking water wells. It also contaminates the environment, the 
air. The methane is released into the environment. And the 
issue is that a number of the ingredients that we do know of 
are carcinogens, are very toxic.
    And then there are those that we don't even know are 
included in hydrofracking fluid because of the--a trade secret, 
so that facilities aren't required to provide that information 
to communities, which is ridiculous because, you know, it goes 
against common sense that people should know what they are 
being exposed to, because when you fracture the soil, when you 
fracture the ground, you are releasing--you are creating 
cracks. And through those cracks, eventually, this fracking 
fluid will get into the water supply, and has gotten into the 
water supply.
    Ms. Schakowsky. And has, thank you very much. And it is not 
just common sense, but I think we are talking about the health 
of our families and our communities. And every American family 
really does deserve to know whether the water that they use to 
cook and bathe and drink is safe, especially from contamination 
due to fossil fuel energy production.
    We can't forget that oil and gas operations are also major 
drivers of the climate crisis, and specifically as the 
country's primary source of harm from methane pollution. So I 
wanted to ask Ms. Yeampierre, can you speak to the importance 
of controlling dangerous methane pollution, especially for 
frontline communities?
    Ms. Yeampierre. Well, thank you, thank you for that 
question. I want to make it personal for a second. I want to 
share with everyone that a year ago this week I almost went 
into cardiac arrest because of COVID and lost four family 
members within 2 weeks. All of us were born and raised in the 
midst of environmental burdens right next to power plants, 
waste transfer stations, brownfields. We have all of those 
things in common from the front line.
    And so these protections are tremendously important. They 
land on our--in our lungs, in developing--while women are 
pregnant. They affect the ability for children to function in 
school. They disrupt work. So all of these protections are 
tremendously important. And so I want folks to know that we are 
not talking about people out there, some question mark of 
folks. We are literally talking about our aunties, our 
grandmothers, our children.
    And so anyone who cares about children, and anyone who 
cares about families and who is invested in making sure that we 
live healthy, thriveable lives will invest in making sure that 
we are moving away from extraction and investing in 
regenerative economies and putting in those protections.
    And people, for example----
    Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to--my time is almost expired, 
but I just wanted to say how important it is, and this hearing 
in general, and bringing it home, bringing it home to our 
families, as you were talking about, talking about your 
aunties, that we need to make that a top priority when we 
consider how we develop our energy future. And I just 
appreciate this hearing so much.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. I next have Mr. 
Carter. I don't see him on our screen, so if he does return we 
will reinsert him on our list. So let's go to the gentleman 
from South Carolina.
    Representative Duncan, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. I first want to say 
that it is time for fear tactics like Ms. Hollis was talking 
about to stop. Most drinking water wells are--deep drinking 
water wells--300 feet. Most fracking happens at hundreds, if 
not thousands, of feet below the depth of a drinking water 
well. It has been proven time and again that fracking fluids 
are not flowing up from a fracking operation into drinking 
water wells. So just stop with the misinformation that is out 
there to put fear tactics and fear in the hearts and minds of 
folks across America.
    I want to shift gears. Mr. Hawkins, Shay, it is great to 
see you. Thanks for all the work that you did with Tim Scott, 
Senator Scott, on the opportunity zones. I want to start by 
saying I appreciate that. I appreciate the opportunity zones in 
general. And low-income communities will be the last to recover 
from economic instability.
    As we work towards relief for American families and 
businesses to return to pre-COVID conditions, I think the 
opportunity zones should play a vital role. I know they have 
already benefited many communities in my home State of South 
Carolina. How can incentivizing investment in distressed areas 
establish longer-term quality-of-life benefits for those 
residents in the communities, compared to direct Government 
benefits, Shay?
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes, so absolutely. So, you know, when we look 
at what is going on in opportunity zones, particularly around 
job creation--so there are multiple benefits.
    One benefit that potential opportunity zone residents see 
is in direct jobs. That is obvious. But we also see benefits 
around better access to goods and services that weren't 
previously available. Significant numbers of designated 
opportunity zones are in food deserts. And so, you know, food 
security becomes an issue.
    But then you also see that opportunity zone residents 
benefit from higher real estate prices, and the majority of 
opportunity zone real estate--the majority of opportunity zone 
residents own real estate in the opportunity zone. And so, you 
know, there is a plethora of potential benefits.
    Representative DeGette indicated that environmental cleanup 
was the topic of the hearing and that we hadn't offered much 
from our side on that. So if you will allow me, Representative 
Duncan, I will just talk a little bit about brownfield 
remediation, and the fact that EPA worked closely with 
opportunity zones in designating the areas they--151 areas that 
they laid out for brownfield remediation; 118 of those were in 
opportunity zones.
    And so, you know, it is critical, both on the cleanup side 
for frontline communities, but both on the long-term quality-
of-life side that you laid out.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes, well, that is great. I want to shift gears 
a little bit and, Mr. Hawkins, I appreciate all the work on 
opportunity zones, as well.
    This move toward higher-priced and more expensive 
electricity generation through wind and solar, it has been 
proven time and again that that is more expensive than 
traditional, 24/7/365 power supplies that exist today. And that 
is nuclear power, that is coal- and natural gas-fired power 
plants. The higher-priced electricity generation affects the 
lower-income populations more than it does anyone, because they 
now have to pay more, as a percentage of their discretionary 
income, for utility rates because of the high-priced 
electricity generation.
    So, as we move toward more higher-priced electricity, just 
keep in mind that those that are on a very limited and fixed 
income--and that is the lower-income side of the scale--will 
pay more out of their pocket for electricity. That means they 
have less money to spend in the economy on other things that 
they need, whether that is education of their children, 
clothes, food, rent, taxes, other things that they have to pay 
for in life. They will have less money to do that. So let's 
just keep that in mind.
    Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee hearing and the 
comments from the witnesses, and with that I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, the gentleman yields back. We now 
recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
    Representative Sarbanes, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the 
hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses that you have 
assembled here today for their testimony. I certainly 
appreciate the work this committee has been doing to bring 
environmental justice to the forefront of the conversation. It 
is really, really critical.
    One of the bills that we are discussing today is the 
Ensuring Safe Disposal of Coal Ash Act, which would establish 
stronger protections against unsafe coal ash disposal. As we 
know, coal ash, or coal combustion residuals, is one of the 
largest types of industrial waste in the United States that is 
generated. And according to the EPA, in 2012 about 110 million 
tons of coal ash was generated. Power plants have disposed of 
this waste, including many times in unlined coal ash ponds.
    The coal ash is filled with toxic levels of several 
pollutants, including mercury and arsenic, and exposure to coal 
ash can lead to cancers, cardiovascular issues, developmental 
defects, and nervous system damage. If disposed of in an unsafe 
manner, coal ash poses significant risk to neighboring 
communities. I have seen that in Maryland. We have had some 
real challenges there, and I have witnessed firsthand the 
impact of coal ash pollution on residents and the dangers 
associated with unsafe disposal. In my prior district I 
represented previously, this was a real concern.
    The Obama administration issued the 2015 coal ash rule to 
protect communities and water resources in the United States 
from toxic coal ash contamination. Unfortunately, rather than 
strengthening that rule, the Trump administration took action 
to weaken the critical provisions that were contained within 
it. So it is of little surprise now to know that an estimated 
60 percent of coal ash disposal sites are located near low-
income communities. So I am very pleased to see H.R. 2396 is 
being considered today.
    Dr. Hollis, in your testimony you discuss how systematic 
racism is a public health issue. I certainly agree with that. 
