[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
 BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: THE CHALLENGES FACING FRONTLINE 
                              COMMUNITIES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           NOVEMBER 20, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-78
                           
                           
         
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                        
                        
                               ______                       


             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 43-958PDF           WASHINGTON : 2022                         
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
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          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

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

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
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....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Lilian Sotolongo Dorka, Director, External Civil Rights 
  Compliance Office, Office of General Counsel, Environmental 
  Protection Agency..............................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   256
Helena Wooden-Aguilar, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of 
  Policy, Environmental Protection Agency........................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   264
J. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 
  Government Accountability Office...............................    32
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   270
Ruth Santiago, Attorney, Comite Dialogo Ambiental de Salinas.....    78
    Prepared statement...........................................    81
Sharon Lavigne, Founder and President, Rise St. James............   101
    Prepared statement...........................................   103
Elsie Herring, Duplin County, North Carolina, Resident and 
  Organizer, North Carolina Environmental Justice Network........   106
    Prepared statement...........................................   108
Melissa Cribbins, Commissioner, Coos County Board of 
  Commissioners, on behalf of the National Association of 
  Counties.......................................................   119
    Prepared statement...........................................   121
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   273
Patrick B. Ford, Executive Director, Lebanon/Marion County 
  Industrial Foundation..........................................   128
    Prepared statement...........................................   130
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   277
Mustafa Santiago Ali, Vice President, National Wildlife 
  Federation.....................................................   139
    Prepared statement...........................................   141

                           Submitted Material

Report, ``Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs More 
  Information and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air and 
  Water Quality from Pollutants of Concern,'' Government 
  Accountability Office, September 2008, submitted by Mr. Tonko 
  \1\

----------

\1\ The report has been retained in committee files and also is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20191120/110247/
HHRG-116-IF18-20191120-SD003.pdf.
Study, ``Environmental Injustice in North Carolina's Hog 
  Industry,'' by Steve Wing, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko......   167
Study, ``Under the Radar: New Data Reveals N.C. Regulators 
  Ignored Decades-Long Explosion of Poultry CAFOs,'' by Soren 
  Rundquist and Don Carr, Environmental Working Group, submitted 
  by Mr. Tonko...................................................   174
Study, ``Mortality and Health Outcomes in North Carolina 
  Communities Located in Close Proximity to Hog Concentrated 
  Animal Feeding Operations,'' by Julia Kravchenko, et al., NCMJ, 
  Vol. 79, No. 5, submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................   181
Study, ``Industrial Hog Operations in North Carolina 
  Disproportionately Impact African-Americans, Hispanics and 
  American Indians,'' by Steve Wing and Jill Johnston, Department 
  of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 
  August 29, 2014, submitted by Mr. Tonko........................   202
Complaint to the Environmental Protection Agency by the North 
  Carolina Environmental Justice Network, et al., September 3, 
  2014, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\
Letter of January 12, 2017, from Lilian S. Dorka, Director, 
  External Civil Rights Compliance Office, Office of General 
  Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, to William G. Ross, 
  Jr., Acting Secretary, North Carolina Department of 
  Environmental Quality, submitted by Mr. Tonko..................   218
Statement of Interfaith Power & Light, ``Faith Principles for a 
  Green New Deal,'' November 19, 2019, submitted by Mr. Tonko....   241
Statement of the Food and Drug Administration, ``Statement on 
  concerns with medical device availability due to certain 
  sterilization facility closures,'' by Norman E. ``Ned'' 
  Sharpless, M.D., October 25, 2019, submitted by Mr. Carter.....   247
News release of November 6, 2019, ``EPA Moves Forward on Suite of 
  Actions to Address Ethylene Oxide,'' Environmental Protection 
  Agency, submitted by Mr. Carter................................   252
EPA Annual Environmental Justice Progress Report FY 2019, 
  Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Tonko \2\

----------

\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=110247.


 BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: THE CHALLENGES FACING FRONTLINE 
                              COMMUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, 
Barragan, Blunt Rochester, Soto, Schakowsky, Matsui, McNerney, 
Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus (subcommittee 
ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, Long, Mullin, 
Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representative Rush.
    Staff present: Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; 
Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Anthony Gutierrez, Professional 
Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 
Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Mel 
Peffers, Environment Fellow; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff 
Director; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Environment and Climate Change; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, 
Minority Legislative Clerk/Press Assistant; Bijan Koohmaraie, 
Minority Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Tim Kurth, 
Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Ryan 
Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Minority 
Chief Counsel, Energy, and Environment and Climate Change; 
Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Kate 
O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and 
Technology; Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; Peter 
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment 
and Climate Change; and Nate Wilkins, Minority Fellow, 
Communications and Technology.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order.
    I recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of an 
opening statement.

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

    Our efforts to confront the climate crisis must address 
historic environmental injustices. A just and equitable 
transition is necessary, but recent assessments of ongoing 
Federal environmental justice efforts show that much more work 
must be done.
    Low-income communities, communities of color, and 
indigenous peoples already suffer disproportionate harm from 
the effects of pollution, and they are often at the greatest 
risk from the consequences of climate change.
    Frontline communities and high pollution in climate-exposed 
areas are dealing with unsafe drinking water, harmful air 
pollutants, and other toxic chemical threats. In recent years, 
we have witnessed flooding, and severe storms disrupt coal ash 
pits, Superfund sites, CAFOs, and chemical facilities, all of 
which can put nearby communities at risk.
    These toxic hazards are likely to be exacerbated in the 
future, as we experience more and increasingly extreme weather 
events. Just this week, GAO released a report finding 60 
percent of Superfund sites are located in areas vulnerable to 
the effects of climate change.
    Cleaning up and increasing the resilience of these sites 
should be a priority for comprehensive climate action. It will 
also create public health benefits and economic opportunities 
in these given communities. A just and equitable transition 
also requires giving everyone a seat at the table.
    Our climate policies must make sure no person or 
neighborhood is left behind. That means meaningful community 
involvement in environmental policy, developing and 
implementing community-driven solutions by seeking engagement 
and participation with people that have been too often ignored 
or, indeed, bypassed.
    I look forward to hearing how our efforts to confront 
climate change can also promote this approach to incorporate 
more community-driven solutions and broader efforts to promote 
environmental protection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Our efforts to confront the climate crisis must address 
historic environmental injustices.
    A just and equitable transition is necessary.
    But recent assessments of ongoing Federal environmental 
justice efforts show that much more work must be done.
    Low-income communities, communities of color, and 
indigenous peoples already suffer disproportionate harm from 
the effects of pollution and are often at the greatest risk 
from the consequences of climate change.
    Frontline communities in high-pollution and climate-exposed 
areas are dealing with unsafe drinking water, harmful air 
pollutants, and other toxic chemical threats.
    In recent years we have witnessed flooding and severe 
storms disrupt coal ash pits, Superfund sites, CAFOs, and 
chemical facilities, all of which can put nearby communities at 
risk.
    These toxic hazards are likely to be exacerbated in the 
future as we experience more and increasingly extreme weather 
events.
    Just this week, GAO released a report finding 60 percent of 
Superfund sites are located in areas vulnerable to the effects 
of climate change.
    Cleaning up and increasing the resilience of these sites 
should be a priority for comprehensive climate action. It will 
also create public health benefits and economic opportunities 
in these communities.
    A just and equitable transition also requires giving 
everyone a seat at the table.
    Our climate policies must make sure no person or 
neighborhood is left behind.
    That means meaningful community involvement in 
environmental policy, developing and implementing community-
driven solutions by seeking engagement and participation with 
people that have been too often ignored or bypassed.
    I look forward to hearing how our efforts to confront 
climate change can also promote this approach to incorporate 
more community-driven solutions in broader efforts to promote 
environmental protection.
    I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I yield the 
remaining time to the vice chairman of the subcommittee and a 
leader on environmental justice in Congress, Dr. Ruiz.

    Mr. Tonko. I thank our witnesses for being here today, and 
I yield the remaining time to the vice chair of the 
subcommittee and a leader on environmental justice in Congress, 
Dr. Ruiz.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Tonko. And thank you 
to the witnesses here today.
    Environmental justice is an issue near and dear to me and 
my district. I grew up in a poor farm worker community in a 
trailer my first few years of my life, and I have experienced 
living in underdeveloped, underserved communities with a lot of 
environmental hazards.
    Now, as a physician, I have treated children with asthma 
exacerbated by air pollution, diagnosed serious health problems 
that resulted from exposure to environmental waste and toxins 
in the community that I grew up in. And the fact is that low-
income and rural communities are more likely to suffer these 
health problems because they are more likely to be exposed to 
these environmental injustices.
    There is research to prove it. Environmental justice is a 
real issue. A study published in the New England Journal of 
Medicine found that exposure to fine particulate matter 
increased the risk of deaths for individuals in Medicaid, 
Medicare, and communities of color and poor populations, more 
than the rest of the population.
    Another study published in the Health Affairs' Public 
Health Journal found that rural and low-income communities tend 
to be disproportionately affected with adverse health 
conditions by environmental hazards.
    I also have the stories of my constituents to prove it. 
Schools, like the ones in Thermal, California, and the 
Coachella Valley Unified School District--my alma maters--in my 
district were forced to shut their doors for a week because of 
students exposed to smoke from a company that was never 
permitted to function, burning mulch in the open area, and 
individuals now who are without drinking water because arsenic 
was found in their water. And this must end.
    So we must ensure that every person in America has access 
to clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. It is not a 
privilege just for the affluent few. It is a common good and a 
right for everyone, and we must protect underserved communities 
from decisions that allow unscrupulous, irresponsible companies 
to come in, pollute the environment, and then leave without any 
accountability.
    And if it happens, we must make sure we develop mechanisms 
to hold polluters accountable, ensure proper consultation with 
vulnerable communities, and strengthen mitigation and cleanup 
plans that follow a public health approach.
    This is why I have introduced the most comprehensive 
environmental justice bill, H.R. 3923, the Environmental 
Justice Act of 2019, which requires agencies to consider the 
environmental justice implications of their programs, policies, 
and activities, helping ensure that we protect our communities, 
empower them to hold bad accounts accountable, and to protect 
vulnerable populations.
    And I look forward to working with members of this 
committee on commonsense solutions to address environmental 
injustices.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus, ranking member for 
the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, for 5 
minutes for his opening statement, please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
the time. We want to welcome our two panels. We have been 
working hard on this committee and the full committee, so if 
we--so please be patient with us as we try and get through this 
morning.
    The focus of today's hearing, as the majority explained in 
a hearing memo, is ``to examine environmental justice and the 
impact of climate change and extreme events on legacy toxic 
exposures.'' And there is also a lot packed into this subject 
and into the topic of environmental justice generally.
    Environmental justice is often associated, as we all know, 
with complex circumstances involving local social, economic, 
and governmental factors. These factors and their real impact 
on people, which many of us witness in our own districts, 
present practical challenges that go well beyond the 
jurisdiction of this panel, and in many cases the Federal 
Government.
    However, our policy work on air quality and safe drinking 
water, various forms of environmental cleanup and community 
revitalization, or on what is necessary to more fully address 
future hazards and climate risks should aim to prioritize the 
most pressing problems as well as aim to have a positive impact 
on all communities, regardless of race, income, or location.
    Today's hearing will help answer questions about the 
specific roles of the EPA and how its various missions and 
programs ensure implementation of the principles of 
environmental justice, defined by the Agency as the fair 
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people and 
communities with respect to the development, implementation, 
and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.
    The first panel today features a broad perspective of the 
Government Accountability Office on the state of Federal 
policies and testimony from two key officials at the EPA 
responsible for implementing environmental justice policies and 
programs, and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.
    As the GAO observes, EPA along with other Federal agencies 
have been working to identify and address environmental justice 
issues for more than 25 years. EPA, for its part, has served at 
the center of this effort, convening the Federal Interagency 
Working Group and developing a number of initiatives in that 
Agency to promote environmental justice in communities and 
measuring progress on this front.
    A core feature of environmental justice programs should be 
to ensure communities have the information and know how to 
participate in governmental activities. So it would be helpful 
to hear more about how EPA encourages collaboration from the 
Federal to the State and Tribal level, to the community level, 
on environmental issues.
    We should examine how EPA's environmental justice office 
provides community assistance through grants and other 
resources and the impacts of that assistance. We should 
understand how the office promotes its policies through EPA's 
other program offices and regulations, such as the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and its related funding programs.
    We have benefited from improvements we enacted into law 
last Congress. EPA has the expertise to identify risks and to 
inform and put risk in perspective for communities. I would 
like to understand the role of EPA's environmental justice 
screening tool and the uses and limits of this program for 
environmental justice initiatives.
    EPA's land revitalization programs serve as an important 
mission to improve environmental quality and the economic 
prospects for communities. Last year, this committee 
strengthened and reauthorized the Brownfields Program, and I 
would like to hear EPA's progress on this front and what other 
community revitalization initiatives it is exploring.
    As we look to environmental justice issues and climate 
risk, we should not lose sight of the role that robust local 
economic development can provide, especially for those who have 
seen industries and employment opportunities leave their 
communities.
    We will hear important perspectives from our second panel 
today. I would like to highlight two witnesses who can help 
widen our focus on the benefits of economic revitalization and 
development and the challenges facing local and county 
governments.
    Mr. Pat Ford will speak to the challenges faced by small 
local economic development agencies and how EPA's brownfields 
programs provide much-needed economic leverage for community 
economic development, and what that means for economically 
disadvantaged communities in particular.
    Ms. Melissa Cribbins, a member of the Coos County, Oregon, 
Board of Commissioners, and speaking on behalf of the National 
Association of Counties, will outline challenges counties face 
addressing environmental issues, providing opportunities for 
economic development, and ensuring the resources to provide the 
infrastructure and services necessary for communities' health 
and welfare.
    Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to the 
information and a very constructive hearing. With that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    The focus of today's hearing, as the majority explains in 
the hearing memo, is to examine environmental justice and the 
impact of climate change and extreme events on legacy toxic 
exposures.
    And there is also a lot packed into subject and into the 
topic of environmental justice generally.
    Environmental justice is often associated, as we all know, 
with complex circumstances involving local social, economic, 
and governmental factors. These factors, and their real impacts 
on people--which many of us witness in our own districts--
present practical challenges that go well beyond the 
jurisdiction of this panel, and in many cases the Federal 
Government.
    However, our policy work on air quality and safe drinking 
water, various forms of environmental cleanup and community 
revitalization, or on what is necessary to more fully address 
future hazards and climate risk should aim to prioritize the 
most pressing problems, as well as aim to have a positive 
impact on all communities, regardless of race, income, or 
location.
    Today's hearing will help answer questions about the 
specific roles of the EPA and how its various missions and 
programs ensure implementation of the principles of 
environmental justice--defined by the Agency as ``the fair 
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people and 
communities with respect to the development, implementation, 
and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 
policies.''
    The first panel today features the broad perspective of the 
Government Accountability Office on the state of Federal 
policies, and the testimony from two key officials at the EPA 
responsible for implementing ``EJ'' policies and programs and 
ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.
    As the GAO observes, EPA along with other Federal agencies 
have been working to identify and address environmental justice 
issues for more than 25 years. EPA, for its part, has served at 
the center of this effort, convening the Federal Interagency 
Working Group and developing a number of initiatives in the 
Agency to promote environmental justice in communities and 
measuring progress on this front.
    A core feature of environmental justice programs should be 
to ensure communities have the information and know how to 
participate in governmental activities. So it will be helpful 
to hear more about how EPA encourages collaboration from the 
Federal to the State and Tribal level to the community level on 
environmental issues.
    We should examine how EPA's EJ Office provides community 
assistance, through grants and other resources and the impacts 
of that assistance. And we should understand how the office 
promotes its policies through EPA's other program offices and 
regulations, such as through the Safe Drinking Water Act and 
its related funding programs, which have benefited from 
improvements we enacted into law last Congress.
    EPA has the expertise to identify risks and to inform and 
put risks in perspective for communities. I'd like to 
understand the role of EPA's ``EJ'' screening tool, and the 
uses and limits of this program for environmental justice 
initiatives.
    EPA's land revitalization programs serve an important 
mission to improve environmental quality and the economic 
prospects for communities. Last year, this committee 
strengthened and reauthorized the Brownfields Program and I'd 
like to hear EPA's progress on this front and what other 
community revitalization initiatives it is exploring.
    As we look at ``EJ'' issues and climate risks, we should 
not lose sight of the role that robust local economic 
development can provide, especially for those who have seen 
industries and employment opportunities leave their 
communities.
    We will hear important perspectives our second panel today. 
I would like to highlight two witnesses who can help widen our 
focus on the benefits of economic revitalization and 
development and the challenges facing local and county 
governments.
    Mr. Pat Ford will speak to the challenges faced by small 
local economic development agencies and how EPA's brownfields 
programs provide much needed economic leverage for community 
economic development--and what that means for economically 
disadvantaged communities in particular.
    Ms. Melissa Cribbins, a member of the Coos County, Oregon, 
Board of Commissioners and speaking on behalf of the National 
Association of Counties, will outline challenges counties face 
addressing environmental issues, providing opportunities for 
economic development, and ensuring the resources to provide the 
infrastructure and services necessary for communities' health 
and welfare.
    Thank you all, and I look forward to an informative, 
constructive hearing.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement, please.