And as you know, this week the head of the Centers for Disease 
Control also issued a statement, and the CDC is now going to be 
examining that link in a more systematic fashion. Could you 
elaborate a little bit more on how locally undesirable land 
uses--and taking coal ash on as an example of that--can 
disproportionately burden communities of color and low-income 
communities, as well as their resources?
    And talk a little bit about the fact that there is a double 
hit on these communities. On the front end they are getting 
this environmental injustice; on the back end there is often a 
gap in terms of them being able to access the health care and 
resources they need to actually help them cope with the impact 
of that environmental justice. So if you could speak to that, I 
would appreciate it.
    Dr. Hollis. Sure. Traditionally, mostly in the south, 
communities have been inundated with coal ash. It is mostly 
unregulated, which is a big problem. I live in--I am currently 
in Alabama--I live in Maryland, and I have worked with 
communities in Alabama, in Florida, and so forth, where coal 
ash was illegally dumped not only in the residences, in the 
yards, but also in schools. Traditionally, these are low-income 
communities, and they don't necessarily have the resources to 
protest the dumping of coal ash.
    They also don't have the resources to routinely test their 
drinking water and/or their soil. And they often, as you said, 
lack access to adequate medical resources and also to legal 
assistance. And that is part of the systemic racism that I had 
alluded to earlier.
    The issue with coal ash, which as we know is very toxic--
highly toxic, almost to the point of being radioactive--is that 
these communities don't have representation, and only--you 
know, their voices are--have traditionally been unheard or 
often ignored. And normally you see facilities in these--near 
these communities who truck these--this coal ash residue 
through the community uncovered and, you know, unprotected from 
community exposure.
    So when it comes to the challenges, these communities are 
indeed faced with multiple challenges, including healthcare, 
legal resources, and the ability to stop this unregulated 
practice.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That was a 
very powerful statement of why we need the legislation as part 
of the bills we are looking at today, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. I agree with your sentiments, and the gentleman 
yields back. We now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, 
Representative Palmer.
    You have 5 minutes now for questioning, please.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Palmer, you need to unmute, please.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, now we can----
    Mr. Palmer. I can't wait until we get back to live hearings 
so we can see each other and hear each other.
    Mr. Hollie, I really appreciated your testimony. I think it 
is time that people begin to speak up for energy and economic 
justice for all people, all low-income people, in particular. 
And I want to focus on a couple of things, and I will ask you 
to comment.
    I want you to respond about the impact of energy injustice. 
Low-income families face tremendous disadvantages in the cost 
of household energy. And not only that, they suffer health 
consequences. I grew up dirt poor in northwest Alabama. We 
heated our house with a coal-fired heater, a big heater that 
had a stovepipe that ran out from it, out the side of the 
house, and it sat in the kitchen. And so I understand what it--
what energy poverty means.
    Right now households earning the average salary pay about 
2\1/2\ percent of their salary in energy costs. But households 
earning less than 20,000 a year pay almost 3 times as much, and 
households earning 16,000 a year pay almost 4 times as much. 
And there is another study that showed that, when you look at 
the top 20 percent in wage earners versus the bottom 20 percent 
in terms of disposable income, the bottom 20 percent pay almost 
5 times as much.
    Then you have the--in terms of the energy insecurity 
injustice, you have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other 
civil rights leaders literally working, campaigning for greater 
access to natural gas, which is much less expensive, much 
cleaner. You take Pembroke Township in Illinois, a town of 
about 2,100, 80 percent of those residents are African-
American, and they are literally using propane in wood-burning 
stoves to heat their homes in the wintertime. Jesse Jackson is 
leading an effort there to get them a natural gas pipeline.
    And then, in terms of jobs, if we were to shut down 
fracking, it would cost us over 7 million jobs and would add 
increased costs for the average family by over $5,000.
    And then the whole health aspect of this, because--
particularly in cold weather--a British medical journal, 
Lancet, reported that there are--17 times more people die from 
the consequences of living in colder homes than from heat.
    And so I am just so encouraged that you are speaking up for 
energy and economic justice for low-income families. I would 
like you to comment on that.
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir, and I would just share that it has 
been a passion of mine for a long time, for years, and I have 
had the opportunity to speak to several people in your State, 
and up and down the Atlantic coast, who all suffer from energy 
poverty. And I think a lot of times they are misled about the 
information that they are getting that actually is causing 
energy poverty. And when you speak to these individuals and you 
share with them about different policies and different 
regulations that are impacting them--now, granted, they are all 
about cleaning up the air, clean up where they live. But at the 
same time, they are equally just as concerned about the energy 
poverty and their--and the cost that they incur every single 
month with the high cost of energy.
    Mr. Palmer. I would like to see a show of hands of the 
other witnesses, since I can see on the screen, how many of you 
support Reverend Jackson's efforts to get a natural gas 
pipeline into Pembroke Township to alleviate the energy 
injustice those people are suffering?
    Oh, man, none of the Democrat witnesses. That is shocking.
    Mr. Hawkins, thank you for your testimony and particularly 
for the work that you are doing to alleviate poverty and to 
create opportunity. I would like for you to comment on these--
on energy and economic injustice.
    Mr. Hawkins. Sure. There are--just in terms of context, 
frontline communities are served with cleaner energy, you know, 
energy that has less emissions. Frontline communities are 
served with more affordable energy. Frontline communities are 
served with secure sources of energy.
    And so, you know, as we look to serve these communities, 
you know, we have to have that as our framework and as our 
outlook for approaching this. And so there are bipartisan 
solutions that can serve those communities in all of those ways 
without creating harm in the process.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the witnesses, and thank the chairman. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from my home State of New York, and 
the former vice chair of the full Committee of Energy and 
Commerce, Representative Clarke.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 
our Ranking Member McKinley for convening this very important 
and timely hearing. But let me also thank all of our witnesses 
for your testimony here today.
    Make no mistake about it, the climate crisis is happening 
right now, and its impacts are being felt most profoundly by 
marginalized communities throughout this Nation. We see these 
disparities when we look at the impacts of climate change on 
people's health, on their livelihoods, and on their homes and 
neighborhoods.
    Ms. Yeampierre, it is so nice to have a fellow Brooklynite 
at our hearing today. What do you see as the connection between 
climate change and racial injustice?
    And how does this relationship inform the climate justice 
movement?
    Ms. Yeampierre. Well, thank you. It is wonderful to see 
you, as well. It feels like a blessing to be in a space with 
you.
    You know, this is part of a history of extraction on the 
backs of our communities. The siting of environmental burdens 
has always happened in low-income communities and communities 
of color. Our communities are the ones that are suffering a 
disproportionate share of the public health crisis. But we are 
also working at solutions, and which is why your legislation is 
so important.
    We are operationalizing a just transition, and we are 
passing the benefits--not just the health benefits, but the 
economic benefits--to our communities so that they pay less for 
energy, and they don't have to do it at the expense of their 
health. All of this is connected. It is a long history.
    And so what I see today is a collective effort to try to 
move away from a history that has harmed generations and 
generations of communities. We are, as I have mentioned before, 
the descendants of enslavement and colonialization.
    And it is not just happening in the United States, it is 
happening in Puerto Rico, where you have got ash plants that 
were hit by Hurricane Maria. Those ashes ended up miles from 
where people--from where the facility was located, and they 
have cancer clusters all around those facilities. So there is a 
connection.
    And so we really can't even talk about climate change 
without talking about racial justice. Anyone who doesn't 
understand that is someone who doesn't--who is basically 
pretending that history has not taken place.
    So thank you for asking me that question.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Ms. Yeampierre. The inequitable 
impacts of the climate crisis are exactly why I recently 
introduced the Climate Justice Act, modeled after New York 
State's recent landmark climate legislation, which will 
establish a Federal climate justice working group to address 
the inequitable burdens of climate change on the front line.
    Ms. Yeampierre, could you briefly describe your experience 
serving on the New York State's Climate Justice Working Group, 
and share what your group is seeking to accomplish?
    Ms. Yeampierre. The Climate Leadership and Community 
Protection Act was created to move resources to frontline 
communities so that there would be investments in 
operationalizing a just transition. And the working group is 
making recommendations. It is a multidisciplinary group, it is 
cross-sectoral, working to try to figure out what is the 
language, what is the framework, how do we do it? How do we 
move away from extraction, and how do we create 150,000 jobs in 
the State of New York that put people on a track to economic 
justice and move them away from extraction?
    We have got several committees that have been set up to do 
that. We work diligently every week, and, you know, we--just 
because it hasn't existed doesn't mean that we don't create it, 
right?
    So a lot of the members are coming from New York Renews. It 
is a coalition of up to 300 members across the State, rural, 
urban, different ethnic and--race and ethnicities, different 
class backgrounds, working together to move New York State to 
be carbon neutral by 2050.
    And so that is the bulk of the work that is happening in 
those committees.
    Ms. Clarke. Thanks again. And I think it is important to 
note that the Federal climate justice working group in my 
legislation will be comprised of representatives from 
community-based organizations, as well as States, cities, and 
indigenous nations.
    Ms. Yeampierre, could you please explain why it is so 
important, when we are talking about addressing climate 
injustice, that the voices of frontline communities are helping 
to lead this conversation?
    Ms. Yeampierre. Because the people who are exposed to the 
problems are the ones who have the solutions. We are not 
sitting around complaining. We are coming up with mechanisms, 
economic frameworks, recommendations for infrastructure, 
developing leadership, and passing policy to move us away from 
a history of extraction. We have got solutions.
    And you have seen that happen even in our neighborhoods. I 
mentioned earlier that in Sunset Park we launched the first 
community-owned solar cooperative in the State of New York, 
with economic benefits being passed on to people who have lost 
their businesses as a result of COVID, who were really dealing 
with the economic pressures of COVID.
    And then we are also working on--you know, we have 
successfully brought offshore wind to south Brooklyn, and we 
are talking about thousands of jobs and training and working 
with unions and workers to train them on how to do something 
that is radically different. And, even while talking about 
bringing offshore wind--because the parts will be coming from 
Europe--we are also talking about how do we manufacture it 
here? How do we bring those jobs? How do we make sure that the 
United States is actually engaged in building for offshore 
wind, so that we don't have to import the ships from Europe?
    We have negotiated agreements so that the ships, when they 
come into Brooklyn, aren't spewing diesel, and they basically 
start operating off electricity. All of this are --all of these 
are solutions where you have got people from communities 
talking about infrastructure, about science, about health, and 
about reclaiming spaces so that we are ready to address the 
impacts that climate change is bringing.
    Ms. Clarke. This is exciting. Mr. Chairman, I yield back, 
and I thank you for the opportunity.
    Mr. Tonko. The representative from Brooklyn yields back. We 
caught that Brooklyn theme there. So next we will recognize the 
gentleman from Utah.
    Representative Curtis, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, a very long ways 
away from Brooklyn is Utah and my district. And right on the 
southern part of my district, we have been blessed with the 
Navajo Indian Reservation. Recently there was a Navajo 
generation station that was coal-fired, a power plant. Just a 
little over a year ago, it was a victim of the villainization 
of coal. It was closed. That plant and mine paid out $100 
million in direct wages in that part of my district, and $50 
million in leases and royalties that are now gone.
    A nearby Tribe who provided the coal lost 80 percent of 
their revenue for the entire Tribe because of that closing.
    Along with the Native Americans, other parts of my district 
have a long history of uranium mining and processing that 
supported the Cold War. Many of those impacts are still looming 
today. We have heard about them in other testimonies: higher 
cancer rates, abandoned mine cleanups, counties overly reliant 
on extraction industry for their tax base.
    Coal and uranium mining technology has advanced and had its 
place in these communities, but these communities still tell me 
their greatest export is their children. And they are working 
desperately to keep a way of life, and to keep their children 
in the area, and economic stability.
    These are resilient residents. They are proud. They don't 
like to hear that they don't need to worry because we are going 
to teach them to code. Instead, they want to be self-reliant 
and stand on their own and chart a path forward. And I am 
really pleased that the opportunity zones created from the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act played a very significant role in their 
efforts. They don't--they want to look to the future and not 
get stuck in these issues of the past.
    And these opportunity zones have been a tool to empower 
these communities to help themselves instead of being reliant 
on Federal dollars. We are all familiar with the saying that if 
you give a man a fish, you feed him, but if you teach him to 
fish, you feed him for a lifetime. To me, Federal dollars to a 
distressed area are a little bit like a fish, and these 
opportunity zones are a little bit like a fishing lesson.
    Mr. Shaw--Mr. Hawkins, can you speak--and you have done 
such a great job at speaking to opportunity zones, but 
particularly in rural areas, and the impact that they can have 
on lifting these rural areas?
    Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, absolutely, Representative Curtis.
    About--of the 8,700 designated census tracks that were 
designated by Governors as opportunity zones that are eligible 
for this great benefit, 25 percent, or just under 25 percent, 
are in rural areas. And so they are critical in rural areas 
because the most attractive portion, the most attractive 
benefit of opportunity zones, goes from--goes to folks who are 
investing in operating businesses, and where they hold that 
investment, job-creating investment, for greater than 10 years.
    And so a disproportionate amount of the operating business 
investments that we are seeing happen in rural areas. A lot of 
the urban areas tend to attract real estate investment. But in 
the rural areas we see operating businesses, a lot of things 
that are very important around rural broadband. But then also, 
you know, again, like I said, we have seen significant 
investments in clean energy, as well, and other job-creating 
industries.
    Mr. Curtis. Yes.
    Mr. Hawkins. So opportunity zones are a great tool for 
community development in rural areas.
    Mr. Curtis. Excellent. Last Congress I partnered with 
Representative Cuellar, and we introduced a bipartisan----
    Mr. Hawkins. Yes.
    Mr. Curtis [continuing]. Opportunity zone bill to help 
small businesses struggling. Utah, I am very proud, has one of 
the lowest unemployment rates in the country, but our rural 
areas are struggling.
    And we just got a few seconds left. Anything, any advice 
you have for Congress on how to make these more impactful in 
rural parts?
    Mr. Hawkins. Absolutely. First we need a transparency and 
reporting bill that lets us know where opportunity zone 
investments are happening, how many direct jobs are being 
created, and where they are being created. And now--that will 
allow us to know if we need to tailor the program to more 
carefully target rural areas.
    Next we could look to codify the coordination that we have 
seen across Federal agencies with opportunity zones to kind of 
put that policy and prioritize opportunity zones in Federal 
community development.
    Mr. Curtis. I wish we had more time, and I regret that I am 
out of time. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The next person we 
had was Dr. Ruiz, but we don't see him on the screen, so we 
will go to the gentleman from California.
    Representative Peters, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you. The other gentleman from California. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having the hearing.
    I wanted to talk with Dr. Hollis a little bit about lead 
poisoning. I think that one of the most pernicious and really 
tragic contaminants that we see affecting disadvantaged 
communities is heavy metals. Sometimes it is mercury or 
cadmium, but most often it is lead, and often from the pipes 
that deliver water.