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 
our series of climate change hearings aimed at developing 
comprehensive legislation to achieve a 100 percent clean 
economy by 2050, and this hearing focuses on the important 
issue of environmental justice and the ways that climate change 
is exacerbating disparities and access to a clean and safe 
environment.
    It is unfortunate, but inescapable, that where you live in 
this country determines the extent of the environmental health 
risks that you face. Air pollution, contaminated sites, waste 
disposal sites, and drinking water violations all impact 
overburdened communities.
    A recent report found that more than 2 million Americans 
lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation. It also 
finds that race is the strongest predictor of access to safe 
drinking water. Native Americans are less likely to have a 
reliable drinking water supply than any other group, and this 
is simply not acceptable.
    And climate change is only making things worse. According 
to the GAO, nearly two-thirds of the sites on the Superfund 
National Priority List are in areas that may be impacted by 
climate change effects, such as flooding, storm surges, 
wildfires, and sea level rise.
    We have already seen the results. Toxic floodwaters carry 
pollutants from Superfund sites in the wakes of recent 
hurricanes, including Maria, Harvey, and Michael. And all of 
this disproportionally and adversely affects environmental 
justice communities. These communities are rural and urban. 
They are located in large cities and small and are found all 
over the country. These environmental justice communities 
include communities of color, coastal communities, low-income 
communities, and the common thread is that they do not have 
equal access to a safe and healthy environment.
    Executive Order 12898 requires agencies across the 
Government to make addressing environmental justice part of 
their mission. And to meet that requirement, the EPA 
established the Office of Environmental Justice. Today, on our 
second panel, we will hear from the former head of the EPA 
office about what more can be done to strengthen environmental 
justice efforts at the EPA.
    But, unfortunately, a recently released GAO study found 
that more must be done across agencies to measure progress and 
ensure they are addressing environmental justice. The author of 
that report will also testify today, along with the current EPA 
staff.
    Another recent report by the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights found EPA has acted too slowly in response to complaints 
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and has failed to 
involve and protect communities from the dangers of coal ash. 
The Commission was unable to send someone to testify in person, 
but we welcome their written testimony.
    We will also have the privilege today to hear from several 
frontline communities being impacted by legacy pollution and 
climate change. We will hear firsthand accounts from Puerto 
Rico, North Carolina, and Louisiana, and it is critically 
important that we hear from impacted communities as we work 
towards legislation to fight climate change and address 
environmental justice.
    And I just want to thank all of the witnesses for being 
here. I thank Chairman Tonko for calling this and the other 
hearings we are having.
    I don't know if anybody else wants my time. If not, I will 
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today we continue our series of climate change hearings 
aimed at developing comprehensive legislation to achieve a 100 
percent clean economy by 2050. This hearing will focus on the 
important issue of environmental justice, and the ways that 
climate change is exacerbating disparities in access to a clean 
and safe environment.
    It is an unfortunate, but inescapable, fact that where you 
live in this country determines the extent of the environmental 
health risks you face. Air pollution, contaminated sites, waste 
disposal sites, and drinking water violations all impact 
overburdened communities.
    A recent report found that more than 2 million Americans 
lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation. It also 
finds that race is the strongest predictor of access to safe 
drinking water. Native Americans are less likely to have a 
reliable drinking water supply than any other group. This is 
not acceptable.
    And, climate change is making matters worse. According to 
the Government Accountability Office, nearly two-thirds of 
sites on the Superfund National Priority List are in areas that 
may be impacted by climate change effects such as flooding, 
storm surges, wildfires, and sea-level rise. We have already 
seen the results. Toxic floodwaters carried pollutants from 
Superfund sites in the wakes of recent hurricanes, including 
Maria, Harvey, and Michael.
    All this disproportionally and adversely affects 
environmental justice communities. These communities are rural 
and urban. They are located in large cities and small and are 
found all over the Nation. These environmental justice 
communities include communities of color, coastal communities, 
and low-income communities. The common thread for these 
communities is that they do not have equal access to a safe and 
healthy environment.
    Executive Order 12898 requires agencies across the 
government to make addressing environmental justice part of 
their mission. To meet that requirement, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) established the Office of Environmental 
Justice. Today, on our second panel, we will hear from the 
former head of that EPA office, about what more can be done to 
strengthen Environmental Justice efforts at EPA.
    Unfortunately, a recently released GAO study found that 
more must be done across agencies to measure progress and 
ensure they are addressing environmental justice. The author of 
that report will also testify today, along with current EPA 
staff.
    Another recent report, by the United States Commission on 
Civil Rights, found EPA has acted too slowly in response to 
complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and has 
failed to involve and protect communities from the dangers of 
coal ash. The Commission was unable to send someone to testify 
in person today, but we welcome their written testimony.
    We will also have the privilege today to hear from several 
frontline communities being impacted by legacy pollution and 
climate change. We will hear firsthand accounts from Puerto 
Rico, North Carolina and Louisiana. It is critically important 
that we hear from impacted communities as we work towards 
legislation to fight climate change and address environmental 
justice.
    I thank all the witnesses for taking the time to be here 
today, and I thank the subcommittee chairman for calling this 
hearing.

    Mr. Tonko. The chairman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Walden, our ranking member of the 
full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement, 
please.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning, and good morning to our witnesses and guests.
    Today's hearing seeks to examine the challenges of climate 
change risks and how they may intensify existing economic and 
environmental risks in our Nation's vulnerable communities. It 
is a good hearing to have, Mr. Chairman.
    Communities around the Nation at various times must 
confront flooding, extreme weather, forest fires, other events, 
and if these communities do not have the ability to prepare 
for, respond to, or recover from those events, the human harm 
and economic costs are breathtaking.
    Almost exactly 2 years ago, as chairman of the full 
committee, I led a bipartisan delegation, including Mr. 
Pallone, Mr. Shimkus, Ms. DeGette, on this panel, to review the 
response and recovery efforts in Puerto Rico, following the 
devastating hurricanes that season. The island's already 
decrepit electrical infrastructure was wiped out. Longstanding 
governance issues and other Federal and local challenges 
delayed recovery, which led to the longest-lasting power outage 
in American history, and all of the resulting misery and harm 
from that lack of energy.
    The heart-wrenching bottom line was communities on the 
island did not have the adaptive capacity or resources to 
withstand and rapidly recover from the direct hit of a major 
hurricane.
    We have worked to improve the situation there, but I expect 
we will hear this morning that a lot more needs to be done, and 
that the environmental problems have intensified. Mr. Chairman, 
I would suggest that we repeat a trip down to Puerto Rico to 
see firsthand. We learned a lot when we went.
    The lack of resources and lack of planning are common 
issues we must confront when preparing for future risks. This 
is more urgent for so-called frontline communities, those that 
are economically disadvantaged and have environmental burdens 
and limited resources to provide for those in need.
    Our goal here should be to ensure economically 
disadvantaged communities have the tools and resources to help 
address local environmental risks, and the resources to ensure 
compliance with environmental standards and provide resilience 
to future hazards. We must focus on preparation and adaptation.
    The ingredients for accomplishing this come from policies 
that encourage and foster economic growth and that ensure 
communities have the information, practices, and resources to 
address their unique and specific needs.
    We will hear today on the second panel from Pat Ford, an 
expert in economic development, who will talk about his 
experience on how EPA and the Department of Commerce programs 
can help resurrect economic hope and address environmental 
concerns in economically disadvantaged frontline communities. 
His experience helping towns suffering from industrial collapse 
and loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and all 
the social and health impacts that come from that, speaks to 
the promise of economic revitalization in these communities.
    The approaches here apply to communities with all manner of 
economic and environmental strain. In my own State of Oregon, 
years of mismanagement or lack of management on our Federal 
forests have exacerbated the damage and health impacts from 
wildfires. Meanwhile, mills closed, jobs disappeared, 
communities were left without the resources to provide 
essential services. And, again, we have worked to address these 
issues at the Federal level, but, heavens, there is so much 
more we need to do.
    We will hear from Melissa Cribbins from Coos County, 
Oregon, who will speak to the challenges of that region and 
what they have been recovering from, economic decline, and how 
they must balance local environmental concerns and the need for 
jobs and economic resources necessary to provide for their 
community members.
    And, of course, on our first panel, we should sort through 
the EPA how its programs and assistance targeted to ensure 
environmental justice helps answer the needs for these 
frontline communities.
    Mr. Chairman, whether to address climate change risks or 
current economic and environmental risks, our focus should be 
on practical steps to increase the economic and adaptive 
capacities of these communities and of our country. We 
demonstrated this in our bipartisan work to reauthorize the 
EPA's Brownfields Program in the last Congress, which you were 
a big part of.
    Let's identify other bipartisan programs that leverage 
local knowledge, innovation, and economic health, and let's 
make sure disadvantaged communities have access to all of the 
tools and programs offered by EPA and other agencies to make 
lives better and safer for their residents.
    Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing. 
There is a lot of work we can do together in this space, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Today's hearing seeks to examine the challenges of climate 
change risks and how they may intensify existing economic and 
environmental risks in our Nation's vulnerable communities.
    Communities around the Nation at various times must 
confront flooding, extreme weather, and other events. And if 
these communities do not have the ability to prepare for, 
respond to, or recover from those events, the human harm and 
economic costs can be breathtaking.
    Almost exactly 2 years ago, as chairman of the committee, I 
led a bipartisan delegation, including Mr. Pallone, Mr. 
Shimkus, and Ms. DeGette on this panel, to review the response 
and recovery efforts in Puerto Rico following the devastating 
hurricanes that season.
    The island's already decrepit electrical infrastructure was 
wiped out. Longstanding governance issues and other Federal and 
local challenges delayed recovery, which led to the longest-
lasting power outage in American history, and all the resulting 
misery and harm from lack of energy.
    The heart-wrenching bottom line was: Communities on the 
island did not have the adaptive capacity or resources to 
withstand and rapidly recover from the direct hit of a major 
hurricane.
    We have worked to improve the situation there, but I expect 
we'll hear this morning that more needs to be done, and that 
environmental problems have intensified.
    Lack of resources and lack of planning are common issues we 
must confront when preparing for future risks. This is more 
urgent for so-called frontline communities, those that are 
economically disadvantaged and have environmental burdens and 
limited resources to provide for those in need.
    Our goal here should be to ensure economically 
disadvantaged communities have the tools and resources to help 
address local environmental risks and the resources to ensure 
compliance with environmental standards and to provide 
resilience to future hazards.
    The ingredients for accomplishing this come from policies 
that encourage and foster economic growth and that ensure 
communities have the information, practices, and resources to 
address their specific needs.
    We will hear today on the second panel from Pat Ford, an 
expert in economic development, who will talk from his 
experience how EPA and Department of Commerce programs can help 
resurrect economic hope and address environmental concerns in 
economically disadvantaged, frontline communities. His 
experience helping towns suffering from industrial collapse and 
loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and all the 
social and health impacts from that, speaks to the promise of 
economic revitalization in these communities.
    The approaches here apply to communities with all manner of 
economic and environmental strain. In my own State of Oregon, 
years of mismanagement on our Federal forests have exacerbated 
the damage and health impacts of wildfires. Meanwhile, mills 
closed, jobs disappeared, and communities are left without the 
resources to provide essential services. Again, we have worked 
to address these issues at the Federal level, but there remain 
local circumstances that will require local solutions.
    Melissa Cribbins, from Coos County, Oregon, can speak to 
the challenges of a region that has been recovering from 
economic decline, and how they must balance local environmental 
concerns and the need for jobs and economic resources necessary 
to provide for their community members.
    And of course, on our first panel, we should sort through 
with EPA how its programs and assistance targeted to ensure 
environmental justice helps answer the needs for those 
frontline communities.
    Mr. Chairman, whether to address climate change risks or 
current economic and environmental risks, our focus should be 
on practical steps to increase the economic and adaptive 
capacity of these communities, and the Nation.
    We demonstrated this in our bipartisan work to reauthorize 
EPA's Brownfields Program in the last Congress. Let's identify 
other bipartisan programs that leverage local knowledge, 
innovation, and economic health. And let's make sure 
disadvantaged communities have access to all the tools and 
programs offered by EPA and other agencies to makes lives 
better for their residents.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    I now will introduce our witnesses for the first panel. We 
have, let's see, starting to my far left, Ms. Lillian Sotolongo 
Dorka, Director of the External Civil Rights Compliance Office 
with United States Environmental Protection Agency. Seated next 
to her we have Ms. Helena Wooden-Aguilar, Deputy Associate 
Administrator, Office of Policy, with the United States Office 
of--Environmental Protection Agency. And then, finally, Mr. 
Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 
with the United States Government Accountability Office.
    Thank you to each and every one of you for joining us.
    Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting 
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will 
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The 
light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute remaining. Please 
begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The light will 
turn red when your time has expired.
    At this time, the Chair will now recognize Mr. Gomez, I 
believe, for--oh, OK. I am sorry. We are going to start with 
Ms. Dorka. You are recognized for 5 minutes, please.

STATEMENTS OF LILIAN SOTOLONGO DORKA, DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL CIVIL 
     RIGHTS COMPLIANCE OFFICE, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; HELENA WOODEN-AGUILAR, DEPUTY 
   ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF POLICY, ENVIRONMENTAL 
  PROTECTION AGENCY; AND J. ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR, NATURAL 
  RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

              STATEMENT OF LILIAN SOTOLONGO DORKA

    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking 
Member Shimkus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Lilian Sotolongo Dorka, and I am the Director of 
EPA's External Civil Rights Compliance Office. I have been 
working in the civil rights enforcement arena for over 30 years 
and consider it my life's work. Prior to coming to EPA in 
December of 2014, I worked with the U.S. Department of 
Education's Office for Civil Rights for over 27 years, serving 
in various roles, including as a senior counsel to the 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights for over 10 years.
    I thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today 
and look forward to sharing information about ECRCO's civil 
rights role, our recent accomplishments, and our commitment to 
ensuring that the promise of EPA's mission--the protection of 
human health and the environment--is available to all persons 
in the United States, regardless of race, color, national 
origin, disability, sex, or age.
    ECRCO enforces several Federal civil rights laws, and we do 
this by investigating and resolving complaints, discrimination 
complaints, developing policy, conducting proactive compliance 
initiatives and reviews, and providing technical assistance to 
recipients and outreach to communities.
    EPA has made significant strides in achieving its external 
civil rights mission through the hard work and dedication of 
our civil rights staff. Over the past 3 years, we have keenly 
focused our energy and resources on the management of the 
complaint docket, including addressing in full our docket of 
overaged cases, and markedly improving our case processing 
times for our new cases.
    We have undertaken these improvements while continuously 
emphasizing the quality and effectiveness of our complaint 
resolutions and achieving successful outcomes for recipients as 
well as communities they serve.
    EPA's nondiscrimination regulation has strict timeframes 
that for years we were not meeting, and we were faced with a 
sizeable docket of overaged cases. As an example, by the end of 
2016, we had 61 complaints pending in various stages. Most had 
missed all regulatory deadlines. In 2017, we received 24 more 
complaints, further increasing the number of unresolved cases.
    This was a pivotal time for our office that called for 
strategic and transformational efforts. First, we developed 
foundational tools critical for any civil rights office, but a 
first for our office: a strategic plan, case resolution manual, 
and the compliance toolkit.
    We made sure that all ECRCO staff, and our critical 
internal EPA partners and stakeholders, were fully trained on 
these documents, which we shared with our external customers by 
making them publicly available on our website.
    Finally, our office began to make full use of all available 
tools, such as informal resolution of complaints, which is 
specifically authorized in our regulation. By December 2018, 
EPA had completely cleared its docket of overdue jurisdictional 
decisions, as well as by November of 2019 we have resolved all 
overaged complaints that require preliminary findings.
    Moving forward, we have implemented stringent 
accountability measures for all of our processes, and they have 
yielded results. While in 2017 we issued jurisdictional 
decisions within the required 20 days in only 12 percent of our 
complaints, we are currently meeting this requirement in 100 
percent of our cases. And our new cases are exceeding our 
internal performance measures on timeliness.
    We are also acutely focused on proactive compliance 
assistance. We partner with all of our EPA stakeholders, 
including the Office of Environmental Justice, to leverage 
already-existing lines of communication and collaboration with 
recipients and communities. Our efforts have coordinated with 
EJ programs on a number of occasions with respect to the 
investigation and resolution of complaints, especially where 
the EJ program has worked with the relevant communities prior 
to the civil rights complaints.
    Within the last fiscal year alone, we proactively engaged 
over 40 State and local agencies and organizations as well as 
Tribes across EPA's offices.
    Finally, we have focused our resources on developing and 
strengthening our external civil rights workforce to ensure 
that they are empowered with the knowledge, skills, and tools 
that they need to carry out our mission and accomplish our 
long-lasting and effective civil rights results.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sotolongo Dorka follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
       
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    And, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes, please.