    And I was able to visit Flint with Mr. Kildee and with 
Elijah Cummings back in 2015 to see some of the devastation 
that has been brought on that community. But that is, in many 
ways, just the most famous example of something that happens 
all too often. And Dr. Hollis, I wanted to see if you would 
opine, if you would, on how do you think the proposal deals 
with this, and is this what you would like to see? Are there 
other things we should be doing? Is this the right approach, or 
would you do--would you take a different approach?
    Dr. Hollis. Thank you, Representative Peters. I do think 
that, as you say, lead is a serious toxic, toxic substance, and 
there is no safe level.
    And I do think that the issues that we see with lead are 
only going to be exacerbated by climate change: one, from the 
water that is run off or from flooding and extreme weather; 
also, because the pipes are--that were originally put in place 
are, in some instances, corroded or rusted, and that is 
released through whatever is in the water, as we talked about 
earlier with Superfund sites and that runoff. We don't know how 
these chemicals interact, but the thought is that there could 
be extracting lead from the pipes.
    So any regulation, any legislation that is considered that 
addresses that issue is the right legislation, in my opinion.
    Mr. Peters. OK, so I think that there is an attempt--and, 
you know, one of the difficulties we have in the Federal 
Government is that a lot of these systems are managed by State 
and local governments. And, you know, we are trying to figure 
out ways to help, you know, the communities--like, Flint is not 
a wealthy one, for example--ways to incentivize and to assist 
them in replacing those pipes.
    Also one of the problems in Flint is that there is 
disinvestment from people moving out, which means that the 
water systems just don't function as well without people there.
    So I am very interested in supporting this part of the 
bill, in particular. And for me, I think fighting lead 
pollution is an infrastructure priority.
    And I appreciate the witnesses for being here, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan.
    Representative Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. As we move towards 
long-term economic recovery from COVID, this COVID pandemic, we 
need to be bold and we need to go big and we need to be focused 
on frontline communities that have borne the brunt for too long 
to achieve lasting economic renewal. That is the key pillar of 
the THRIVE Agenda that I am also proud to be one of the leaders 
of.
    There have been a lot of important points that have been 
made by my colleagues today and many worthwhile provisions in 
these bills that will make a real difference for the 
communities that I represent and so many of us do. But I am 
going to pick up on what my colleague Mr. Peters was just 
talking about. I want to focus in on one provision. I do come 
from Michigan, and we really do understand what lead and water 
does to our children, let alone others. So I want to focus on 
funding for lead service line replacement.
    Lead exposure is a deeply serious environmental justice 
issue which impacts across generations. And that is why I am so 
pleased to see that President Biden is committed to replacing 
lead service lines in the American Jobs Plan, and pleased that 
there is language in the CLEAN Future Act to put that plan into 
action.
    With lead service line replacement, the details really 
matter if we are really going to get it done. So I want to ask 
a few questions about the specific language in the CLEAN Future 
Act.
    Dr. McClain, the CLEAN Future Act would create just one 
factor for prioritizing lead line replacement funding, and I am 
quoting here: ``Priority for the use of funds should be given 
to projects that replace lead service lines serving 
disadvantaged communities and environmental justice 
communities.'' Dr. McClain, just yes or no, do you agree that 
replacing lead service lines serving disadvantaged and 
environmental justice communities should be the absolute top 
priority for these funds?
    Mr. Tonko. Representative Dingell, we may have lost Dr. 
McClain because of technical difficulties, so you might direct 
that----
    Mrs. Dingell. I will give it to the other witnesses, then.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you.
    Mrs. Dingell. And I hope somebody--do either of the two 
witnesses left that I see want to answer--three----
    Dr. Hollis. Yes.
    Mrs. Dingell [continuing]. Four--answer?
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Dingell. Sorry we are all having technology--we all 
can't wait until we are back in person again.
    OK, so let me--I was going to ask Dr. McClain this. I don't 
know if any of you can answer this: What level or estimate of 
investment will this require from the Federal Government?
    And I am asking this question because I don't think we got 
enough in here, so what do you all think?
    Nobody?
    Dr. Hollis. I do not have an answer for that question, 
Representative Dingell.
    Mrs. Dingell. OK, you know what, Chairman Tonko? I think 
that with a--my questions are really focused, nitty gritty, on 
this. I should yield back and submit my questions for the 
record.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. The----
    Ms. Yeampierre. OK, I would----
    Mr. Tonko. Excuse me?
    Ms. Yeampierre. I was going to try to answer the question, 
because I am on my way out.
    Mrs. Dingell. That would be great.
    Ms. Yeampierre. From the Climate----
    Mr. Tonko. OK, please do.
    Ms. Yeampierre [continuing]. Justice Alliance, thank you. 
First, thank you for supporting THRIVE. Senator Schumer has 
been a great ally for us in the State of New York.
    We are talking about $10 trillion, about a trillion a year, 
2 more than is being recommended.
    We are also talking about a 40 percent that has to be a 
baseline, and not a goal. There are different communities that 
have different needs. They are all different, and they have all 
been dealing with a legacy of extraction for generations. And 
so the needs, whether it is Indian country versus a coastal 
community, may be radically different.
    We are happy to provide you with more information at some 
point, and I really want to thank everyone for inviting me. I 
feel deep gratitude for this conversation and for being 
invited. Thank you so much.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, and it is important.
    And I will yield back, Mr. Chair, and do my questions for 
the record.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentlelady from Michigan yields back. We 
next had Representative Barragan on our list, but we don't see 
her on the screen. So we will now move to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
    Representative McEachin, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
and thank you for your input on this important topic.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to--
both to you and Chairman Pallone for convening this hearing, 
and the work that we are all doing on the notion of 
environmental justice for all.
    I am going to skip a lot of my introductory comments for 
the sake of time and just sort of focus on H.R. 2021 and the 
notion of cumulative impacts. And I would like to start off by 
asking Dr. Hollis, how does the current permittiing process 
disproportionately hurt low-income communities, communities of 
color, and Tribal and indigenous communities?
    Dr. Hollis. Thank you, Representative McEachin. The current 
permittiing process doesn't account for or take into account 
the different ways that communities are exposed to different 
pollutants and the different mechanisms, different routes of 
exposure.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you. And is it--now I am going to--I 
had a question for Dr. McClain, but I want to shift it over 
to--is it Dr. Yeampierre? Help me out with the pronunciation of 
your name. I am so sorry, ma'am,
    Dr. Hollis. I think Ms. Yeampierre had to leave.
    Mr. McEachin. Yeampierre, is she still on?
    Dr. Hollis. No, I think she had to leave.
    Mr. McEachin. Well, Dr. Hollis, I guess it is just you and 
me, then.
    Dr. Hollis. But Mr. Logan is here.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. McEachin. Well, either Dr. Hollis or Dr. Logan, 
whichever one--either one of you all can try to tackle this 
question.
    How could requiring consideration of cumulative impacts--
implementing decisions impact and benefit the environmental 
justice communities?
    Mr. Logan. If I may?
    Mr. McEachin. Please.
    Mr. Logan. Thank you, Representative McEachin. The 
environmental justice communities are overburdened with a 
concentration of polluting facilities in very small geographic 
areas. In some cases there are concentrations of lead smelters, 
for instance.
    When there is that type of infrastructure that helps to 
service lead smelters, for instance, in a concentrated 
geography, the tendency is that companies continue to want to 
serve that area or to be placed or sited in that area. When the 
permitting process starts to run through, it only examines the 
permit on its own merits, not taking into account the multiple 
other effects or multiple other facilities.
    So it is important that, as we address environmental 
justice, that the cumulative impact policies really incorporate 
the permit denial as a strategy, as it looks at the potential 
of harm in these communities. These communities are already 
overly burdened. Another ounce of lead is just detrimental to 
the community and continues to harm the community.
    So permitting is critical, not just examining, not just 
studying, not just enforcing, because in most cases these 
permitting processes are following the letter of the law.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that, sir.
    Dr. Hollis, as we have seen throughout the COVID-19, 
communities of color have been some of the hardest hit. How 
does environmental pollution and cumulative health impacts 
connect to the current pandemic, and the cumulative impacts 
approach to permitting have potentially prevented some of the 
health disparities that we have seen?
    Dr. Hollis. Thank you, Representative McEachin. With--
communities are exposed, as I mentioned earlier, to numerous 
contaminants. And when we talk about COVID-19--so these 
contaminants make them more at risk already; we see increased 
cardiac issues, we see increased respiratory issues, all of 
these things that make them predisposed to issues, and 
breathing issues, and just having, I guess, a healthy 
environment. And so that makes them more susceptible to things 
like COVID-19, and not just COVID-19.
    So when it comes to permitting, as Mr. Logan said, it is--
you know, it is important that we look at all of the 
contributors to pollution, because we don't know which 
particular combination of contaminants will make a person more 
at risk, will put a person more at risk for attacks of viruses 
like COVID-19.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, ma'am. And I want to thank you 
both. I look forward to working with you all and my colleagues 
on this committee to ensure that we pass legislation that 
protects EJ communities from environmental health hazards.
    Before yielding back, I am proud that our EJ for All Act 
has earned the support of many of my colleagues and 
organizations across the country. I would ask unanimous consent 
to introduce letters of support for the Environmental Justice 
for All Act into the record, including a letter from some of 
our Senate colleagues.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. We will be glad to deal with the request at the 
end of the meeting, and thank you for the request to enter the 
document into the record.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentleman yields back. I see we have 
been rejoined by Representative Carter. The gentleman from 
Georgia will be recognized next, to be followed by Dr. Ruiz, 
who has also rejoined us.
    So to the gentleman of Georgia, you are recognized for 5 
minutes, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you 
for your presence here today and your participation.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a 
letter from the Georgia Ports Authority, the economic engine of 
the southeast, and entailing their work and the environmental 
work that they are doing at the ports.
    Mr. Tonko. They will deal with that request, Representative 
Carter, at the end of the hearing, but thank you for submitting 
it.
    Mr. Carter. OK, all right. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, 
locally the Port of Savannah has been extremely engaged in 
working with the local community and outside groups to invest 
in forward-looking decisions that benefit the port and 
surrounding areas. In fact, Georgia Ports Authority has made 
tremendous investments in the port to benefit the community. 
They have used the DERA program to replace old trucks, they 
have electrified their gantry cranes, and they have upgraded 
their rail infrastructure to take additional trucks off the 
road, and a lot more.
    However, I am worried that programs like the port 
electric----
    [Audio malfunction.]
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Carter, it seems like we have lost you with 
technical difficulties here. Why don't we go to Dr. Ruiz for 5 
minutes, and we will return to you, if you don't mind.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's 
hearing about environmental justice is personal to me and my 
constituents.
    To achieve true environmental justice, our Government must 
offer equal protection from environmental health hazards and 
provide equal access to decision making that affects the 
public's health. Environmental justice can look differently 
depending on the community, whether it is low-income housing 
next to an interstate, or farmworker communities in desperate 
need of clean air and clean water.
    In the eastern Coachella Valley, where I grew up initially 
in a farmworker trailer park, my constituents face numerous and 
staggering environmental justice challenges. For decades, trash 
companies illegally dumped human waste at a site known as Mount 
San Diego in my district. In 2019 new illegal dump opened at 
that same site, where mulch fires sickened local 
schoolchildren, closing schools for a week and sending kids to 
the emergency department. Lax environmental enforcement allowed 
these hazards to persist, at the expense of my constituents' 
health. Other residents of Polanco parks and mobile home 
communities like the Oasis Mobile Home Park get their drinking 
water from suspect wells, drawing water from aquifers with 
naturally occurring arsenic.
    True environmental justice means that our Government is 
looking out for these communities with the same intensity as 
they would for those with money, access, and power. That is why 
I am so pleased that we are considering two of my bills here 
today.
    First, the Voice for Environmental Justice Act, which would 
provide funding for frontline communities to speak out against 
polluters seeking to set up shop in their neighborhood. This 
bill is included in the CLEAN Future Act under section 602 and 
510
    Second, my bill the Environmental Justice Act of 2021, 
codifies Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice, which 
instructs agencies to establish a process to consider 
environmental justice in the agency's actions. And it also 
requires consideration of cumulative impacts in certain clean 
air and clean water permitting decisions.
    Dr. Hollis, I would like to ask you about this bill that 
would impact frontline communities. What does it mean to you to 
assess cumulative impacts of permitting decisions on EJ 
communities?
    And how can communities get involved in assessing those 
cumulative impacts? How do we empower communities to get 
involved in assessing those cumulative impacts?
    Dr. Hollis. Yes, thank you, Representative Ruiz. It means a 
great deal, because communities finally are--you know, the 
concerns that they have been talking about for years are 
finally being addressed. And the way to get involved is to have 
community members at the table, to have--as equal stakeholders, 
to get their input and to recognize community science as a 
valid source of information, an important source of 
information.
    Mr. Ruiz. How about having a community-based air quality 
monitoring?
    Dr. Hollis. Absolutely. Not just at the fence line but in 
the community, because communities can tell you where they are 
experiencing, where they have seen damage from air pollution or 
weather, where there are certain areas--for example, when I 
visited a community, we were--I became ill in certain parts of 
the community. That is where we need air monitors, and we need 
community input to determine where those areas are.
    Mr. Ruiz. Ms. Yeampierre, one of the challenges my 
constituents have faced over the years is the attempted opening 
of new dumps and waste facilities in their communities, 
oftentimes illegally. In your opinion, do frontline communities 
currently have the resources to stand up to polluters seeking 
to do business near their homes?
    Ms. Yeampierre. Yes, they do and they have. Just this week 
we received a proposal about a waste company wanting to bring 
CND to our EJ community, and we are already organizing, and we 
have already shared with our community what the different 
chemicals and particulate matter----
    Mr. Ruiz. Do you think that is enough for the Nation and 
for environmental justice communities, or do we need more?
    Ms. Yeampierre. We need more. And I think we need to 
strengthen our relationship with the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institutes of 
Health and engage in interagency coordination, invest in 
participatory research from communities.
    Mr. Ruiz. My----
    Ms. Yeampierre. Yes.
    Mr. Ruiz. My focus is to empower local communities, and the 
grants provided in my Voices for Environmental Justice Act 
enable communities to hire their own experts and participate in 
permitting decisions of waste facilities. Democracy is about 
participating in the decisions that affect your lives. And 
there is no more truer democracy than empowering communities to 
be part of the decisions that affect their public health and 
their environmental health.
    So with that, I yield back my time. I ran out of time, and 
so I thank you all for being here. It is a very important 
topic.
    I appreciate you, Chairman, for holding this hearing, and 
let's get this done.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Carter, Representative Carter, we are sorry we lost 
you. We want to hear from you. Let's give it another try, OK? 
So you are recognized for five----
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 
indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, I want to mention the letter from GPA to be 
considered for unanimous consent afterwards.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, sir.
    Again, I want to mention I have the honor and privilege of 
representing one of the great economic engines of the 
southeast, and that is the Georgia Ports Authority. In my 
district alone we have two major seaports, the Port of Savannah 
and the Port of Brunswick.