               STATEMENT OF HELENA WOODEN-AGUILAR

    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Good morning, Chairman Tonko, Ranking 
Member Shimkus, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member Walden, 
and other distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    My name is Helena Wooden-Aguilar, and I am the Deputy 
Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. My responsibility as the 
career lead in the Office of Policy is to work with our EPA 
colleagues to support Agency priorities and enhance decision 
making throughout EPA.
    I have served at EPA for more than 15 years in several 
roles related to environmental justice and civil rights, 
including as the deputy civil rights official in the Office of 
the Administrator. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on 
EPA's work to fulfill the purpose of Executive Order 12898 and 
achieve our core mission of protecting human health and the 
environment, including for vulnerable and overburdened 
communities across the United States.
    The role of EPA in environmental justice is rooted in 
Executive Order 12898 and is still in effect today. The 
Executive order directs covered executive department and 
agency, including EPA, to promote and achieve environmental 
justice as a part of its mission. This year marks the 25th 
anniversary of the executive order.
    Some of our recent accomplishments in this area include the 
following. The elevation of the Office of Environmental Justice 
into the Office of Policy and within the Office of the 
Administrator. This move strengthened and complemented our 
environmental justice work with the activities of our Office of 
Community Revitalization, which is also located in the Office 
of Policy.
    This decision was motivated by this administration's 
interest in placing the Office of Environmental Justice in a 
position that would maximize the agency's ability to improve 
coordination across EPA's programs and with our Federal 
partners.
    We also launched the Environmental Justice and Community 
Revitalization Council, also known as EJCRC, to provide high-
level, cross-agency direction and decision making for 
environmental justice priorities. The EJCRC focuses on 
advancing the use of community-driven solutions across the 
Agency to achieve tangible results in communities by building 
upon EPA's current investments, expertise, and partnerships.
    EPA's own strategic plan recognizes that a strengthened 
community-driven approach will make EPA a better partner and 
more responsive to the needs of the communities in the work we 
do daily, including communities in opportunity zones, thereby 
fostering economic growth and environmental protection. 
Opportunity zones are economically distressed areas that may be 
eligible for preferential tax treatment to encourage new 
economic development and job creation.
    Under this administration, the Office of Environmental 
Justice has continued to administer our Environmental Justice 
Grants Program with an emphasis on new grantees. And in fiscal 
year 2019, we prioritized resiliency and emergency response.
    Also, in fiscal year 2019, EPA provided more than $60 
million in brownfield grants funding to communities across the 
country to assess, clean up, and redevelop underutilized 
properties.
    The Office of Environmental Justice also partners with the 
External Civil Rights and Compliance Program. For example, 
together we have provided training and technical assistance to 
approximately 40 State agencies and organizations and Tribes 
across all 10 EPA regions on how to proactively address civil 
rights obligations and environmental justice.
    In addition to the EPA-led work across our programs and 
regions, we continue to engage with external partners to 
address environmental justice. Two forums for this engagement 
include our National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, 
to which we just appointed new members today, and the 
Environmental Justice Interagency Working Group, or IWG, which 
includes more than a dozen Federal departments and agencies. 
EPA serves as the chair to the IWG and takes this 
responsibility seriously.
    Over the past 2 years, we have been engaged with the 
Government Accountability Office, or GAO, on their review of 
EPA's executive branch's fulfillment of the purpose of the 
Executive order. We appreciate the GAO's report last month that 
included recommendations to strengthen the IWG.
    EPA is committed to assisting vulnerable and overburdened 
communities. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear 
before you, and I am happy to take any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wooden-Aguilar follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
     
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    And now we will move to recognize Mr. Gomez for 5 minutes, 
please, to provide your opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF J. ALFREDO GOMEZ

    Mr. Gomez. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and 
members of the subcommittee, good morning. I am pleased to be 
here today to discuss our September 2019 report on 
environmental justice efforts.
    It has already been noted that environmental justice seeks 
to address the disproportionally high distribution of health 
and environmental risks among low-income and minority 
communities, and it does this by seeking their fair treatment 
and meaningful involvement in environmental policy.
    The 1994 Executive order directed 11 Federal agencies to 
identify and address environmental justice issues related to 
their activities and establish an interagency working group to 
coordinate their efforts. In 2011, these agencies and five 
others signed a memorandum of understanding recommitting to 
planning and reporting on environmental justice efforts.
    Today, I will discuss the actions that agencies have taken 
to address environmental justice issues, their progress in 
identifying and addressing these issues, and the working 
group's efforts to coordinate environmental justice activities.
    Most agencies that are members of the Interagency Working 
Group reported taking some actions to identify and address 
environmental justice issues. For example, this includes the 
EPA mapping tool to identify low-income and minority 
communities exposed to health or environmental risks.
    Also, several agencies, such as EPA and the Departments of 
Justice, Homeland Security, and the Interior, developed 
policies or guidance to analyze environmental justice issues 
during environmental reviews or enforcement activities. Several 
agencies have taken actions to help build community capacity. 
For example, since 1994, the EPA has awarded more than $24 
million in environmental justice grants to over 1,400 
organizations with communities.
    So, while agencies have been taking actions, their progress 
towards environmental justice is difficult to gauge, and this 
is because most do not have updated strategic plans and have 
not reported annually on their progress or developed methods to 
assess progress. As they agreed to do in the 2011 MOU, most of 
the agencies developed environmental justice strategic plans, 
but only six have updated them more recently.
    Also, most agencies have not established measures for 
assessing progress towards their goals. The working group has 
not provided guidance to help agencies with such measures or 
assessments. Performance measures are important for tracking 
progress in achieving goals and are a key element of effective 
strategic planning.
    So turning to the working group and its coordination of 
Federal activities, we found that the working group has 
coordinated to some extent. For example, it has developed 
committees such as the Rural Communities and Goods Movements 
committees. It has also developed guidance in such areas as 
including environmental justice in agencies' NEPA analyses.
    However, the working group is not carrying out several 
functions in the 1994 Executive order. This is because the 
working group's organizational documents do not contain clear 
strategic goals that are aligned with the Executive order. 
Clear strategic goals to carry out the Executive order could 
enhance the group's strategic direction for intergovernmental 
environmental justice efforts.
    Further, participation in the working group and its 
committees has been mixed. Eleven of the 16 agencies have not 
chaired or cochaired one of the nine committees. Participation 
of relevant agencies is important to the success of 
collaborative efforts such as the Interagency Working Group.
    So, in total, we made 24 recommendations, including that 
agencies update their environmental justice strategic plans and 
report on progress annually. We recommended that EPA consult 
with other working group members to provide guidance on methods 
or measures to address progress in achieving their 
environmental justice goals. We also recommended that EPA and 
other agencies set strategic goals to guide the overall Federal 
effort to carry out the Executive order.
    In conclusion, incorporating environmental justice into 
Federal agencies' policies, programs, and activities is a long-
term and wide-ranging effort. Federal agencies have made some 
headway in developing tools and coordinated policies. Strategic 
planning and reporting with meaningful measures can help them 
make and track progress.
    So, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, this concludes 
my statement, and I am happy to answer questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    We will now move to Member questions. I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to 
meet with environmental justice leaders from around the 
country, and thanks in part to Mr. McEachin and others for 
convening these meetings, I have repeatedly heard how these 
groups and individuals often lack resources, especially 
compared to the sources of pollution in their communities. 
Promoting community-driven solutions requires lowering barriers 
to participation.
    And so, as I listened to your testimony, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar 
and Ms. Sotolongo Dorka, you talked about cleanup of past cases 
and keeping a rather aggressive pace. With proposed rollbacks 
of several programs that then share resources from EPA, with 
communities, if that were to happen, would that slow down that 
progress that you cited?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. My 
response is no. We will continue to adhere to the Executive 
Order 12898 and continue to administer grants, continue to work 
in communities, continue to partner with our colleagues 
throughout the Agency, including the External Compliance 
Program. And I will turn to my colleague.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you, sir, for that question. I 
agree with my colleague, there would be no ceasing of our 
desire and our ambition to meet our mission, and we would 
continue to work hard with whatever is appropriated by 
Congress. We have a mission, and we take it very seriously, and 
we have put into effect accountability measures to make sure 
that we don't roll back on our mission.
    Mr. Tonko. But would that rollback of funds perhaps cause 
an increase in caseload? And if it does increase that caseload, 
will that impact your record that you cited today?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. I believe that the accountability 
measures that we have put in place, as well as those critical 
documents and the sheer dedication and hard work of our office, 
will in fact keep us on track. I don't foresee that even if the 
caseload increases that we will cease in our making progress, 
not just on the number of cases and the timeliness, but on the 
quality and effectiveness of those resolutions.
    Mr. Tonko. Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, you mentioned providing 
technical assistance to distressed communities. But what is EPA 
doing to help build capacity of citizen groups, like the ones 
that will be represented later today, to meaningfully 
participate in decisions that will impact their local 
environment?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. So, every 
fiscal year, we provide environmental justice grants around the 
country. A part of those grants are not just, as I noted in my 
testimony, for resiliency and emergency response, but also to 
build capacity. We specifically have a grant program Problem-
Solving, which focuses on capacity-building at the local level 
to bring forward not just these communities and the 
associations and the advocacy groups, but also for local 
government, including State and Tribals.
    Mr. Tonko. Can EPA do more to help facilitate greater 
involvement in designing and implementing solutions by 
residents in underserved communities?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you, sir. EPA can always do more, 
and we are committed to doing more. Every day we come to work. 
And even with the resources that we have, we are committed in 
communities working with all of our partners.
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Gomez, GAO found that several agencies--and 
I will state that EPA was not amongst them--have failed to 
issue progress reports, making it difficult to evaluate their 
progress toward achieving the Executive order. Did GAO find 
that EPA has a responsibility, as chair of the Interagency 
Working Group, to develop guidance on what other agencies 
should include in their strategic plans and the tools for 
assessing progress?
    Mr. Gomez. That is correct. And also that the agencies in 
the 2011 memorandum of understanding committed to doing this. 
So the agencies have committed to doing annual progress reports 
and updating their strategic plans. But, yes, EPA, as the 
chair, can also work with the agencies to make sure that that 
happens.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And EPA agreed with GAO's 
recommendations to take a greater leadership role in these two 
areas. Is that not correct?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Tonko. And, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, has EPA begun to take 
steps to implement those recommendations?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So EPA is committed to creating a 
strategic plan. We agree with the GAO, and we thank them for 
their recommendations. We aim to have all of this work done by 
the end of fiscal year 2020. So, yes, sir, we are very 
committed.
    Mr. Tonko. And, Mr. Gomez, GAO's report stated that the 
Interagency Working Group Committee on Impacts from Climate 
Change has been inactive since June of 2017. What did that 
committee do before June of 2017? And can you provide any 
explanation why it seems to have ended?
    Mr. Gomez. So that is right. As we understand it, that 
committee hasn't been meeting as the other committees have. And 
so that is something that we would also like to understand why 
it is the case. In terms of what they have done before that, 
that is something that we can provide to you with more details 
as well.
    Mr. Tonko. I thank you very much.
    I will now move to the ranking member. I recognize Mr. 
Shimkus, subcommittee ranking member, for 5 minutes to ask 
questions.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Dorka and Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, you are both career 
government employees serving multiple administrations, are you 
not?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Yes, sir.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Yes, sir. Since 1987.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. And I was going to go then if--Ms. Dorka, 
if you can tell me your brief--you said since 1987. Where have 
you been in the--I guess in the EPA, and just briefly your 
career path.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Sure. Thank you, sir. Actually, I 
began my career right after law school at the U.S. Department 
of Education's Office for Civil Rights, and I quickly went to 
work in the Assistant Secretary's office. I served in various 
roles: press, policy, chief of staff, and senior counsel to the 
Assistant Secretary. That is a very vital office that used to 
have, by the time I left, over 600 employees in that office 
alone.
    I then came to the EPA in December of 2014, and I came in 
as the Deputy Director of the Office of Civil Rights. Back 
then, we had an office that addressed both external civil 
rights issues as well as our internal workforce civil rights 
issues. Then, we, in 2017, beginning of 2017, we went into the 
Office of the General Counsel, the external civil rights 
office, which provided us additional legal support and 
continuity. And I have been the Director in that office since 
then.
    Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. So I have 
been a career person at EPA pretty much my entire career. I 
started in 2004. I worked for the External Civil Rights 
Program, also known as a Title VI program, a good majority of 
my time.
    I have investigated cases. I have counseled. I also became 
the Assistant Director in that program, moving to the Deputy 
Director, and also acted as the Director of the Office of Civil 
Rights. Then I moved to our Office of Compliance and 
Enforcement, and then I came back to the Office of the 
Administrator and worked as the acting deputy chief of staff 
and then now as the Deputy Associate Administrator at EPA.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Great. Thank you. You know, what is 
interesting about this hearing, and it doesn't happen very 
often, we have two witnesses from the same agency. So can you 
briefly explain how your roles are and how you collaborate?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. I would be happy to talk about that 
because it is something that we take very seriously, the 
collaboration between the Office of Environmental Justice and 
the External Civil Rights Office. Our mission is different. Our 
appropriation is separate.
    Whereas we enforce Federal civil rights laws, our--my 
colleague will speak to EJ and that Executive order, but we 
very much collaborate because we see it as sort of a continuum. 
It is a holistic approach in order to serve communities and 
work with recipients.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. As my 
colleague stated, while we do have two different missions, our 
work often collaborates, and it collaborates on the ground. It 
collaborates in our offices as we work and train a number of 
partners around the country, not just on civil rights but also 
on environmental justice.
    Mr. Shimkus. Well, thank you. Thank you, and I am quickly 
running out of time.
    So, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, can you speak to how EPA assists 
local communities with local/State-level regulatory and 
governing decisions?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. So we 
collaborate all of the time with States, local government, 
Tribes, and communities. We have a number of tools in our 
toolbox in the Office of Environmental Justice, also our Office 
of Community Revitalization. For example, we work in 
communities around the brownfields. We partner with our Office 
of Brownfields, and we work very closely with a number of our 
partners around the Agency.
    Mr. Shimkus. And I would like to go on, but my time--by the 
time I ask the question, I will run out of time. So with that, 
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Chairman Pallone, full committee 
chair, for 5 minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    Environmental justice is not a new problem, but it is a 
very serious problem, and communities across the Nation have 
been impacted disproportionately by environmental hazards, and 
the disparity continues.
    I want to ask the two EPA witnesses, do you think that 
someone's ZIP code should determine the environmental hazards 
that they face? You can just say yes or no, if you would like.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. No, sir.
    Mr. Pallone. And Ms.----
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Absolutely not, sir, and our mission 
is targeted to that end.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me just go through these, and 
you can say yes or no. What about their income?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. No, sir.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Our civil rights laws don't apply to 
income. But personally, no.
    Mr. Pallone. OK. And race or ethnicity?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. No, sir.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Absolutely no.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Do you think that EPA is doing 
enough to address disproportionate toxic exposures? I will ask 
the two of you again.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. EPA is 
committed, under the Executive Order 12898, to not only promote 
environmental justice but adhere to the Executive order. Since 
1994, EPA, including the colleagues in the Office of 
Environmental Justice and around the Agency, are committed to 
ensuring that not only communities but those most vulnerable 
have clean air, clean water. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Pallone. Would you--I would ask you, though, do you 
think they are doing enough? Could they do more? What more 
could they do?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. There is 
always more to do. The agency, again, is committed under the 
Executive order to do all that it can to promote environmental 
justice.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, let me ask the witness. I mean, do you 
think that EPA could do more? And do you want to give me some 
areas where they could do more?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. I think we can always do more, and I 
think that now that our office has cleared its overaged docket, 
we are much better poised to meet the demands of new and 
incoming complaints that raise civil rights issues with respect 
to vulnerable populations on the basis of race, color, or 
national origin.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    Well, let me ask Mr. Gomez, do we even have the metrics to 
know if EPA and other agencies are doing enough to address 
environmental justice?
    Mr. Gomez. So that was one of our findings of our report, 
is the need to have really good performance measures. Now, EPA 
does have four performance measures, like one of those is to 
decrease the exposure to particulate matter, decrease the 
exposure to lead in drinking water, and I believe in their 
annual report from 2017 they did have figures that that had 
gone down.
    But, I mean, that is what we want agencies to have, right? 
We want them to have good performance measures that they can 
then see how well they are doing year after year in terms of 
the progress that they are making.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me ask about the States and the 
role EPA can play in striving for environmental justice in 
State-level decision making. Many of our environmental laws 
rely on States taking the primary enforcement role, as you 
know, and it is not enough for us to look only at what the 
Federal Government does. Let me ask Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, how 
does your office work with States that have primary enforcement 
authority to pursue environmental justice?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. I can only 
speak to the Office of Environmental Justice and what that 
office has done. Specifically, in FY 19, and even before then, 
our Office of Environmental Justice works very closely with 
States. Most notably, we, this fiscal year and into last year, 
hosted a statewide training with over 1,500 participants, 
including States, partnering, talking about environmental 
justice; our screening tool, as mentioned by GAO, EJSCREEN; and 
other important topics.
    Mr. Pallone. What role does the Office of Environmental 
Justice play in decisions about granting or revoking primary 
enforcement authority from States? Do you get involved in that, 
granting or revoking that?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. I can't 
speak to that specific topic, but I would be happy to follow up 
with our Office of Congressional Affairs to provide you more 
information.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Are there any requirements in place 
to ensure that States give frontline communities a voice in 
rulemaking and permitting?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Our Office of Policy, where I work, has 
an action development process, and this process is the process 
for rulemaking. EJ is considered, along with other Executive 
orders and statutes, as a part of that process. For more 
information about how EJ is considered into the rulemaking, we 
have a docket online which expounds on that topic, but I would 
be happy to follow up with our Office of Congressional Affairs 
on that question.
    Mr. Pallone. I would appreciate that, if you could follow 
up on those things.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Walden, full committee ranking member, for 5 
minutes to ask questions, please.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate this 
hearing, and I appreciate the testimony of our witnesses. We 
have got a markup that is going to take place here in a few 
hours, and I am in and out dealing with some of those issues, 
so my apologies.
    But I wanted to ask both Ms. Wooden-Aguilar and Ms. Dorka, 
on this committee, we have done a lot of work in recent years 
on a bipartisan basis to reauthorize increased funding for the 
programs that I think have a large impact on economically 
disadvantaged communities.
    We reauthorized the brownfields and safe drinking water 
programs, both in the last Congress, to help communities 
improve infrastructure and provide clean water. Could you both 
just, fairly short, just speak to how your offices work to make 
sure these programs, such as brownfields or safe drinking water 
programs, get into these communities in need? I mean, just in--
how does all of that work?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. So I can 
speak to two examples. Our Office of Environmental Justice has 
environmental justice small grants, where annually we provide a 
number of resources to communities, to associations and the 
like. All of that information is on our public website as to 
who we provide those resources to.
    Mr. Walden. Oh, good.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. And I would be happy to work with our 
Congressional Affairs to make sure that any information you 
need is helpful. Specifically, about brownfields, as I noted in 
my opening testimony, EPA provided more than $60 million in a 
brownfields grant. Why that is most notable is that our Office 
of Environmental Justice works very closely with our 
Brownfields Program.
    In Fiscal Year 2020, the Office of Brownfields is going to 
have a conference, and environmental justice is a part of that 
conference.
    Mr. Walden. Good. I appreciate that.
    Ms. Dorka, do you have anything to add?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Yes, thank you. What I would like to 
add is that, in carrying out our mission of equal rights and 
equal opportunity, we make sure that our role is to make sure 
that through the resolution of complaints we--make sure that 
those programs that are available--that are critical are 
available to all communities.
    In fact, one very important thing that our office does is 
that it administers a contract, an EPA-wide contract, to make 
sure that persons who are limited English proficient in those 
communities can also participate effectively, and we require 
the same of all of our recipients as well.
    Mr. Walden. Yes. And how does that work on our Native 
American populations on the reservations? I have several that 
have issues. Are you reaching out to them as well in these 
programs?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So, yes, on the environmental justice 
small grants. Many of our Tribes and indigenous folks actually 
receive EPA small grants.
    Mr. Walden. All right. Because I know we have got some real 
infrastructure issues in a couple of the areas I represent, and 
working with the communities on that.
    I want to get to this issue of forest fires, because if 
there is an environmental injustice, I would say, it is how the 
Federal Government has horribly failed to manage both our 
Federal forests and in some cases the fighting of the fires and 
then post-fire recovery.
    And as a result, I have had people in my communities that 
have choked on smoke for up to a full month at a time. I have 
met with residents who have said they have had to take their 
children to another State to avoid the smoke, to find clean air 
to breathe.
    And we know the scientists tell us that this failure to 
manage results in these overstocked stands where you have 1,000 
trees per acre where there should be 20. So when we get a fire, 
it is catastrophic, and then the government does nothing 
afterward to clean up because of the litigation and other 
environmental--so-called environmental laws.
    And it has really devastated our communities. It has killed 
people. It has left watersheds in horrible situations. Tell me 
how EPA focuses on that issue.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question, and I am 
sorry to hear about those specific----
    Mr. Walden. Oh, it is awful.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar [continuing]. Examples. I will just 
start off by saying that EPA takes the effects to vulnerable 
populations very seriously, and I would be happy to follow up 
with our Congressional Affairs Office on the specifics of that 
to be able to----
    Mr. Walden. Yes. Your regional----
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar [continuing]. Helpful.
    Mr. Walden. Your regional coordinator actually sat in on a 
Smoke Committee meeting I participated in in southern Oregon a 
year or so ago and was very helpful. And I know some of this 
gets devolved down to the State levels and all in terms of 
smoke management.
    But this is a huge issue. We can't address climate change 
if we don't address forest policy in America. And we just keep 
living in the past on this one, so--my time has run out.
    Thank you very much for your testimony. I look forward to 
following up with you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. You are welcome. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Barragan, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I represent a district that is in south Los Angeles, 
includes the Port of Los Angeles, Wilmington, Compton, Watts. 
It is one of the most heavily polluted districts in the 
country.
    We are surrounded by three freeways and the Port of L.A., 
and the community is also almost 88 percent Latino/African 
American. It is the frontline communities that are 
disproportionately burdened by environmental injustices that 
are happening day in and day out.
    So I appreciate this hearing, and I appreciate the work you 
are all doing to address this very critical issue.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, how long have you been with the EPA 
working on environmental justice issues?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So I have been with the agency for over 
15 years, since 2004. Again, I started my career in the 
external civil rights or also Title VI, and I prefaced my 
statement with that because many of our Title VI complaints 
often involve communities, and often those communities are 
environmental justice communities.
    So while I was never in proper--in the Office of 
Environmental Justice, throughout my early part of my career, I 
worked very closely with that office. I also was a part of EJ, 
Environmental Justice, 2014, again, in my earlier work working 
on Title VI specifically, and now in the Office of Policy, the 
Office of Environmental Justice is a component under that 
office.
    Ms. Barragan. So would you say you have been there long 
enough to have seen the differences between one administration 
and another in environmental justice and how it is being 
addressed?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. I have had the privilege, again, 
starting in 2004 under the tail end of one----
    Ms. Barragan. Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, I only have 5 minutes. So 
if you could just--would you say you are qualified to give an 
opinion on that?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. I would say probably towards the latter 
part of my career. When I first started, I was an employee, an 
investigator, and, again, but towards the end of my career in 
leadership, yes.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. The EPA's Environmental Justice Small 
Grants Program provides grants of up to $30,000 to work on 
solutions to local and environmental public health issues. The 
program has awarded more than $26 million since 1994 to more 
than 1,400 community-based organizations that work with 
communities facing environmental justice issues.
    However, during the first 2 years of the Trump 
administration, the number of small grants has dropped by 70 
percent compared with the Obama administration's first 2 years. 
Can you explain what is happening here?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So, specifically, I would have to 
follow up with our Congressional Affairs on the specificity of 
the data. But I will say, under this administration, we have 
authorized 3.9 million, and that is just in the Office of 
Environmental Justice. But we also have other grant programs 
that have prioritized not only vulnerable populations but also 
those that are economically distressed.
    Ms. Barragan. All right. If you could look into that and 
get back to me, that would be great. A 70 percent drop is a 
huge drop. And so it demands answers, and it is a problem that 
is severe. It hurts communities of color, especially people 
like those in my district and across the country that are 
trying to implement solutions to addressing the environmental 
justice concerns and the issues.
    Mr. Gomez, the slow pace of the implementation throughout 
our agencies of the environmental justice Executive order 
issued in 1994 is frustrating. In your view, would codifying 
this order into law help to speed up implementation?
    Mr. Gomez. So some of our recommendations have been to have 
agencies, one, update their strategic plans, but to also issue 
progress reports to develop measures. And so, to the extent 
that that codifying forces agencies to do those things, then 
those are things that make sense to us, since those are things 
that we recommended are needed to make sure that the effort is 
working properly.
    Ms. Barragan. So you just wrote the--I am looking here at 
your environmental justice--the report that you just did on 
this. This committee is in the process of drafting 100 percent, 
you know, clean economy by 2050. My focus is to make sure 
communities of color are not forgotten, that they are getting 
benefits, and that they are at the front of the line.
    Can you give us one or two points that you think need to be 
included in a bill, so that their environmental justice 
communities' needs are being met and we can address that?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. So, I mean, I think one of the things that 
we talk about in our report, again, is the need for these 
metrics, right? To see how well agencies are doing in meeting 
their responsibilities or the directives of the Executive 
order.
    And so you need to have really good performance measures. 
You need to have good metrics to see, are you doing the job you 
set out to do? And how well are you doing it? What progress are 
you making? So that ultimately you see the impact that you are 
having in those communities.
    So I think, to the extent that that can be included, that 
to us makes sense. That is something that we always recommend. 
It is part of leading practices.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, 
Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to focus on 
those frontline communities that have been written off by 
policies to phase out fossil fuels, communities like Welch, 
West Virginia; Gillette, Wyoming; Petersburg, Indiana; or 
Harlan, Kentucky.
    With all due respect, Congress has a moral obligation to 
consider the human consequences of its energy policies. Has the 
radical left so dehumanized this issue that the working men and 
women in these communities are being forgotten? Across the 
country, families and entire communities rely on coal mining 
and natural gas production to survive. The mayor of Welch, West 
Virginia, wrote me to explain what is going--what would happen 
to them if we go to 100 percent renewables.
    And I would like to ask unanimous consent this be entered 
into the record. Thank you.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. McKinley. In his words, ``It would completely destroy 
the economy of the city of Welch and the entire region.'' 
Today, in the aftermath of this relentless demagoging and 
vilification of fossil fuels, Welch is a community in which 27 
percent of the households live in poverty, and it has a 
minority population of 35 percent. Let's be clear: In Welch, 
Gillette, Petersburg, and Harlan, there is no other industry. 
This isn't Chicago or New York, where men and women can find 
other jobs.
    Fossil fuel jobs are not portable. The men and women either 
mine coal or drill for natural gas. If Congress's insensitively 
forces the closure of the remaining coal mines or caps the 
wells, not only will frontline communities lose these good-
paying jobs, but it would shut down grocery stores, pharmacies, 
schools, churches.
    Think of the impact on the local schools in Wyoming, where 
over 50 percent of the revenue comes from fossil fuels. By 
pushing this agenda to complete this ban, Congress is 