    And they--both of these ports have done a yeoman's work 
with outside groups and with the local community to invest in 
forward-looking decisions that benefit the port and the 
surrounding areas. They have made tremendous investments in the 
port that benefit the community. They have used the DERA 
program to replace old trucks. They have electrified their 
cranes, and they have upgraded their rail infrastructure to 
take additional trucks off of the road, and a lot more.
    However, I am worried that programs like the Port 
Electrification and Decarbonization Program under the CLEAN 
Future Act could potentially hamstring the progress that is 
being made by ports to upgrade older technology. And I wanted 
to ask you, Mr. Hollie, shouldn't we be focusing on making sure 
all these ports get the assistance they need to advance 
environmental and public health outcomes?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir, we should.
    Mr. Carter. Good, thank you. Do we need to be careful, Mr. 
Hollie, about putting too many requirements in place to 
participate?
    Mr. Hollie. Absolutely, yes, sir, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Good, thank you again. Mr. Hollie, previous--in 
previous testimony in front of the Natural Resources Committee, 
you talked about a specific project that could have benefited 
an environmental justice community but was canceled: the 
Atlantic Coast Pipeline. What lessons should we be taking away 
from this about inhibiting or stopping industries from moving 
forward with construction or upgrades when those investments 
will benefit the communities?
    Mr. Hollie. My goodness, that was a plan that had--they 
had--the restrictions--what they had done, in terms of just 
requirements and regulations, they had gone 10 times the 
amount, in terms of what the--what they were asked to do, in 
terms of putting it together for safety regulations. And so 
many people right now are still suffering because of the lack 
of natural gas that that pipeline was going to produce.
    Mr. Carter. Well, if the goal is to create jobs and to get 
money out to people, shouldn't we be predicating grants and 
other forms of money on issues like whether or not the 
employees had previously been incarcerated, or if they have 
ties to the foster care system?
    Mr. Hollie. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hollie.
    Mr. Hawkins, I want to go to you next, because you 
mentioned something in your testimony that I am very interested 
in, and that is the opportunity zones. And you have talked 
about the benefit of opportunities zones to bolster 
disadvantaged and low-income communities. And yes, I have a lot 
of low-income communities in my district, and I am very 
concerned about them and want to help them as much as I can.
    What is the best adjustment, Mr. Hawkins, that we can make 
to the policy to spur more investment in operating businesses 
like energy projects?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Carter. I think you are muted.
    Mr. Hawkins. I appreciate the question, Representative 
Carter. And the best adjustment that can be made is to allow 
any type of capital, not just capital gains, to be used for the 
purposes of the 10-year, 100 percent step up.
    So briefly, the opportunity zone policy has three levels of 
benefit, one based on deferring capital gains and another one 
based on a step up in basis on your initial capital gain. But 
the largest benefit goes to investors that make a long-term--10 
years or more--commitment to an investment. And so, for those 
purposes, we should allow noncapital gains to be invested. That 
way we can democratize the capital that is coming in, but also 
greatly increase the resources that come in and fund those 
operating businesses.
    And so, you know, it is--if I could wave a wand, that would 
be the primary adjustment I would make to this policy and this 
next round of legislation.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I know I am out of 
time, but I do want to mention, Mr. Hawkins, that your 
opportunity zones have been in line with EPA to deal with 
brownfields, and that is something that is very important in my 
district. I appreciate you bringing that up, and I appreciate 
your work on that, as well.
    Mr. Chairman, again, I want to submit this letter, and I 
will yield. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, the gentleman yields. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California.
    Representative Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chair Tonko, for holding this 
important hearing on environmental justice legislation.
    My district is majority minority, almost 90 percent Latino, 
African-American, working class. It is right next to three 
freeways and the Port of Los Angeles, urban oil drilling, and 
oil refineries right next to parks where children play. This 
is--it results in a dangerous level of air pollution, with 
asthma rates twice the national average and high rates of 
cancer and respiratory illnesses. It is unacceptable.
    We must invest to clean up and transform our communities. I 
am proud that my bill, the Climate Smart Supports Act, is 
included as part of today's hearing and that another one of my 
bills, the Climate Justice Grants Act, is part of the CLEAN 
Future Act's environmental justice section. Both offer 
significant resources to communities hit hard by pollution and 
the climate crisis.
    Mr. Logan, first I want to thank you for your advocacy on 
behalf of the Moving Forward Network to fight for clean air in 
port communities, including south Los Angeles, where you have 
done amazing work.
    Can you describe the Climate Smart Ports Act? Mostly, how 
would it make a difference for air quality in Los Angeles and 
poor communities across the country?
    Mr. Logan. Thank you, Representative Barragan, and thank 
you for all the work that you have done to advance 
environmental justice in your district and the districts 
surrounding you.
    The Ports of LA and Long Beach, for instance, is a major 
source of not just toxic pollution, but also climate 
pollutants. As you all may know, Los Angeles Basin is one of 
the most polluted, if not the most polluted, regions in the 
country. The number-one source of air pollution in the Los 
Angeles Basin is the two ports. The two ports of LA and Long 
Beach have done tremendous work at cleaning up their pollution. 
But with the constant growth and the constant activity of the 
ports, with all the trucks, the trains, the ships, the 
equipment, the amount of pollution continues to increase.
    So we have to stop the incremental improvements and really 
get down to zero pollution, zero emissions. So investment in 
zero-emissions technology, in infrastructure is essential for 
the community's health and well-being.
    And if you can't breathe, you can't work. If you can't 
breathe, you can't go to school. If you can't breathe, you just 
can't be a part of our society. So the quality of life and 
livelihood of our communities depend on getting to zero 
pollution, zero emissions in our community.
    I also appreciate the fact that there are certain 
requirements for receiving these funds, making sure that it 
does not displace workers at the waterfront. Automation, it 
does not mean--I am sorry, zero emissions does not mean 
automation. If it displaces workers, that is not the right kind 
of investment.
    Also, having folks at the table, making sure that we are 
engaged in a way that is meaningful and making sure that we are 
investing in communities that need that investment, but in a 
real way, not just a--this kind of--the benefit--side benefit, 
but direct investment with real benefits that you can see in 
communities.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Mr. Logan. Just to follow up 
on that. I know you spoke a little bit about it. An important 
part of the Climate Smart Ports Act is the support for zero-
emissions technology.
    You know, in addition, the Green Ports Program established 
in the CLEAN Future Act takes that approach based on my bill.
    Can you tell the committee how important it is for 
environmental justice communities that our investments to green 
ports focus on zero-emissions technology rather than, let's 
say, low-emissions technology?
    Mr. Logan. Absolutely. To your point earlier, our 
communities are inundated with multiple impacts: refineries, 
urban drilling, all types of impacts from the fossil fuel 
industry, as well as many others. And so, when we are talking 
about these false types of solutions such as what they call 
near-zero or renewable natural gas, what happens is we don't 
just see the impacts from the production of that, those fuels 
in our communities. We also see the impacts of the production 
of those fuels in other communities across the country.
    The other part of that is with these natural gas vehicles 
and products, the particles of natural gas are so fine that 
they are toxic within themselves, that the particles, the 
ultrafine particles, penetrate the bloodstream and have major 
impacts on the body, not just on the Earth and the climate 
impacts.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Logan, for that testimony, 
again, for all the work that you are doing and all our 
panelists are doing.
    I just wanted to quickly mention a UCLA study that just 
came out. It tied COVID-19 deaths linked to poor air quality, 
and showed that those in communities that had poor air quality 
were dying at much higher rates. And so, when we talk about 
devastation to communities, air pollution is devastating our 
communities and it is killing our communities, which is why 
this is so important.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this hearing. And with 
that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona. Representative 
O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    There are over 520 abandoned uranium mines on and around 
the Navajo Nation in Arizona. These mines have gone unaddressed 
since the Cold War--actually, the late 1940s, despite the well-
known health impacts of the exposure to uranium.