consigning many of these frontline communities to a desperate 
future.
    Would Congress have the gall to tell ranchers in Kansas 
they can't raise cattle anymore? What about the people in 
Wisconsin; they can't make cheese? Because that's exactly what 
Congress is doing to the men and women in these frontline 
communities relying on the fossil fuels for the dignity of 
work.
    The far left has used bullying tactics to threaten the 
livelihoods of countless Americans. According to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, over 2 million people are employed directly 
in America over fossil fuels, and that doesn't take into 
consideration the tens of millions that are--indirectly jobs, 
they would be lost as well.
    Lacking this vision of creativity and innovation, it seems 
the first inclination of liberals in Congress to deal with 
something they don't like is to simply get rid of it. Think 
about it--plastic straws, big soda drinks, guns, internal 
combustion engines, incandescent light bulbs. Doesn't Congress 
have a moral obligation to reconcile its concerns with fossil 
fuels with economic security?
    This is an excellent book, and I would strongly recommend 
more people read this.
    [Holds up a copy of ``The Moral Case and Fossil Fuels.'']
    Mr. McKinley. Wouldn't frontline communities be better off 
if Congress developed innovative technologies or efficiencies 
to help eliminate these emissions that we are concerned about, 
like carbon capture? We have a moral obligation to consider the 
future of the communities and the people that live in Welch, 
Gillette, Petersburg, and Harlan. If we do away with fossil 
fuels, Congress will have turned its back on these struggling 
families in frontline communities.
    These men and women have trusted Congress to protect their 
livelihood over the years. We should not betray their trust.
    So, Ms. Aguilar, where am I wrong on this?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. Sir, 
unfortunately, I can't speak to the specifics of the situation. 
But, again, I would like to emphasize that EPA will use the 
resources that Congress appropriates, also emphasizing training 
and support to all communities, including the fence line 
communities that you described.
    We also, as noted by GAO--the emphasis on progress--the 
Office of Environmental Justice just today released our fiscal 
year 2019 progress report, which denotes a number of 
accomplishments around the country, including our regional and 
headquarters offices.
    Again, also, I appreciate the question, and happy to follow 
up with the Congressional Affairs, sir.
    Mr. McKinley. Please do. I would like to understand the 
moral obligations that we have.
    So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this up.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the State of 
Delaware, Representative Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes for 
questions, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to the panel.
    Today's hearing is important, and I am glad that we are 
looking at the policy solutions we need to prioritize and 
protect frontline communities that are hit worst by impacts 
from both pollution and climate change.
    For too long, communities of color have been 
disproportionately burdened by the impacts of toxic air 
pollution, dirty water, and toxic chemical pollution. Now many 
of these same communities are on the frontlines for climate 
fuel disasters, like hurricanes. For instance, the Southbridge 
community in Delaware, which has a strong and rich history and 
strong and resilient people, and is also predominantly African-
American and predominantly low-income, is plagued by chronic 
flooding.
    This has only gotten worse and will continue to worsen as 
climate change does. Southbridge has 48 brownfield sites within 
a 1-mile radius. Let that sink in--48 brownfield sites. That is 
more than half of all of the brownfields in Delaware located in 
one community. In addition to the 48 brownfield sites, 
Southbridge also has 2 high-risk chemical facilities, 13 large 
pollution-emitting industrial facilities, and 4 Superfund 
sites. This is in one community. This is real.
    In the words of the Southbridge Civic Association president 
Marie Reed, ``We have had enough.'' Unfortunately, these 
pollution burdens in Southbridge are not an anomaly. They 
happen in other places in Delaware, like Millsboro and 
Ellendale, and also across our country, and I think we all 
believe it is unacceptable.
    So we must look at solutions that protect frontline 
communities from the cumulative impacts of pollution and from 
the impacts of climate change. I have some questions that I 
will probably submit for the record, but as the conversation 
was going on, there was a statement that both Ms. Dorka and Ms. 
Wooden-Aguilar made that the EPA can do more. We said it to Mr. 
Tonko. We said it also to Mr. Pallone. And I am curious if you 
could give us specifics on what more could be done. That is my 
first question.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you for that, Congresswoman. I 
believe that we can do more proactively. For example, our work 
with States to make sure that they have their own 
nondiscrimination programs in place as the regulations require 
is critical. In fact, we have worked with the State of Delaware 
to provide technical assistance on how to build those programs. 
That gives the communities an opportunity to bring those issues 
to the State at the State level or even the local levels, if 
they are recipients of our funding.
    It gives them an opportunity to deal with them directly and 
build those lines of communications directly with the 
communities and the States and the local governments. And 
certainly we want to increase our----
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Is that a resource issue?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Not necessarily. We had to clear up 
our overaged----
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. The backlog.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka [continuing]. Cases.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Right.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Now that we are better poised to move 
forward, we do have plans to work with a number of offices. We 
worked, for example, with all of the States in our Region I 
office, including Delaware, and that was extremely beneficial. 
We brought----
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I only have 1 minute left.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. All of the States together----
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. So what I will do is ask if you guys 
can--if you ladies could please share that information with our 
office.
    I also wanted to ask a really quick question. If we have 
environmental justice communities--and we know that this 
changes, you know, as climate change worsens--but I am curious 
about the gap in what you can provide in terms of these small--
the grants that you talked about.
    It is great that we have grants, but I am curious, what is 
the gap? What is the delta? How many--if we really--are we 
doing 1 percent? Ten percent? Twenty percent?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you for that question. I will be 
brief. As I said in my opening testimony, we have community-
driven solutions, which is an approach where we bring 
environmental justice communities, our resources, and local 
communities together to talk about identifying problems but 
actually putting real----
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. But do we have--I have got 10 seconds 
left. Do we have a gap? I am assuming we are not covering every 
community that really needs these grants. How many--what is the 
gap? Give me an idea. Do you think it is 10 percent aren't 
being covered? Fifty percent?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Unfortunately, I see we are out of 
time, and I would be happy to follow up with our Congressional 
Affairs Office.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I am sure he would give you a second 
to answer that question.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Specifically, I don't have the 
statistic right in front of me, but, again, I would be happy to 
follow up with our Congressional Affairs. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes, 
please.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
our witnesses for being with us today, as I think it is very 
important for Congress to better understand what the Federal 
Government and the EPA in particular already do as it relates 
to environmental justice through things like grant 
opportunities, which we just heard a lot about, or by helping 
to coordinate cross-agency responses to environmental justice 
priorities to best address local community concerns.
    So, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar and Ms. Dorka, as I understand EPA 
conducts environmental justice screenings to ensure that 
enforcement personnel working on a case are aware of potential 
environmental justice issues, and to ensure that EPA is looking 
for opportunities to address any issues of concern.
    How has the screening process been working? Ms. Dorka, why 
don't you go first.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you, sir. I believe you are 
referring to EJSCREEN?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. And I think that my colleague, Ms. 
Wooden-Aguilar, would be a much better person to answer.
    Mr. Johnson. Go ahead.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. As you 
stated, EPA has developed a screening tool entitled EJSCREEN, 
and it is publicly available. The EPA uses this screen 
throughout its programs and activities. Most notably, in our 
fiscal year 2019 progress report, we talk about how this screen 
is used throughout the agency. Specifically, in our Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance, in fiscal year 2019, over 800 
opportunities, they used EJSCREEN.
    I would also say that working in our regions, they also 
utilize this tool, and most notably in fiscal year 2019 we put 
on a training where we trained States, environmental State 
agencies, and local governments on how to use that tool.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Continuing with you, Ms. 
Wooden-Aguilar, talk about your community revitalization work 
and the progress you have made with programs that support that 
work.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. So our 
Office of Community Revitalization is within the Office of 
Policy, and it actually is--it partners very closely with our 
Office of Environmental Justice. Specifically--and I will say 
that on our website we have most notably put a number of tools 
wherein we go to communities, work side by side with them, on 
identifying problems, solutions, and things that work for them.
    Again, community-driven solutions, which is a part of the 
approach that we use, is very vital because it ensures that 
communities are not only putting together solutions that EPA 
brings to the table, but also solutions they come up with, 
wherein they are able to not only, again, identify issues but 
also put together real solutions.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Ms. Dorka, do you have anything to add to 
that?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. No, sir. I think my colleague covered 
it. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. What more do you see that the 
EPA can do in this regard?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. Along the 
lines of community-driven solutions, what more could be done is 
for us to continue to engage communities on the fence line. We 
work here in DC, but also we have environmental justice 
coordinators throughout the Federal EPA space, in our regions 
as well, and so they are on the front lines working extremely 
hard hand in hand with communities and our other partners.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. What are the information tools and 
resources the EPA uses to comply with environmental justice 
concerns? Ms. Dorka?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. With respect to civil rights 
compliance, we have mounted a campaign of transparency and 
communication to make sure that we are reaching more 
communities and make sure that they are empowered with the 
knowledge that they need in order to file complaints with us, 
if they so want to.
    But, also, the communication with States and local agencies 
as well, so that they can come to us for technical assistance. 
We routinely put all of our documents on our website, including 
all of our findings, our letters, and our agreements, our 
informal resolution agreements that we reach with all of our 
recipients.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back 10 
seconds.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative Ruiz, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of 
the witnesses here today to discuss the importance of 
environmental justice in the climate change conversation.
    In the face of our current climate crisis, it is urgent and 
imperative to analyze how climate change is hitting underserved 
and rural communities the hardest. Low-income households, rural 
communities, and Tribal nations disproportionately bear the 
burden of pollution-producing and health-affecting 
environmental hazards.
    This proportionate burden has been perpetrated by both 
intentional government decisions to host these hazardous sites 
in frontline communities and those communities' inadequate 
access to the decision-making process.
    These vulnerable communities generally lack connections to 
decision makers on zoning boards or city councils or permitting 
processes and are unable to adequately protect their interests, 
and often cannot afford the technical and legal expertise to 
fight a violation, resulting in these communities being 
targeted.
    In short, there is little to no public participation from 
these communities. Mr. Gomez, in your testimony, you discussed 
the report conducted by the GAO as assessing the Agency's 
efforts to address environmental justice as members of the 
Interagency Environmental Justice Working Group. Would you say 
public participation and proper consultation with low-income 
rural and Tribal communities lead to better environmental 
justice outcomes?
    Mr. Gomez. Yes, that is key.
    Mr. Ruiz. And we said ``proper consultation.'' What does 
``meaningful consultation'' mean?
    Mr. Gomez. Well, and perhaps EPA can also add to this, but 
it really means to engage with the community in a way that has 
real impact, right, in terms of bringing the issues and the 
concerns, hearing them out, and doing something about it.
    Mr. Ruiz. Well, Mr. Gomez, I think you were involved in the 
GAO study I called for----
    Mr. Gomez. Yes.
    Mr. Ruiz [continuing]. Regarding meaningful consultation 
within tribes.
    Mr. Gomez. Right.
    Mr. Ruiz. And oftentimes, agencies have a check-the-box 
kind of mentality. You put out a notice, you hold one meeting, 
you check the box, and they say, ``We have consulted with local 
communities.'' So what does--really does ``meaningful 
consultation'' mean?
    Mr. Gomez. Well, I think it means that you take into 
account what the concerns are, and then you bring it back and 
you take some action to deal with those concerns.
    Mr. Ruiz. OK. And have the agencies, as members of the 
Interagency Environmental Justice Working Group, done enough to 
make sure they ensure public participation and proper 
consultation with underserved communities?
    Mr. Gomez. So, you know, what we were looking at is, again, 
looking at--so there is a lot of discussion, for example, in 
the progress reports that we reviewed, where they have held 
meetings or the environmental justice representatives for the 
various agencies meet with the public and the communities, and 
then bring back that information to the working group. But I 
believe that that is something that could be enhanced, could be 
better as well.
    Mr. Ruiz. Yes. According to St. Regis Mohawk, they were not 
included, and now you have polluted water in the area. 
According to the Navajo, they have uranium still being exposed 
to their population, and those sites haven't necessarily been 
cleaned up yet.
    So I think that the accountability measures and the 
community benefits up front, during, and afterwards need to be 
involved in the entire process, not just at the beginning. Is 
the BIA a part of that working group?
    Mr. Gomez. Well, the Department of the Interior is part of 
the working group.
    Mr. Ruiz. Does the BIA specifically have somebody in that 
working group?
    Mr. Gomez. We can check for you and get----
    Mr. Ruiz. Please do, because there has been multiple fires 
on a property under the BIA's jurisdiction in my district, and 
the latest one was a very bad fire, the one that I mentioned in 
my opening remarks. When I called EPA about these fires, they 
had no clue that these fires were happening, and therefore I 
wanted to make sure that the BIA is part of this working group 
for environmental justice issues, so they can collaborate more 
with the EPA and other agencies.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, the EPA's own website acknowledges that 
low-income neighborhoods, Tribal populations, and community of 
colors that live in urban areas may be disproportionately 
exposed to air pollution, which is a barrier to economic 
opportunity and security. Do you think the Federal Government 
is doing enough to protect these disproportionate and 
vulnerable communities?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. As stated 
in my testimony, EPA is committed to not only the Executive 
order but to continue to work in these communities.
    Mr. Ruiz. OK. So you are reading me the mission statement. 
Can you tell me, from your heart, what more can the EPA do?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. So I have 
been involved in this topic for over 15 years. I have been on 
the ground side by side with communities. And so as far as the 
agency's commitment, I can speak to it fully.
    Mr. Ruiz. Now, in terms of from your extraordinary 
experience and insight wisdom, what more can the EPA do?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So specifically to the ``more,'' the 
``more'' is really ensuring that we are on the ground--and we 
are--on the ground with these communities side by side. And we 
continue to do that through our EJ small grants by providing 
them resources, so they have tools to not only engage in this 
conversation but come up with solutions.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Representative Duncan, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if you will 
indulge me for just a moment, I am going to try to make a 
hypothetical example here.
    For the record, I love Mello Yello, so this is not 
disparaging against Mello Yello at all. But because this can 
was sitting here, I am using it as a prop.
    Mello Yello is currently legal to manufacture in this 
country and legal to sell this product in this country. So 
let's just say that Mello Yello manufactures their product, 
puts it in a can like this, and sells it to a customer. That 
customer either drinks the product or maybe it sits on a shelf 
for a while and they eventually realize that maybe it is old, 
or whatever. They throw it out. They throw the empty can out, 
or they throw the product out in the can itself, into a 
landfill, either a landfill that they manage themselves for 
disposal, a legal landfill at the time, or a legal landfill 
somewhere else.
    EPA then determines that 10, 15, 20 years down the road, 
that the product in the can that Mello Yello was manufacturing 
is hazardous, and they prohibit Mello Yello from selling that 
anymore. And they realize that, you know, if that Mello Yello 
spilled into the earth in a landfill it may be hazardous to the 
environment.
    So, as they start working on brownfield sites--and I 
appreciate the work EPA does on brownfields, and I love the 
redevelopment of brownfields and tax credits and other things 
that we have been able to work on, State level, Federal level. 
But let's say during the cleanup of that brownfield site they 
discover the Mello Yello can--full or empty, it doesn't matter.
    The product that was in that can was legally manufactured 
and legally sold from Mello Yello to the customer who paid for 
that product. The manufacturer doesn't determine what that 
customer does with a product. Back then, the product was legal. 
But now EPA discovers it in a brownfield site. They discover a 
can--or the full or empty can--and it is now an environmental 
hazard.
    It is now something that EPA is requiring to be cleaned up 
in that landfill, and they are requiring it to be cleaned up. 
My question is, who is responsible for the cost of cleaning up 
that brownfield site for a product that was legally 
manufactured, legally sold, legally purchased, legally used, 
disposed of by the buyer, the end user--who is responsible for 
the cleanup cost?
    And I will ask Ms. Wooden-Aguilar.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question and fact 
pattern, sir. Unfortunately, I am not particularly familiar 
with the facts that you are describing in the brownfield space. 
But I would be happy to follow up on that question and request 
with our Congressional Affairs.
    Mr. Duncan. Let me just ask you your personal opinion.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. We will thoroughly respond to that.
    Mr. Duncan. Can you see any reason why the manufacturer, 
who is operating under Federal law, who is operating to legally 
manufacture something, distribute that, sold it to the end 
user, has no control over what that end user does with the 
product, how he disposes of it, and at the time that it was 
sold, it was a legal transaction. It wasn't a hazardous 
substance at the time.
    But 20, 30 years down the road, we discover that maybe that 
was a hazardous substance. Can you see any reason why that 
manufacturer should be held responsible for the cleanup of the 
disposal site where the end user, the customer they sold that 
product to, disposed of that can?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Again, thank you for that question. 
Again, EPA would be happy to follow up with our Office of 
Congressional Affairs on that specific fact pattern.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes. I appreciate it.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka, do you care to comment on that, or is 
your answer going to be the same?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you, sir. No, I am not an expert 
in land and emergency management, but I am sure that there are 
experts back in EPA who would be glad to respond.
    Mr. Duncan. So here is the thing. The reason I use this 
example is there have been brownfield sites where a legally 
manufactured and sold product was disposed of by the end user 
many hundreds of miles away from the manufacturing site. Not 
talking about where the product was manufactured, and it was 
discovered to be hazardous, where the end user disposed of a 
legally purchased, legally sold product, and probably disposed 
of it in the wrong way, but because the manufacturer is a 
wealthy company, EPA has fined those companies, the original 
manufacturer, 10, 20, 30 years later, for the disposal of 
something they had no control over.
    I can't tell you where to throw this or where you are going 
to throw this Pepsi can, or Mello Yello can, but ultimately I 
don't think Mello Yello ought to be responsible, if we 
determine Mello Yello is hazardous, for the disposal of that 
can. The guy who threw it away, the end user who disposed of it 
improperly, right.
    But this has happened, where EPA has gone after the most 
wealthiest stud in the whole transaction to pay for something, 
and that is alarming to me.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New York, the vice chair of the 
full Committee on Energy and Commerce, Representative Clarke, 
for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank our 
ranking member for convening this very important hearing on the 
challenges facing our most vulnerable communities as we strive 
to tackle the climate crisis and mitigate its impacts.
    Thank you as well to our witnesses for being here today to 
testify.
    Earlier this year, our committee laid down a bold vision of 
achieving a 100 percent clean economy by the year 2050 in order 
to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and to avoid the 
worst effects of the climate crisis. Since then, we have heard 
from experts across our economy, from the energy sector to the 
building sector, to the transportation and industrial sectors.
    However, we must be very clear: No effort to tackle climate 
change will be sufficient or complete unless we also take bold 
and intentional steps to ensure that our efforts are equitable 
and that we protect and invest in our communities, who have 
historically faced and continue to face a disproportionate 
burden of the impacts from climate change and toxic 
environmental pollution.
    This means that we must also strive to build resilience in 
low-income communities and communities of color, so that our 
homes and critical infrastructure are prepared for the next 
superstorm, wildfire, flood, or heatwave strikes.
    I applaud this committee's efforts to tackle the climate 
crisis, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
ensure that our vulnerable communities are put at the center of 
each of our solutions.
    Mr. Gomez, I would like to ask you about the recent GAO 
report to Congress on environmental justice. In 2011, 16 
Federal agencies signed a memorandum of understanding to renew 
their commitments to participate in an Interagency 
Environmental Justice Working Group, which first began after 
the President's 1994 environmental justice Executive order.
    In 2012, 14 of these agencies submitted progress reports on 
the implementation of their environmental justice initiatives 
and goals. By 2017, you report that this number had dropped all 
the way down to only four agencies. This is very concerning to 
me.
    Just as concerning to me is the fact that, according to 
your report, four Federal agencies that are members of the 
working group--the Department of Defense, the Department of 
Education, Small Business Administration, and Veterans 
Affairs--did not participate in any working group meetings 
during fiscal year 2018, and two agencies did not have a 
designated working group representative as of March 2019.
    One of the GAO's recommendations from the report is that 
EPA, as chair of the Environmental Justice Working Group, 
should update the 2011 memorandum of understanding and renew 
each Federal agency's commitment to participate in this 
collaborative effort.
    So, Mr. Gomez, could you further elaborate on this 
recommendation and why it would be helpful to the working group 
going forward?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. Thank you for that question. And, as you 
noted, participation has been mixed. And so, in order to have a 
really functioning working group, we recommended that, really, 
the memorandum of understanding, that the agencies need to 
recommit to it, right?
    They need to recommit that they are going to participate, 
that they are going to issue progress reports every year, they 
are going to update their strategic plans, and so that is 
something that we have recommended, and that is something that 
is needed to really improve the effort.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Gomez.
    So, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, does EPA agree with this 
recommendation?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So EPA, as the chair of the Interagency 
Working Group, and also----
    Ms. Clarke. Do you agree? Yes or no.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Well, we have reviewed----
    Ms. Clarke. With the recommendation.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. We have reviewed----
    Ms. Clarke. Do you agree with the recommendation? Yes or 
no.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. We agree with the spirit of the 
recommendation.
    Ms. Clarke. OK. Very well. Will you commit to upgrading the 
2011 memorandum of understanding and to renewing the important 
effort?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. We agree with----
    Ms. Clarke. Will you commit to it?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. We agree----
    Ms. Clarke. Will you commit to it?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. We are committed----
    Ms. Clarke. Will you commit to it?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. We are committed----
    Ms. Clarke. Will you commit to it?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar [continuing]. To the Executive order.
    Ms. Clarke. Will you--that is not my question.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Also----
    Ms. Clarke. My question to you, Ms. Aguilar, is----
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
    Ms. Clarke [continuing]. Would you commit to it? Yes or no.
    Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Tonko. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Shimkus. I would ask my colleague--I think she is 
trying to answer your question, and I would ask that----
    Ms. Clarke. I have a very explicit and very important 
question.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. But I----
    Ms. Clarke. But I have watched her filibuster all----
    Mr. Shimkus. I would ask----
    Ms. Clarke [continuing]. Afternoon, or morning.
    Mr. Shimkus. No, you have not.
    Ms. Clarke. I have too.
    Mr. Shimkus. You have not.
    Ms. Clarke. Listen, I am not here to argue with you, 
Ranking Member.
    Mr. Shimkus. I am trying to----
    Ms. Clarke. I have a specific question.
    Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Establish some respect----
    Ms. Clarke. And I am asking for a specific answer.
    Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. For our----
    Ms. Clarke. I do have respect.
    Mr. Shimkus [continuing]. Career service employees at the 
EPA.
    Ms. Clarke. I do have respect for her.
    Mr. Shimkus. Can we just ask that----
    Ms. Clarke. I am asking that she has respect for the 
question that I have asked, which is a very specific question, 
which is whether you will commit or not.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. EPA commits to----
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. EPA commits to not only the Executive 
order, but we, in the spirit of the Executive order, commit to 
not only putting together a strategic plan, but also to adhere 
to the spirit of the GAO report. EPA is not in disagreement 
with GAO.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well. We appreciate that.
    And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, 
Representative Soto, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back just in time.
    Looking at the record here over the last 2 years, the Paris 
Climate Accord withdrawn, Clean Power Plan terminated, oil fuel 
efficiency standards rolled back, pesticide enforcement 
reduced, in fact, your former boss, former EPA Administrator 
Carol Browner, pointed out more than 80 rollbacks of public 
health and environmental protections, and enforcement of 
environmental laws is down over 80 percent under President 
Trump's watch.
    I know that can be disheartening, because I know you all 
joined the EPA to actually protect the environment. We are here 
about environmental justice today. So it would be helpful to 
know, when we are talking about rising seas and extreme weather 
because of human-caused climate change, are communities of 
color and poorer communities more affected by rising seas, by 
extreme weather?
    We will start with you, Ms. Sotolongo.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you for that question. I will 
say that our office is doing more and better work now than it 
has ever done.
    Mr. Soto. I understand. But the question is: Are 
communities of color more affected by climate change, rising 
seas, and extreme weather?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. To the extent that they are, rising 
seas, climate, weather, they are all important issues. I 
personally think they are important. EPA thinks they are 
important and is addressing them.
    Mr. Soto. I am not asking whether or not--I am just saying, 
are they more affected by it?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. I can say that within my role and my 
mission, that those issues are important, but they don't 
dictate--as far as our office, they don't dictate whether we 
have a complaint that we accept, that we investigate, and that 
we resolve.
    Mr. Soto. Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, are communities of color and 
poorer communities more affected by climate change, such as 
rising seas and extreme weather?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. I would 
like to say I take in EPA, and our Office of Environmental 
Justice, takes climate change and the effects on vulnerable 
populations very seriously. Most notably, in fiscal year 2019 
our Office of Environmental Justice prioritized projects 
focused on disaster resiliency and emergency response.
    Mr. Soto. I understand. But the question simply isn't--this 
is the second time I have asked it, and I haven't gotten an 
answer. Are they more affected by climate change than other 
communities? I mean, it is a simple question. I think you all 
have an opinion on it.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. I am here 
as an EPA employee, and I can speak to how important climate 
change is to the Office of Environmental Justice. We work very 
closely in DC and in our regions----
    Mr. Soto. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar [continuing]. On these very important 
topics.
    Mr. Soto. Mr. Gomez, are communities of color and poorer 
communities generally more affected by climate change than 
other communities?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. So that is really good question. And to 
the extent that, you know, communities around coastal areas, 
for example, are areas where you are going to see lots of 
inland flooding, yes, that would be the case, right? But I 
think that is a good question to ask.
    GAO hasn't looked at that issue in particular, but that is 
a good question.
    Mr. Soto. What about rollback of fuel efficiency standards 
in a place like Los Angeles that is experiencing air quality 
issues? Does that affect communities of color more clearly than 
other communities?
    Mr. Gomez. If that is where they are concentrated, yes, 
that would be the case.
    Mr. Soto. And what about rollbacks in pesticide 
enforcement, would that disproportionately affect communities 
of color or poorer communities generally?
    Mr. Gomez. So, again, that is something that--that is, 
again, a good question, and I think we would want to do some 
analysis to see if that is the case. So----
    Mr. Soto. Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, I will give you another 
opportunity. So fuel efficiency standards being rolled back, 
would that disproportionately affect communities of color in 
places like Los Angeles, or poorer communities in general?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. Without 
further analysis, I can't really speak to the 
disproportionality, but I would be happy to follow up with our 
Office of Congressional Affairs on that question.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you. You know, we asked a lot of basic 
questions today and got basically no answers, unfortunately, 
which is sad, because this is something that is going to affect 
a lot of our communities.
    I know in your hearts you probably care a lot more about it 
than you are allowed to say here today, and that is abundantly 
clear. It is hard to fight for environmental justice with a few 
grants when our most fundamental environmental protections are 
being dismantled.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, 
Representative Long, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, I will start with you. 
Environmental justice issues are not restricted to densely 
populated urban areas, as we know. Can you talk about EPA's 
work out in rural America, which I represent a lot of?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. EPA works 
not only in dense populations, but also in rural America. 
Often, in our regions, where there are these communities, we 
work very closely with them. We also provide environmental 
justice small grants to many of these.
    Also, our EJ IWG, our Interagency Working Group, also has a 
committee on this topic, and we work across the Federal 
Government.
    Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
    And same for you, Ms. Sotolongo Dorka.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Long. I got my name worked in there, see, in the 
middle. We have got to be related somehow. You have got 
``Long'' in the middle of your name, so----
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. And he has got ``Soto.''
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Long. But same question for you. Environmental justice 
issues are not restricted, as we know, to densely populated 
urban areas. Can you talk a little bit about EPA's work out in 
rural America?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you, sir. We are trying, through 
our proactive efforts in the civil rights--external civil 
rights arena, to reach all States, not just cities, big cities, 
but also rural America.
    We hope to initiate a partnership with our Region 7 office, 
in fact, which includes the State of Missouri, so that we can 
reach out to the State of Missouri and find out how it is 
carrying out its civil rights program, its own internal 
nondiscrimination program, to make sure that it is available to 
everyone.
    Mr. Long. OK. And I will stay with you for this next 
question. As I understand, this administration has issued 
millions of dollars in grants through its environmental justice 
initiative. Can you provide some examples where these grants 
are helping to address local environmental and public health 
issues?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you for that question. 
Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the granting process. I 
would be more than happy to take that back. I am sure that 
there are many areas--I think my colleague, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, 
has spoken about some of those grants.
    Mr. Long. OK. Thank you. And that was my next move. I was 
going to move over to you, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, if you could 
answer the same question. As I understand, the administration 
has issued millions of dollars in grants through its 
environmental justice initiatives. And can you provide some 
examples where these grants are helping to address local 
environmental and public health issues?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. As I 
shared, on our website we have all the listing of all of the 
small grant grantees, including urban areas and rural, 
indigenous communities and such. Specifically, our regions work 
very closely, and I would be happy to follow up with our 
Congressional Affairs to be able to provide you that specific 
listing.
    Mr. Long. OK. If you can--if both of you can get with my 
staff on that.
    And then, how have opportunity zones created under the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 helped advance environmental justice?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. As I 
stated in my opening testimony, opportunity zones is a tool 
that EJ communities could use to leverage private investment in 
economically distressed communities bringing economic 
revitalization. And we will continue to provide technical 
assistance and meaningful engagement to economically distressed 
communities, including those in opportunity zones, sir.
    Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Dorka, you say that the EPA under this 
administration is devoting more attention to environmental 
justice and taking these issues into consideration more 
frequently in decision making. And can you give me some 
examples?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you, sir, for that question. I 
would defer to my colleague to talk about environmental justice 
specifically. As I said before, within the civil rights arena, 
we are clearing our backlog. We have done that, and we are 
acting more proactively with States and communities, and our 
office is doing more than it has ever done before.
    Mr. Long. OK. And, Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, has the EPA helped 
alleviate environmental justice considerations across the 
Federal Government, or is your work confined just to the EPA?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. The Office of Environmental Justice is 
not just confined to EPA. As the chair of the Interagency 
Working Group, we work across the Federal family. As the GAO 
noted in their most recent report, we work not only within EPA 
but with our other Federal partners. And I would like to say, 
if I have a couple of seconds, for the record that we are 
evaluating all of the recommendations that the GAO has 
provided, and we intend to provide a formal response to the GAO 
by December 13.
    Mr. Long. Thank you. And thank you all for being here 
today, because I know you are both long-term public servants, 
or all three, and appreciate that. And I don't--I am out of 
time, but if you could maybe get with my staff on the Superfund 
sites and what EPA is doing to remediate those, I would 
appreciate it.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Representative 
Dingell, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
the witnesses for being here. Environmental justice communities 
are not generally facing pollution from a single toxin or a 
single source of pollution. These communities are overburdened 
from multiple contaminated sites, multiple industrial sites, 
multiple sources of air toxics. They are facing contamination 
in their air, their soil, and their water.
    My district is a very complicated district. It has got Ann 
Arbor, which is one side. I won't say anything more. But down 
river, and in part of Dearborn, I split a ZIP code with Rashida 
Tlaib, and we have the most polluted ZIP code in the country. 
It has the Rouge steel plant, it has AK Steel, the Marathon oil 
plant, the car plant, et cetera.
    And I actually was doing a town hall meeting with them and 
got an asthma attack in the middle of the meeting. They finally 
yelled at me and told me to go out and get my inhaler. And 
there is a school located right next to the AK Steel plant.
    So looking at the risks one chemical or one source at a 
time doesn't capture their reality. So, for the EPA witnesses, 
how does EPA assess the cumulative impacts of pollution on 
these frontline communities?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So cumulative impacts is very important 
to the work that we do. Our office, we work across the Federal 
sector on this, specifically under our IWG, but we also work 
within the agency on this topic. As far as tools are concerned, 
in our most recent progress report, ma'am, we have a number of 
different accomplishments on this topic, and I would be happy 
to provide you with more information on that, following up with 
our Congressional Affairs.
    Mrs. Dingell. I would like to see that, because I think 
they don't feel it. But what role do they play in decisions on 
which environmental violations will get the enforcement action? 
That is sort of a mystery when you see one of the--I won't name 
them right now, but what do you decide to enforce and what do 
you decide not to enforce? How does this play?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Well, the Office of Environmental 
Justice works very closely with our enforcement office. And I 
would be happy to provide an answer to that and work with our 
colleagues to----
    Mrs. Dingell. I would like one, because we have got some 
that are not being--and how does EPA ensure they play a role in 
permitting decisions?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So our Office of Environmental Justice 
works very closely with the entire Agency, specifically those 
involved in permit writing. We actually have, most notably in 
our fiscal year 2019 progress report, highlighted certain areas 
where the Office of Environmental Justice has worked with our 
program offices. And, again, I would be happy to follow up with 
our Congressional Affairs.
    Mrs. Dingell. I would appreciate that.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Yes.
    Mrs. Dingell. And I am sorry, I have only got 5 minutes, 
because I really do care. I want to now go to Director Gomez. 
The IPCC has told the world we need to rapidly transition to a 
100 percent net zero economy by 2050. We are going to be 
introducing legislation tomorrow addressing that.
    But has any agency included in its strategic plan 
considerations for how they will develop and implement and 
enforce environmental laws, regulations, and policies intended 
to provide environmental justice protections during the 
transition to a net zero emissions economy?
    Mr. Gomez. I think that, specifically, I don't think we 
have seen it. What we did see in some of the strategic plans, 
which were developed in 2016 or earlier, they did make a 
commitment to address impacts from climate change to 
environmental justice communities. And so--but the question is, 
you know, is that still happening? You know, we----
    Mrs. Dingell. We have to make sure it does. So I want to 
work with you because that is--what we are terribly worried 
about is who is going to pay the price on this as we go 
forward. It is critical. We all know we need to do it. But, 
again, we can't--I see it in my district all the time where the 
regulations, the costs are falling on those that can least 
afford it. So I thank all of you for the work you are doing, 
but we have a crisis in this country.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from the State of Washington, 
Representative Rodgers, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you to the panel for being 
here today, and a special thank you to the representatives from 
EPA for your work in helping communities across the country.
    Spokane, Washington, has had an incredible amount of 
success and economic growth over the past decade due in small 
part to the recognition of certain areas. There is a tremendous 
amount of opportunity for economic growth and revitalization.
    This past year we received a Brownfields Assessment 
Coalition grant from EPA to assess the university district in 
Spokane, and a brownfield cleanup grant for several sites 
across the city.
    I would like to start by asking Ms. Wooden-Aguilar and Ms. 
Dorka to generally highlight some of the work EPA is doing 
through the Brownfields Program, and how the program is 
increasing economic opportunity in cities like Spokane.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Thank you for that question. Our 
brownfields grants, as noted in my opening testimony, assist 
communities through leveraging resources to have a better 
impact on the ground. And what that means is that communities 
are able to use the resources to not only transform their 
community but to convene and identify issues and identify 
solutions that make sense for themselves.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Can you give me a sense as to how we are 
doing as far as the need, and then the work that we are doing 
to actually address that need?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So as far as the need is concerned, you 
know, in fiscal year 2019, we provided over $60 million to a 
number of communities around brownfields. And so our Office of 
Brownfields works very closely with communities on this topic, 
and I would be happy to follow up with our Congressional 
Affairs to give you the specifics around that.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Ms. Dorka?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. With respect to brownfields, I think 
my colleague covered that pretty well. As far as the civil 
rights issues that may be arising in those communities, we are 
in fact working with the State of Washington Department of the 
Environment and Energy to help them develop their own 
nondiscrimination policies and program so that folks in 
Washington who feel that they have been discriminated have a 
local entity, a State entity, to go to and don't absolutely 
need to come to us all the time. They can work through with 
their local entities.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Gomez, GAO has some criticism for Federal environmental 
justice efforts. But has there been progress? And what examples 
is EPA providing that show the right way of doing things?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. So, you know, progress is measured by 
whether or not they have good metrics, right, performance 
measures. I think EPA is one of the few agencies that has 
performance measures in their strategic plan. One of those 
measures, for example, I mentioned earlier was a reduction in 
exposure to particulate matter.
    But the other agencies don't have them, and that is one of 
the recommendations that we have made, is that, look, you need 
to have metrics in place so that you can show year after year 
how you are doing, and also with the progress that you are 
making, not only agency by agency but also Federal effort-wide.
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you.
    Would you like----
    Mr. Shimkus. Would you give me some time?
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes. I would be happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Shimkus. I thank my colleague. I just wanted to drill 
down on one of the issues that one of my colleagues talked 
about, which was CAFE standards. And so the question would be 
to actually all three of you: If you are middle class, lower 
class, poor, however you want to define it, is it easier for 
you to buy a used car or a new car?
    I only have a minute, so what do you think?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. My personal opinion?
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Having been low income, from a poor 
family, I guess it is all in what you can afford.
    Mr. Shimkus. Well, is it easier to buy a new car or a new 
car?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. A new car or a new car?
    Mr. Shimkus. A new car or a used car, which is easier? OK. 
Let me--if there is a car that is $30,000 or $45,000, or a 
$10,000 car, if you are poor, which is easier to purchase?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Obviously, you have to consider, you 
know, the money----
    Mr. Shimkus. Why can't--why is this so difficult?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. We would probably have bought the car 
that we could afford.
    Mr. Shimkus. And if you are poor, it is probably the less 
expensive car.
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. If that is the one we could afford, 
that is----
    Mr. Shimkus. Are you all lawyers or something? I mean, 
sheesh.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, I am going to run out of 
my time. The point is this: When you talk about environmental 
justice and air standards, newer cars are more expensive, but 
they have cleaner air. So if you force someone to buy a car 
they can't afford, they buy a used car which has poor air 
quality.
    It is not that difficult. We are not trying to trick you. 
We are asking for your help. That is a rebuttal to CAFE, high-
expense cars that drive the poor from their ability to purchase 
cars.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman with the car has yielded back.
    So we now recognize the gentleman from California, 
Representative McNerney, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair and ranking member. I 
thank the witnesses. It can't be an easy morning for you.
    Mr. Gomez, why is it important that all eight agencies, 
including the ones that may not be thought of as having 
environmental connection, update their environmental justice 
strategic plans? Why is that important?
    Mr. Gomez. Sure. Well, the strategic plan really is a 
foundation, right, that lays out what is it that the Agency is 
going to do, what goals are they going to have in place, how 
they are going to achieve it, but then also what metrics do 
they have in place to assess their progress.
    So it is really foundational for them to figure out, you 
know, with respect to their mission, what is it that they need 
to do in the environmental justice space?
    Mr. McNerney. You like that metric idea, don't you?
    Mr. Gomez. You know, it is how we measure progress, right? 
It is sort of like we see that and we see either you are making 
progress or you are not. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge. 
We don't know.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, could you explain why the GAO continues 
to believe that the EPA should update the 2011 MOU to address 
the matter of participation by signatories who have not 
participated?
    Mr. Gomez. Well, that is exactly the point. So in the 
original memorandum of understanding, the Agency is committed 
to participate and to involve and to even chair some of the 
committees, and they haven't done that.
    So that is why we have called out that they need to redo 
that, so they can get the participation back in place, or if 
agencies decide that they don't have a role for whatever 
reason, they can come out of it. Currently, there is no way to 
come out of it. Just don't show up.
    Mr. McNerney. So there is no penalty for them.
    Mr. Gomez. There is no penalty for them. It is an MOU, so--
--
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Ms. Dorka, can you describe what the EPA will be doing to 
develop guidance on methods that other agencies could use to 
assess progress toward their environmental goals as was 
suggested by the EPA?
    Ms. Sotolongo Dorka. Thank you, sir. I will let my 
colleague speak about specific goals related to environmental 
justice. I can tell you that my office does participate with 
the Department of Justice in one of the committees of the IWG, 
the Title VI committee, and we often share with our sister 
agencies all of our own performance measures from a civil 
rights perspective and the progress that we have been making.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, OK. Ms. Wooden-Aguilar, in his 
testimony, Mr. Gomez noted that the EPA has consistently said 
that the limiting factor in addressing the Executive order on 
environmental justice has been the will of leadership across 
Federal Government to make clear, measurable commitments to 
those priorities that ensure adequate resources.
    If this is the case, can you please explain to the 
committee how the Trump administration's decision to 
consistently target the Office of Environmental Justice for 
budget cuts ensures adequate resources for the office and its 
goals?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So on the topic of strategic planning, 
as stated in my opening statement, strategic planning is very 
important to the agency, and we are currently reviewing all of 
the GAO recommendations. But I will say that EPA will embark on 
the process of developing that strategic plan with performance 
measures and goals, and we aim to complete that by fiscal year 
2020.
    Mr. McNerney. But that has nothing to do with past actions 
to cut budgets from these agencies.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So the Office of Environmental Justice, 
with the resources provided to us by Congress, will continue to 
not only promote environmental justice within EPA but also 
across the Federal family.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, can you share with the committee what 
role the Office of Environmental Justice played in the EPA's 
decision to rollback such efforts as the Clean Power Plan, the 
clean car standards, and the rule regarding a reduction of 
methane emissions?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So the EPA's Office of Environmental 
Justice, again, works very closely with our programs and 
activities. The Office of Policy has an action development 
process, which is a rulemaking process. Environmental justice 
Executive order along with the other executive orders are 
considered in that process.
    Specifically, to your question, I would be happy to follow 
up with our Congressional Affairs.
    Mr. McNerney. I think I have heard that answer before this 
morning.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McNerney. One thing I did not see in your testimony was 
a strong explanation of what actions the EPA is taking to 
ensure that the robust and meaningful involvement standard for 
equitable environmental justice is being met. Can you describe 
how the EPA ensures that this standard is being met, 
specifically with regard to rulemaking?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So the Office of Policy, again, has an 
action development process where the Executive Order 12898 is 
incorporated and considered into all rulemakings. Specifically, 
if you would like to see how that incorporation occurs, we have 
a rulemaking docket that describes how environmental justice 
was considered. It is on our website. I would be happy to 
provide it to you.
    Mr. McNerney. All right. I am sort of--I am not satisfied 
with the answers, but I have run out of time.
    Mr. Tonko. But we thank you for your questions, and the 
gentleman yields back.
    And, finally, we----
    Mr. Carter. Finally?
    Mr. Tonko. On this first panel.
    Mr. Shimkus. We hope.
    Mr. Tonko. We recognize the gentleman from Georgia, 
Representative Carter, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to have taken into the record two articles 
from the EPA about ethylene oxide and its use in sterilization 
of medical devices.
    Mr. Tonko. Without objection----
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko [continuing]. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Carter. Thank all of you for being here today. We 
appreciate your participation. Ms. Aguilar, I am going to start 
with you and ask you, as I understand it, the responsibilities 
of environmental justice coordination and oversight fall onto 
the EPA. And there was a memo that was issued in February of 
2018, EPA's Environmental Justice and Community Revitalization 
Priorities. And in that memo, EPA laid out its core mission of 
goals in regards to this topic. And one of the things that was 
mentioned in there was the achievable outcomes for underserved 
and overburdened communities with exposure to lead and access 
to safe drinking and harmful air pollutants.
    This committee has worked, and specifically this 
subcommittee, has worked diligently in the past on clean water, 
particularly--and with lead in our water, and particularly the 
situation up in Michigan that we worked on in this 
subcommittee.
    And I just wanted to ask you: How important is the 
Brownfields Program and the Safe Drinking Water Program to your 
core mission here?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So those two programs are very 
important collaborators and partners with the Office of 
Environmental Justice. As noted in the Fiscal Year 2019 
progress report, it talks about how environmental justice is 
integrated into not only our Office of Water but also the 
office that leads the brownfields activities.
    Mr. Carter. Great. Thank you for that. And the EPA 
mentioned cooperative federalism with State and local 
authorities, and this is extremely important to me, having 
served in the past in local elected office, and I wanted to ask 
you, I believe this is the crux of the issue here and of what 
we are trying to do is that localized effect that I think, 
along with private support, and that is very important as well, 
that drives real changes.
    Can you tell me how the EPA is interfacing with States and 
local communities on a regular basis?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So EPA continues to partner with 
States. Environmental States, environmental agencies are key 
partners in a lot of what EPA does. Specifically, with our 
Office of Environmental Justice, we often work with our State 
environmental agencies, sometimes side by side, on these very 
difficult and localized topics.
     But specifically, EJ grants, again, we authorize them and 
they are for the specific purpose of bringing communities 
together so that these issues are not only just identified by 
the Agency but also identified by the local community and 
partners around, including State, Tribal, private, and such are 
coming together to work through these very difficult issues.
    Mr. Carter. So I think you may have just answered my next 
question, and that is your involvement with the private sector. 
Do you have a direct relationship, a direct working 
relationship with the private sector?
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So, speaking for EPA, EPA works with a 
number of partners, including private sector. In the Office of 
Policy, we also have a program, Smart Sectors, where we bring 
private and a number of associations together on these very 
difficult topics.
    The Office of Environmental Justice actually works with 
that. And, again, I would be happy to follow up and provide you 
more information on what our Smart Sectors Program does and how 
we work with them.
    Mr. Carter. Well, I would appreciate that. How important do 
you think that is to the long-term sustainability of this type 
of program? That is, working with the private sector.
    Ms. Wooden-Aguilar. So working with the private sector, and 
working with communities, and working with States is vitally 
important. Everyone's voice is important. In order for us to 
really tackle these very difficult issues, we need to hear from 
everyone. And so EPA is committed to not only hearing from 
communities and States, but also from private industry.
    Mr. Carter. I am going to hold you to that, OK? And I will 
tell you why. We have got some brownfield sites in my district 
that have--I mean, 20, 25 years. We need help. Local 
communities are trying to reach out. I have delivered a letter 
personally to the EPA Director asking about a specific site in 
my district. You know, why 20, 25 years? I mean, some of this 
is prime property that needs to be developed and would help 
these communities so much.
    So I appreciate your work, appreciate all of you being here 
today. This is extremely important. Don't think for one moment 
that we don't take this seriously, because we all do.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    And, again, I want to--as we conclude this first panel, I 
want to, again, thank our witnesses for joining us today. And 
perhaps as you are answering various questions that you have 
committed to send over the way of the subcommittee, perhaps you 
can highlight for us how you interact with the enforcement wing 
of EPA to make certain that environmental justice is 
approached. I don't know if we have tied that together.
    So, and at this time, I, again, thank you, and ask that 
staff prepare the witness table, so that we may begin our 
second panel shortly.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Tonko. We welcome this very distinguished group to our 
hearing today for our second panel. And all stakeholders, so it 
is important to hear from you, and thank you again for your 
participation and the efforts that you have made to come here. 
Most respected and appreciated.
    So let me now introduce our second panel. Beginning to my 
far left, we have Ms. Ruth Santiago, attorney with Comite 
Dialogo Ambiental de Salinas. Forgive me if that was not done 
as perfectly as it should be.
    Ms. Sharon Lavigne, founder and president of Rise St. 
James.
    Next we have Ms. Elise Herring of Duplin County, North 
Carolina, resident and organizer of the North Carolina 
Environmental Justice Network.
    We then have Ms. Melissa Cribbins, commissioner of Coos 
County Board of Commissioners, on behalf of the National 
Association of Counties.
    And then Mr. Patrick Ford, executive director of the 
Lebanon/Marion County Industrial Foundation.
    And then, finally, to our far right, Mr. Mustafa Santiago 
Ali, vice president of environmental justice, climate, and 
community revitalization with the National Advocacy Center at 
the National Wildlife Federation.
    Thank you, one and all, for being here. We want to thank 
our witnesses again for joining us today. We look forward to 
your testimony.
    And at this time, the Chair will recognize Ms. Ruth 
Santiago for an opening statement of 5 minutes.
    And, again, you know of the light--the lights that will 
signal the time. You start with green, you will have a yellow 
at 1 minute, and red when you are finally done.
    So, again, Ms. Santiago, you are available now for 5 
minutes of opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF RUTH SANTIAGO, ATTORNEY, COMITE DIALOGO AMBIENTAL 
  DE SALINAS; SHARON LAVIGNE, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, RISE ST. 
 JAMES; ELSIE HERRING, DUPLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, RESIDENT 
 AND ORGANIZER, NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK; 
     MELISSA CRIBBINS, COMMISSIONER, COOS COUNTY BOARD OF 
    COMMISSIONERS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
 COUNTIES; PATRICK B. FORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEBANON/MARION 
 COUNTY INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION; AND MUSTAFA SANTIAGO ALI, VICE 
            PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