    Minerals from these dangerous sites were used in the 
construction of homes, children's play area, and some of the 
sites are still used by children to play on. None of the sites, 
according to the EPA, are safe. And livestock are also grazed. 
This exposure has led to uneven health outcomes and even 
Federal programs to compensate miners through the Radiation 
Exposure Compensation Act.
    I think we must ask ourselves: What would happen if these 
mines had been anywhere else?
    While I am heartened that the EPA recently added the Navajo 
abandoned uranium mines to the Administrator's Superfund list, 
with a focus on being completed in the next 10 years, I believe 
we must do more.
    Since 1994, the EPA and Navajo EPA have worked hand in hand 
to build the Navajo Nation's cleanup capacity, and the American 
Jobs Plan represents an opportunity, a meaningful opportunity, 
to invest in that workforce and get these sites addressed so 
hardworking families do not have to worry about toxic exposure 
on a daily basis.
    Additionally, water infrastructure remains an area where 
there is a large disparity between Indian country and the rest 
of the Nation. My legislation to address the Indian Health 
Services sanitation facilities construction program backlog is 
a part of the solution with several agencies, including the 
Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health 
Service, USDA, and EPA, can play an important role in building 
up reliable water systems and in getting this uranium problem 
cleaned up.
    Environmental justice needs may look different in rural and 
Tribal areas, and I am optimistic that a whole-of-government 
approach can help address the unique needs like access to clean 
water of these communities.
    Dr. Hollis, the question is going to be, in a situation 
like this, where the DoI and the HHS and EPA would all have a 
hand in addressing dangerous sites, why is it that critical for 
us to codify the longstanding Clinton-era Executive order to 
make environmental justice a part of agency missions and 
require interagency cooperation to maintain public health and 
safety?
    Dr. Hollis. Thank you, Representative O'Halleran. It is 
important to codify Executive Order 12898 to give it the 
strength that it needs in order to clean up these sites and 
reduce pollution in communities and reduce exposure to 
hazardous substances, as well as reducing the effects of 
facilities releasing chemicals into the environment, 
particularly--mostly in communities of color, in our 
environmental justice communities, be it Black, brown, 
indigenous, Native American, whatever.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you for that answer. Just to wrap 
things up a little bit, over 1,000 homes have uranium in their 
walls. This has been ongoing for over 75 years in this one 
site. These are all surface mines, and there is money from a 
trust fund of $1.7 million, but that is not going to address 
520 sites. And why hasn't that been used for over 15 years?
    And so, in a community where infrastructure has been 
ignored for decades, how can interagency coordination speed up 
delivery of critical infrastructure projects like clean water 
delivery systems, Dr. Hollis?
    Dr. Hollis. Well, I think the main reason is by working 
with communities, is by having them at the table, because that 
is how you are going to identify priority areas, and that is 
how you are going to identify what is needed.
    And I think it is important to listen to what communities 
have to say, and to work with them as partners, and so that--to 
ensure that you are addressing their needs.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Dr. Hollis.
    And Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. We next had 
Representative Soto on our list, and I don't see him on our 
screen. We will go to the ever-patient Representative, the 
gentlelady from Delaware, Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester, 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 
especially for calling this critically important hearing. And 
thank you to all of the witnesses for your testimony today.
    While the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated 
environmental justice concerns in communities across the 
country, as has been made clear through your testimony today, 
these concerns are not new. Generations of inequalities and 
injustices have placed a disproportionate environmental burden 
on our Black, brown, and indigenous communities. For decades, 
low-wealth communities and communities of color in Delaware 
have faced higher risks of cancer and respiratory diseases due 
to their proximity to facilities that produce harmful 
pollutants.
    We need to expand all of our communities' access to 
information, and we need to better prepare our communities in 
the face of a toxic release. Earlier this year I reintroduced 
the Alert Act, which requires facilities that produce hazardous 
and toxic chemicals to engage directly with the communities 
where they are located and to ensure that residents have real-
time knowledge of any toxic release.
    My first question is for Dr. Hollis. The Alert Act requires 
facilities that process extremely hazardous substances to hold 
public meetings at least once a year. Do you support that 
requirement, and how can it promote environmental justice?
    Dr. Hollis. I absolutely support it, Representative. 
Absolutely. And it can support environmental justice by letting 
communities speak for themselves, first and foremost, and 
giving them the opportunity that they already have, giving them 
that chance to be heard, and to provide input and guidance 
where needed.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    And Mr. Logan, first I want to thank you and the Moving 
Forward Network for your expertise and support that you 
provided during the drafting of my Climate Action Planning for 
Ports Act. Something that you said was, ``If you can't breathe, 
you can't work.'' And I think that needs to stay at the 
forefront of all of this. If you can't breathe, you can't work, 
you can't learn, as you said.
    Why are climate action plans like the ones outlined in the 
Climate Action Planning for Ports Act so critical to advancing 
cleaner air in our near-port communities?
    Mr. Logan. Well, thank you, Representative Blunt Rochester. 
You know, at the end of the day, what we are really doing here 
is problem-solving, right?
    We have a crisis in our hand, our--and it has multiple 
issues that we are contending with. Specifically when we are 
thinking about ports, ports are complex facilities. They have 
many, many different types of operations and pieces of 
equipment.
    So with the community leading the planning process to 
identify what the problems are, what the solutions are, and 
what the action items are, we are able to identify and work 
towards resolving those problems that we are contending with so 
that we can breathe, so that the workforce can go to work and 
still breathe when they get home and during their work hours. 
And so really, problem-solving is really important for the 
health and well-being of the local community.
    And as we are trying to tackle the climate crisis, again, 
we need to have a living wage on a living planet. We can't 
ignore these extreme impacts to local communities and to the 
planet.
    And so starting off with a community voice and a planning 
process is essential. And we know that, when we come together, 
we can really find the solutions to solve the problems that we 
are addressing.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. I recently had an 
opportunity to meet with the folks from the Port of Wilmington 
in Delaware and hear about their efforts at electrification but 
at the same time maintaining the union jobs that they had. And 
it was a really good partnership. And my last question is for 
Ms. Yeampierre.
    First of all, I want to thank you so much, not only for 
your professional testimony but for your personal testimony. 
And I think that was really powerful to make this real for 
people.
    One of the things that I noticed in doing this work is that 
major environmental groups lack representation from low-wealth 
communities or communities of color. And as a result, 
environmental justice priorities are often excluded from the 
discussion. How do we ensure that the environmental justice 
communities are represented and included in the decision making 
in major environmental groups?
    Ms. Yeampierre. Well, thank you for that question. I think 
that we need to start thinking about governance differently.
    Climate change is going to disrupt governance, and we need 
to start thinking as--of communities as the brain trust of 
decision making, the folks that have the answers to complex 
questions, because they have been living in the midst of all of 
the isms.
    Instead of being thought of as people whose problems we 
solve, they should be thought of as people who have the 
solutions and as added value. And I think that oftentimes 
Government always thinks that they are the recipients of their 
good intentions, instead of--and expectations have to be 
managed. And the truth is that, in partnership, we can solve 
very complex, big problems. But we have to be in partnership 
with each other.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
    And Mr. Chairman, I was very proud that our ports 
legislation was included in the CLEAN Future Act. And I thank 
you so much again for all of your leadership in saving our 
planet. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, you are most welcome, and thank you. And 
the gentlelady yields back.