                   STATEMENT OF RUTH SANTIAGO

    Ms. Santiago. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, all of 
the members of the subcommittee and the committee and the 
public here present. So we really appreciate the opportunity to 
provide comments to the subcommittee.
    And I was thinking this morning that this is likely the 
first time that communities and groups from Guayama, Puerto 
Rico--from the Guayama region in Puerto Rico--are able to 
provide testimony to Congress, probably not just to the 
subcommittee but also to the entire Congress, and I imagine 
that might be the case for the other groups here.
    And so I think it is important to say a little bit about 
and provide a little context about the Guayama region in 
southeastern Puerto Rico. So most of you probably know that 
Puerto Rico is a Territory of the United States, and it is in 
the Caribbean, and it is basically--geographically, it is like 
a mountainous island surrounded by a narrow coastal plain.
    And so Guayama is in the southeastern part of that coastal 
plain but has mountainous areas as well, has sort of rainforest 
on one side and subtropical dry forest on the other and, you 
know, coastal resources, offshore islands. There is actually a 
reserve designed by NOAA for its unique resources, like the 
South Coast Aquifer that provides water to most of the 
population.
    And so it is rich in natural resources, but also has I 
guess been described as a beautiful place with serious 
problems, because Guayama, the region, has been--is sort of a 
sacrifice zone for the rest of Puerto Rico and maybe beyond in 
terms of energy generation especially.
    And so the region is a site of the two most contaminating 
power plants in Puerto Rico. Actually, three plants because the 
Aguirre Power Complex is the largest energy facility in Puerto 
Rico, and then there is also the AES coal-burning power plant 
in Guayama.
    And I will focus--although both power plants, both 
facilities, create immense problems for the mostly Afro-
descendant communities that populated the area during the sugar 
cane monoculture economy. But what happened when, you know, 
sugar cane was phased out, the industrialization process in 
Puerto Rico required, you know, the establishment of these, or 
there was a decision made to establish these big power plants 
in the Guayama region.
    And the power plants have multiple impacts. It certainly 
overburdens these environmental justice communities in the 
Guayama region and in the various municipalities within the 
region. And some of the impacts related to the power plants 
include not only just the air emissions, you know, being number 
one and two in toxic emissions in Puerto Rico, and also the 
impacts to water supplies.
    As I mentioned, the South Coast aquifer, it is the sole 
source of potable water for tens of thousands of people, and it 
is being impacted, both in terms of extractions from the South 
Coast aquifer and contamination of the South Coast aquifer.
    And so the marine environment, as I mentioned, it is a 
coastal area. In addition to the mountainous areas, it is a 
coastal area, and the power plants also affect the coastal 
resources.
    The AES coal-burning power plant in particular--we had a 
very curious situation in Puerto Rico, because this AEA coal 
plant, coal-burning power plant, started operations in November 
2002. Very strange that at the dawn of the 21st century we get 
a coal-burning power plant, which is one of the oldest forms to 
generate electricity.
    And this plant, AES, has absolutely no disposal facility 
for its coal ash waste. And they generate about 300,000 tons 
per year of this material. And so I am sure everyone knows that 
the coal ash waste--and I have a sample here--AES claims that 
it is an aggregate construction material. But as you can see, 
it easily turns into fugitive dust. And I will submit that for 
the committee.
    And so this generates a lot of fugitive dust when it is in 
its right form, which is how AES accumulates this material on 
its plant site, because it has no disposal facility. And so 
this is a mixture or a combination of heavy metals that studies 
have shown trigger the Superfund investigation criteria by 20 
times in terms of what--the components of this coal ash waste, 
the heavy metals.
    In my written statement, you will find the list of what we 
found, and this is thanks to the coal combustion residuals rule 
that was passed in 2015 that we acquired this information about 
how this coal ash waste that is on the site of the coal-burning 
power plant is leeching these heavy metals into the water, into 
the part of the South Coast aquifer. So, you know, we can 
mention selenium, lithium, molybdenum, arsenic, all of these 
things that everyone knows.
    Mr. Tonko. Ms. Santiago, we are going to have to have you 
wrap up, please.
    Ms. Santiago. Sure. So, and our request, specific request, 
is that we encourage EPA to stop these rollbacks of the coal 
combustion residuals rule and perform a Superfund investigation 
in the Guayama region.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Santiago follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Lavigne, is that right?
    Ms. Lavigne. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Tonko. Is it correct? Ms. Lavigne, you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes, please.

                  STATEMENT OF SHARON LAVIGNE

    Ms. Lavigne. OK. Thank you. It is an honor and a privilege 
to be here with you today. My name is Sharon Lavigne. I am a 
daughter of a civil rights movement leader, and I live in St. 
James, Louisiana.
    When I was growing up in St. James, it was a vibrant place, 
and I lived the American Dream as a little girl. But today we 
are living through a nightmare of industrial pollution and 
disease. In the spring of 2018, our Governor, John Bel Edwards, 
announced a $9.4 billion industrial factory proposed by Formosa 
Plastics, wanting to locate in St. James Parish a mile from the 
local public school and 2 miles away from my home.
    While researching the project's history, we found out that 
in 2014 the Parish Council changed the land use plan for the 
5th District where I live from residential to residential 
future industrial. Our residential neighborhood was suddenly 
deemed future industrial without our knowledge or consent.
    The 5th District of St. James is already surrounded by 
industry, and it is making us sick. Maybe you have seen the 
press coverage of Cancer Alley where I live, which we now call 
Death Alley, because the health threats we face take so many 
forms.
    I have autoimmune hepatitis and aluminum in my body. My 
grandchildren have breathing problems, and when they are 
outside playing for a period of time they develop rashes.
    One day as I sat on my porch, I prayed. I talked to God and 
I said, ``Do you want me to give up my land that you gave me?''
    He said, ``No.''
    ``Do you want me to give up my home, the home that you gave 
me?''
    He said, ``No.''
    ``Do you want me--what do you want me to do?'' I asked God.
    He said, ``I want you to fight.''
    That was the beginning of my fight to stop Formosa 
Plastics. I felt that we were already bombarded by enough 
industry in the 5th District. Why should another chemical plant 
come to get here?
    I found out that the Formosa plant isn't just one plant. 
There are at least 14 plants within the planned facility. 
Fourteen. I didn't know how to fight, didn't know what to do. I 
had never, ever stood up to industry in my life.
    My first meeting I held was at my home on October 20, 2018. 
That was when we decided to come up with a name for our group. 
We decided on Rise St. James. After that, we planned our first 
march on November 3, 2018. That march brought a lot of 
attention to the people of the 5th District. That was my first 
time speaking out in public.
    We have already had one victory. We worked to block a $1.5 
billion petrochemical plant called Wanhua from coming to St. 
James Parish and being built within a mile of our homes. We 
appealed the St. James Parish Planning Commission's approval of 
Wanhua's land use permit, and we won. Wanhua withdrew its 
proposal and ended up pulling out.
    We need your help. Rise St. James is asking for a 
moratorium on the oil, gas, and petrochemical industry in our 
parish. These new plants poison our communities and deepen the 
plastic crisis. We want them to stop expanding. We want to 
protect our health, our homes, our land, and our future.
    People in St. James need help from our elected officials. 
Our people are sick, and they are dying.
    These emissions include ethylene oxide, a toxic chemical 
that causes cancer, like non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, leukemia, and 
breast cancer. Formosa's plant would be the third largest 
emitter of ethylene oxide in the country.
    I retired earlier from teaching on October 3, 2019. I 
wanted to work a year or two more, but God put this fight into 
me to stop Formosa and any other chemical plant that comes to 
St. James. I am here because of the calling of God. I want to 
stop any and every industry that is coming to harm the health 
of the people in my community. God wouldn't have put this fight 
in me if he didn't have a plan.
    I invite all of you to come to St. James and see it for 
yourselves. The civil rights struggle that my parents fought 
for continues today, and we fight for our survival against 
industrial polluters.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lavigne follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Lavigne, for your testimony.
    Next we recognize Ms. Elise Herring, please, for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF ELSIE HERRING

    Ms. Herring. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
thank you for allowing me to be here today to testify.
    My name is Elsie Herring.
    Mr. Tonko. I am sorry.
    Ms. Herring. It is quite all right. I get called Elise 
often.
    Mr. Shimkus. Ma'am, can you just pull the mic a little bit 
closer? We have got a colleague who is very old to the right 
who has a hard time hearing.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tonko. We will strike that from the record.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tonko. And my apologies, Elsie, so----
    Ms. Herring. It is quite all right.
    Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Ms. Herring, we will start you 
again for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Herring. OK. I am here today to discuss the conditions 
that we live with when they spray animal waste on us, the 
pollution from the hog and poultry industries that contaminates 
our water and our air, the dangers from living on the frontline 
of climate change, and racism and the structure power that 
keeps us from being at the table when decisions are being made 
about our communities, our health, our homes, and our future.
    I live in Duplin County in North Carolina. I live on land 
that has been in my family for over 100 years. A hog operation 
moved in next door in 1986, and in the mid-1990s they started 
spraying animal waste on us approximately 8 to 12 feet from my 
mom's house. When the spray becomes airborne, it blows over on 
us just like it is raining. The odor is horrific.
    We have to deal with all of the insects, gnats, mosquitoes, 
flies, buzzards, rats, snakes, all outgrowths from this 
industry. When we go outside, we can't stay outside for very 
long, because the odor is so offensive that we start gagging, 
we start coughing, our heart rate increases, we become 
depressed, we have a sense of hopelessness and helplessness.
    The industry does nothing to address our concerns. There 
are also gases that are being released into our air: methane 
gas, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, along with other gases. Many of 
these gases are deadly, but this is what we have to deal with 
in these impacted communities.
    My mother lived on this land for 99 years. Because they 
were spraying animal waste on us, I complained to the proper 
agencies from the local levels up to the Federal level, because 
this was an injustice being done to us, and we were here on 
this land first.
    And because I complained, I received a letter from a lawyer 
that represented the industry and the county of Duplin telling 
me that if I continued my ``groundless'' complaints that I 
could be made to serve time in jail or I could be made to pay 
the hog farmer back money that he was losing because of my 
``groundless'' complaints.
    It was a Saturday. We were sitting on the porch like we 
used to do all the time before this industry came in next door. 
The hog farmer's son came into my mother's house. He opened the 
storm door and a screen door and he came in and he grabbed onto 
my mother's chair. She was 98 years old at this time. And he 
shook her around. He cursed at her and he told her he could do 
anything to me that he wanted to and get away with it.
    The hog farmer came over with a stick threatening to hit 
me. His son came over twice with a gun. They called me that B 
word more than one time. And my mother's house is 400 feet from 
the road, main road. He would yell up in there and call me that 
name. That is how they treated me and my family. They are still 
intimidating us 'til today and harassing us.
    Just about 2 weeks ago, this black car passed by in front 
of my house, stopped, a gentleman got out and started taking 
photos of me, all because I have taken a stand because of this 
injustice that we are dealing with, living on land that is my 
birthright.
    My mother died in 2001. She was born in 1902. She lived in 
the house that my father and my uncle built. She left out of 
her father's house into her house where she reared the 15 of 
us. My mother didn't deserve to be treated the way she was 
treated, and I don't think I do either, nor any of the other 
impacted community people.
    So I am here today to ask you if you would take the lead in 
addressing this situation by coming up with a comprehensive way 
of disposing of this animal waste, because these pigs do not 
have to be raised the way they are being raised. It is easy to 
dig a hole in the ground and just spray that waste into the 
environment when it is destroying the very fabric of our lives.
    We can coexist. The industry, in the year 2000, entered 
into an agreement with the State that the sprayfield and lagoon 
system was antiquated. A panel was established to identify 
systems that would address that issue. Five systems were 
identified. The industry said they are too costly.
    One of the primary people that worked on these systems said 
that it is not costly, so it just appears to me that the 
industry just wants to continue to do business as usual. So if 
we could--if you could find it in your heart to place a 
national moratorium on these CAFOs, it would make life so much 
better for people living in southeastern North Carolina in the 
flood plain area.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Herring follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Herring. Thank you so much.
    Next we will move to Commissioner Melissa Cribbins. You 
have 5 minutes, please, to share your testimony.