    I am very pleased to see that the representative from 
Florida, the gentleman from Florida, has returned, and we 
welcome him for 5 minutes of questioning.
    Representative Soto?
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The floor is yours.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. We face a climate crisis 
that is an existential threat to the human race. Fossil fuels 
are destroying our Earth, and we are going to do something 
about it. Our American Jobs Plan and our CLEAN Future Act will 
finally upgrade our infrastructure, including creating national 
electric vehicle systems, boosting clean energy such as 
renewable energy and modular nuclear, and use natural gas as a 
bridge fuel.
    On our march to carbon net-neutral by 2050, to my 
colleagues across the aisle, what is the plan? If it is just 
criticizing our plan, that is not possible, because the cost of 
inaction is too great. Nothing is not an option.
    In my home State of Florida, we face rising seas. We face 
intensifying hurricanes. When--by 2050 we will face over 1,000 
extremely hot days. This will condemn Floridians and other 
Sunbelt Americans to become climate refugees, and it will 
decimate our local tourism and agriculture industries.
    We have been down this road before. We have seen it before, 
and we are going to work together. In our area of Florida we 
have seen over 12 billion pounds of toxic coal ash, with over 
6.1 million tons being generated each year. There was a major 
issue of coal ash being accumulated by some of our local 
municipal utilities like OUC and KUA. I applaud them for 
stepping up by setting a timetable to shutter their coal plants 
by 2025, 2026, because they don't know where to put the coal 
ash anymore.
    And we have seen issues with health in East Orange County. 
We have seen issues of storage in Osceola County, in central 
Florida. And on my family's native island of Puerto Rico, they 
even were trying to store some coal ash in central Florida, 
which, while we work with them on many things, was a huge 
issue, because where are you going to put all this coal ash at 
the end of the day?
    With natural gas, with renewables, with nuclear, you don't 
have this byproduct issue. There are over 42 of these dangerous 
coal ash ponds, 33 of which are in unlined impoundments or 
landfills, leading to widespread groundwater contamination in 
the Sunshine State.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a 
letter from 13 groups supporting my colleague Rep. Cohen's 
Ensuring Safe Disposal of Coal Ash Act.
    Mr. Tonko. It will be entered into a request at the end of 
the hearing, sir.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you. From the letter: ``The Ensuring Safe 
Disposal of Coal Ash Act builds off the committee's CLEAN 
Future Act coal ash provisions, rectifying deficiencies in the 
2015 coal ash rules, and directing EPA to strengthen the coal 
ash protections.'' We know coal ash is toxic, and it hurts both 
our brains and our nervous system, respiratory disease, cancer, 
and other developmental defects. And it would allow local 
communities to be more involved in the decision making.
    Dr. Hollis, is banning the storage of toxic chemicals in 
unlined pits after they have been found to contaminate water 
supplies a proper step forward to protect the public?
    Dr. Hollis. Yes.
    Mr. Soto. And the bill requires plant owners to provide 
financial assurances for cleanup costs in the event of 
hazardous spills or disasters.
    Dr. Hollis, should facilities be required to financially 
plan for future cleanups that become even more likely as 
climate change worsens floods and storms?
    Dr. Hollis. That is a great question, and it is sort of a 
tricky question. I don't want them to plan for cleanup. I want 
them to use the best available technology to prevent that from 
ever happening.
    Mr. Soto. Well, thank you so much. And we know that the 
Ensuring Safe Disposal of Coal Ash Act is a significant step 
forward to combat coal ash in the Sunshine State and around the 
Nation.
    We are moving towards getting beyond coal, getting beyond 
oil, using gas, natural gas, as a bridge fuel, and boosting 
renewables. And that is what the American Jobs Plan is all 
about. That is what the CLEAN Future Act is all about. We will 
take action. We will help out all States, and we will provide 
jobs to communities in transition. Everyone can be lifted up if 
we think big and bold and we work together.
    And I urge our colleagues across the aisle, let us not 
think of the past and what can bring us back, but let us look 
to the future, because I believe we as Americans can do 
everything, anything if we work together. We know that, 
President Biden has said that many times.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and I believe that 
completes the list of colleagues that chose to question our 
witnesses today.
    So we thank everyone for their participation, and in 
particular our witnesses. And we thank you for joining us at 
today's hearing. Thank you for your input.
    I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they 
have 10 business days by which to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by our witnesses. And I would 
please ask that our witnesses respond promptly to any such 
questions that each might receive.
    Before we adjourn, I have a list of documents here that 
have been requested to be entered into the record. So I request 
unanimous consent to enter the following documents into the 
record:
    A statement from the Environmental Technology Council; a 
letter from the Solar Energy Industries Association; a policy 
platform from the Solar Energy Industries Association; a letter 
from 13 environmental organizations in favor of H.R. 2396, the 
Ensuring Safe Disposal of Coal Ash Act; a letter from the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the National 
Association of Clean Water Agencies; a letter from the 
Wilderness Society in favor of H.R. 2021, the Environmental 
Justice for All Act, and H.R. 516, the Environmental Justice 
Mapping and Data Collection Act of 2021; a letter from Senators 
Duckworth, Wyden, Murphy, Blumenthal, Padilla, and Durbin in 
favor of H.R. 2021, the Environmental Justice for All Act; a 
2016 report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights entitled 
``Examining the Environmental Protection Agency's Compliance 
and Enforcement of Title 6 and Executive Order 12,898''; a 
letter from Our Children's Trust; a letter from the Port of 
Long Beach; an article from Politico entitled ``Biden's green 
energy plans clash with pledge to create union jobs''; an 
article from Bloomberg entitled ``Secrecy and Abuse Claims 
Haunt China's Solar Factories in Xinjiang''; a dissenting 
statement of Commissioner Gail Heriot to the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights Report on Environmental Justice, examining the 
Environmental Protection Agency's compliance and enforcement of 
title 6 and Executive Order 12898; a letter from Georgia Ports; 
a letter from the Ground Water Protecting Council; a letter 
from the Independent Petroleum Association of America; a letter 
from the mayor of Petersburg, Indiana; an article from Politico 
entitled ``The Wage Gap That Threatens Biden's Climate Plan''; 
a letter from the mayor of Gillette, Wyoming; a 2019 report 
from Ash at Work entitled ``CCPs: Not Just for Concrete09Coal 
Ash Makes the Grade in Highway Construction''; a 2020 report 
from the Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic 
Advisors, entitled ``The Impact of Opportunity Zones: An 
Initial Assessment''; a fact sheet from the American Coal Ash 
Association entitled ``Coal Ash Regulation and Unencapsulated 
Beneficial Use''; a letter from the Alaska Community Action on 
Toxics; a letter from the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners; a 
letter from Black Millennials for Flint; a letter from 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation; a letter from Coming Clean; a letter 
from Creation Justice Ministries; a letter from Earthjustice; a 
letter from the Environmental Defense Fund; a document of 
support from 13 environmental justice organizations; a letter 
from the Moving Forward Network; a letter from the National 
Wildlife Federation; a letter from the Sierra Club; a letter 
from the Union of Concerned Scientists; a statement from the 
Western Environmental Law Center; a letter from the mayor of 
Hazard, Kentucky, to Representative Tonko; and a letter from 
the mayor of Hazard, Kentucky, to Representative McKinley.
    And that list is, I believe, totally complete for today's 
hearing. And without objection--do I hear any objection?
    Voice. No.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing. 
\1\ ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Council on Economic 
Affairs reports, the dissenting statement, and the Our Children's Trust 
letter have been retained in committee files and are available at 
https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=111450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Tonko. And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
    

	   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                [all]