                 STATEMENT OF MELISSA CRIBBINS

    Ms. Cribbins. Thank you. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name 
is Melissa Cribbins, and I am an elected county commissioner 
from Coos County, Oregon.
    I am honored to testify today on behalf of the National 
Association of Counties to discuss ways that local communities 
can help foster a clean economy.
    I would like to give a quick thank you to Congressman 
Walden from my home State of Oregon, and also thank many of 
you, including Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, for your 
leadership in such programs as PILT and SRS, which matter so 
much to the counties.
    Counties nationwide have a vested interest in promoting 
environmental resiliency and ensuring that our communities are 
well-positioned for the future.
    Today I want to offer the county perspective for your 
consideration as you assess challenges around building a clean 
economy. First, counties play a key role in promoting a healthy 
and sustainable environment for our residents. As both 
regulators and as regulated entities, we are responsible for 
protecting local air, water, and land resources.
    This includes maintaining water systems to provide clean 
drinking water, revitalizing contaminated waste sites to ensure 
safe and equitable neighborhoods, providing waste and recycling 
services to minimize pollution, and implementing land use and 
energy policies to promote sustainable communities, along with 
many other duties.
    My county is rural and has long relied on a few key 
industries for economic stability, including forest products, 
tourism, fishing, and agriculture, which all require a clean 
and sustainable environment.
    Charged with protecting the health and well-being of our 
communities, we issue rules and regulations to safeguard 
valuable natural resources and protect the safety of our 
citizens. An example of how my county is prioritizing 
environmental sustainability while promoting economic stability 
is our current effort to convert an abandoned school building 
contaminated with asbestos, lead, and illegal solid waste, as a 
result of a fire incident.
    Once the site is restored, it will be converted to 
affordable housing units with Head Start programs included. As 
another example, we are partnering with a local community to 
improve the environmental conditions of a nearby lake. The 
community's economy is entirely dependent on tourism generated 
from the lake, but it has recently been inundated with harmful 
algal blooms, dramatically decreasing tourism.
    The county quickly identified point sources contributing to 
the water quality issues and has worked with the community 
towards decreasing the nutrient loading in the lake. It is our 
job, as county officials, to assess the needs of our local 
community and make sound decisions that will help future 
generations.
    Second, due to limited local resources and mounting Federal 
and State mandates, counties are challenged to make both long-
term strategic budget investments and to work towards 
environmental sustainability. In recent years, the Federal 
Government and States have increasingly relied on counties to 
shoulder implementation costs for more than just environmental 
programs.
    This has caused an imbalance at the local level, since we 
are limited in our ability to generate local revenue. Forty-
five States, including my own, limit the counties' ability to 
collect sales and/or property taxes. In Oregon, we face several 
key challenges that limit us from meeting our environment and 
clean energy goals.
    Coos County collects about $5 million per year in property 
taxes, which represents our primary source of unrestricted 
income to pay for county programs and services. We used to 
receive nearly $12 million per year in timber revenue from the 
O&C timberlands before the closure of the Federal forests from 
the listing of the spotted owl.
    We now receive about $1\1/2\ million per year in secure 
rural schools funding to make up for this loss, a 90 percent 
reduction in funding. We have made efforts to transition our 
economy, but tourism jobs do not provide the living wages that 
our families need. In my county alone, 58 percent of 
schoolchildren qualify for free or reduced lunch.
    We know that the best cure for poverty is jobs, but we 
frequently find ourselves hamstrung by regulations in our 
attempts to encourage economic development.
    In addition, counties are responsible for preparing and 
responding to natural and manmade disasters, which have 
increased in frequency, severity, and cost. Whether to help 
address the growing number of mandates or the rise in 
disasters, the public needs a strong partnership between the 
Federal, State, and local governments to ensure that costs are 
shared fairly and services are delivered expeditiously to our 
citizens.
    Finally, consistent and meaningful engagement with 
intergovernmental partners is vital in the development and 
implementation of effective energy and environmental policies, 
programs, and regulations. Counties are the level of government 
closest to the people and often have important socioeconomic, 
geographic, and scientific data that can be useful to our 
Federal partners.
    Meaningful consultation early on in the legislative and 
rulemaking process will reduce the risk of unfunded mandates 
and produce pragmatic and successful strategies for 
implementing Federal policies.
    For intergovernmental consultation to be truly meaningful, 
Congress and Federal agencies must engage State and local 
governments as equal partners who actively participate in the 
planning, development, and implementation of Federal rules.
    In conclusion, we stand ready to work with Congress and 
Federal agencies to develop policies that can both improve our 
environment, sustain our economy, and ensure the resiliency of 
our local communities.
    I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Cribbins follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you for your contribution here.
    Mr. Patrick Ford, you will now have 5 minutes to present, 
please.

                  STATEMENT OF PATRICK B. FORD

    Mr. Ford. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member 
Shimkus, and committee members for the work you are doing that 
is creating an environment that allows an organization like the 
one I manage to compete nationally and internationally to 
retain and attract jobs.
    On behalf of my board of directors, thank you.
    My testimony is based on my experience in communities with 
a rich industrial heritage. In this particular case, my 
testimony is about my experience in the northern panhandle of 
West Virginia.
    The northern panhandle, like most communities with an 
industrial heritage, faces challenges to creating sites to 
attract industry to this region, have high concentrations of 
sensitive populations, have higher-than-average incidences of 
diseases and poor health, and lack a robust portfolio of career 
opportunities.
    Ten years ago, the northern panhandle was being passed over 
by industry prospects looking for sites. The panhandle was also 
being overlooked by international companies looking for a 
platform to enter into the United States.
    Lastly, the panhandle was generally avoided because of the 
optics of the abandoned factory sites that are generally 
associated with environmental challenges that business and 
industry don't want to hear about, nor have the patience to 
deal with, and their bankers and lawyers would prefer to avoid, 
many times insisting to avoid.
    We always found ourselves competing with the communities 
that were flat, clean, and green, even though they were far 
removed from critical infrastructure and essential 
transportation corridors. The sites in the northern panhandle, 
comprised of abandoned industrial sites, are immediately 
adjacent to the necessary infrastructure and transportation 
linkages, which are typically on abandoned, idled, and 
environmentally challenged properties and for the most part are 
in areas with an available workforce that have high 
concentrations of sensitive populations.
    Many communities that have a rich industrial heritage have 
finite resources and simply don't have the funds, nor technical 
staff, to assess, acquire, clean up, and ready sites for 
economic development. Many communities do not even have any 
resources to conduct basic due diligence, perform environmental 
assessments, clean up hazardous and petroleum-based substances, 
and obtain construction financing.
    Consequently, the only available funding for assessments 
and cleanups for most rural communities with an industrial 
heritage is EPA money. The U.S. EPA brownfields funding has 
been the only funding source available at the local, State, and 
Federal level for projects that we worked on in West Virginia.
    These EPA funds were solely responsible for the cleanup and 
protection of public health of the abandoned steel mills, 
pottery and glass factories, and gas stations, to name a few. 
If it were not for the EPA money on the front end to do deals, 
the EDA, the Economic Development Administration, on the back 
end to close deals, and the Small Business Administration to 
sustain these businesses, we would not have been able to assess 
cleanup, redevelop brownfields that attract investments, make 
our communities cleaner, provides us a healthier environment, 
and offers new employment opportunities to all residents, 
including those in frontline communities.
    Simply put, meaningful employment is good medicine for 
people and the environment. Because of these programs that we 
are talking about today, we were able to cut our unemployment 
rate over the course of 10 years from 13.7 percent to 6 
percent. We were able to use the Federal money that we received 
to attract over a half a billion dollars in private investment 
at 140 million in payroll and create 3,200 jobs. Show me any 
program in the Federal Government that can leverage that type 
of investment.
    And also, we found that working with our Congressperson, 
Mr. McKinley, and U.S. EPA, we were able to turn on a dime to 
get programs to work for us, and we can't thank them enough.
    I provided in my written testimony statistics that 
highlight how the repurposing of idled contaminated properties 
has enabled economic growth and community revitalization while 
cleaning up the environment. These brownfield properties would 
have remained stagnant if it were not for the EPA and the EDA 
programs.
    We would not have been able to take advantage of a prime 
opportunity to bolster our economy, improve the environmental 
health, attract private investment, preserve and create jobs, 
help our sensitive populations, and contribute to increasing 
our labor participation rate and revitalizing our community.
    Members of Congress, Congressman McKinley, thank you for 
listening, thank you for championing brownfields, and thank you 
for equipping nonprofit organizations like ours to leverage 
your programs, to attract private investment, and improve the 
quality of life of our communities.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
   
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, sir.
    And, finally, we move to Mr. Mustafa Santiago Ali for 5 
minutes, please.

               STATEMENT OF MUSTAFA SANTIAGO ALI

    Mr. Ali. Sure. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and 
members of the committee, thank you for doing this. When I was 
a student, I came to Capitol Hill when John Lewis actually was 
one of the first to begin to talk about these issues. It is 
great to see folks on both sides of the aisle coming together 
and thinking critically about the changes that we need to make, 
and also how we revitalize our most vulnerable communities.
    I would be remiss if I did not also share that I was raised 
in a family of Baptists and Pentecostal ministers, and also 
raised in a family of coal miners and factory workers. So I get 
all of the various challenges that are going on. But the 
reality is that we have got 100,000 people in our country who 
are dying disproportionately from air pollution.
    We have got 25 million folks in our country who are 
suffering from asthma, and 7 million children, and it is 
primarily African-American and Latinx children who are the ones 
who are going to the emergency rooms and the ones who are 
losing their lives.
    We have also got 2.4 million miles of pipeline that is 
running through our community that is carrying fossil fuels. 
Sometimes there are breaches in that, but it is going through 
all kinds of folks' lands. It is going through indigenous land. 
It is going through farmers' lands. In many instances, it is 
ending up on the Gulf Coast, not always, but in communities, in 
communities like the Manchester community in Houston, Texas, or 
in Port Arthur, Texas.
    When we have these impacts that are happening from air 
pollution, we need to actually ground it in the reality of what 
everyday folks are dealing with, because sometimes you have 
folks that come here and they have these conversations that are 
theoretical.
    So when you go to, as the representative from Michigan 
talked about the 48217 in the southwest side of Detroit, you 
literally have children who look out their windows, and they 
don't see trees. They see the piping. They see the facilities. 
And they have incredible rates of asthma that is going on, many 
of them often being rushed to the emergency rooms.
    When you go to the Manchester community in Houston, Texas, 
a hardworking Latino community, and you go to this community, 
and if you have an old car--and there is nothing wrong with 
having an old car. I heard a conversation before about old 
cars. We will call them a classic car.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Ali. And you roll the windows down when you get to that 
community, you feel like you are breathing in gasoline fumes 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. And what you will 
find is you have Cesar Chavez High School there.
    For those of you who are in the audience who have ever been 
an athlete, imagine if you are running around the track, there 
is an iconic photo that is there with the flaring that is 
happening in the background. And we expect our children to 
learn and our country. Environmental justice touches 
transportation and housing, public health. It touches job 
creation, so many different issues that is a part of this 
paradigm that I am glad you all are thinking critically about.
    And what we find is that those 40 million people who are 
living in our country who are living in poverty, 28 million 
people who are uninsured--and I know you are thinking 
critically about making sure that everyone has healthcare 
coverage. What do you do when you are a part of that 100,000 
folks who are losing their lives, or people who are actually 
getting sick?
    So that is the tie that is going on in that space, and that 
is why it doesn't make any sense. If we have any 
administration--and I have worked for both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. When I took my oath, I took it 
extremely seriously. If you are rolling back the clean power 
plant, if you are dismantling and trying to deconstruct mercury 
laws that we have in place, or what is going on with the clean 
car rule, we know--and the studies that have come out have said 
more people are going to lose their lives, so why would we do 
that?
    That just doesn't make what I have, which is country boy 
sense. You just don't put additional people's lives in danger. 
And we know over the last couple of years the numbers have went 
up, so it is no longer 100,000 people. The studies have said 
there is now 10,000 additional people who are losing their 
lives every year.
    Why would we do that when you have folks that are dealing 
with certified animal feeding operations? You heard the hog 
farms, the turkey farms, the chicken farms. You also have the 
impacts that are happening in people's lives, but you also have 
the impacts that are happening to the water quality. We have 
these outbreaks of algae and Pfiesteria and all these other 
types of things that are going on. And if you are a person who 
is just getting by, you are trying to put food on the table, 
and now you have these additional impacts that are happening, 
that just doesn't make sense.
    The great thing is--and I can go into the statistics that 
exist, and all of the water and air issues that there are. The 
great thing is that we can actually make real change happen. We 
can help communities in Appalachia. We can help communities on 
the Gulf Coast. We can help communities in the Rust Belt to be 
able to be thriving once again. I often talk about moving our 
most vulnerable communities from surviving to thriving. We can 
actually do that, and it is going to take your help to make 
that happen.
    I look forward to talking about the examples of how people 
are actually doing that, coming together, business and industry 
and others, and I will answer your questions about--and 
unpacking some of the things that they talked about on the EPA 
side.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ali follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Ali, thank you very much.
    And thank you, again, to all of our panelists for 
tremendous information.
    And it is obvious that the pollution burden and negative 
health consequences from our traditional energy systems have 
disproportionately fallen on frontline communities. So, Mr. 
Ali, as our committee thinks through our Nation's transition to 
a cleaner, more sustainable economy, how can the Federal 
Government ensure that the opportunities and benefits from this 
transition reach all communities?
    Mr. Ali. Well, one is that we should make some--there is a 
full environmental justice analysis on all of our policies, 
programs, and activities, especially the major ones. You have 
to eventually evolve into that process, but let's get that part 
straight.
    We also have some huge opportunities, and I appreciated the 
representative from West Virginia sharing about those 
hardworking men and women in the coal industry over the years. 
With advanced manufacturing, I know those folks. I know they 
are great with their minds and their hands. We can get many 
advanced manufacturing opportunities into our rural area and 
into our more urban settings.
    If you look at some of the work that is currently going on, 
if you look at--and I wish the representative from New York was 
still around. If you look at the folks who are in Harlem, in WE 
ACT, there is an organization there, or UPROSE in Brooklyn. 
They are actually now putting together an opportunity around 
advanced manufacturing, around solar, and a number of other 
things, where they will be bringing real jobs to their people 
who are right there.
    And I will stop there because I see you have another 
question.
    Mr. Tonko. Sure. Does everyone agree, should additional 
consideration be given to ensure that rural deindustrialized 
and low-income communities are given the resources and 
opportunities they need to make sure no community is left 
behind?
    Ms. Santiago. Absolutely. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. Everyone?
    Ms. Lavigne. Yes.
    Ms. Herring. Yes.
    Mr. Ford. Yes.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. And we heard from the first panel that EPA's 
EJ--Environmental Justice Small Grant Program can help build 
capacity of local groups. Does anyone have any thoughts on the 
existing EPA program and what more can be done to help expand 
the possibilities of community-driven solutions to 
environmental protection and restoration? Anyone?
    Ms. Santiago. So, in the context of Puerto Rico, one of the 
things that we find is difficult in terms of accessing these 
funds--and I have personally tried to do this--is the language 
barrier, the fact that many of these documents are not 
available in Spanish, and we, as U.S. citizens and part of 
Puerto Rico--sorry, of the U.S.--we do have cultural diversity, 
and that is part of the reality. And many of these programs are 
not accessible in that sense.
    Mr. Tonko. Does the EPA, Ms. Santiago, do enough to enable 
public comment and, therefore, advocacy for resources?
    Ms. Santiago. No. Unfortunately not. And we saw a very 
recent example with the proposed rollback, phase 2 rollback, of 
the coal combustion residuals rule, where it was ruled that 
impacted primarily Puerto Rico, right, because it had to do 
with the coal ash piles, the mountains of coal ash, the biggest 
one being in Puerto Rico, yet EPA failed to translate even one 
piece of paper on what was being proposed to Spanish.
    Secondly, we requested a hearing. We had great assistance 
from EarthJustice in trying to achieve some measure of 
participation in the process, such as a hearing on the island. 
That did not happen. We are very concerned with the way that 
EPA is not including communities in Puerto Rico in these 
processes.
    Mr. Tonko. Ms. Lavigne, anything that you would comment in 
terms of the EPA Small Grant Program?
    Ms. Lavigne. In Louisiana----
    Mr. Tonko. Or general outreach in that regard?
    Ms. Lavigne. In St. James?
    Mr. Tonko. By EPA and----
    Ms. Lavigne. Well, the EPA in Louisiana, we have a hard 
time getting to meet with them. But I do have a phone number of 
the director of the EPA in Louisiana, and he is supposed to 
call me and meet with me to discuss what is going on in St. 
James.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Ms. Herring, the outreach from EPA and 
interaction with them in small grants?
    Ms. Herring. The EPA has given small grants to an 
organization in Warsaw, North Carolina, in Duplin County, Rural 
Empowerment Association for Community Help. Studies were done 
on the water and the air quality, and the results were 
published by Dr. Steve Wayne, Dr. Chris Haney, and there was 
also a study done by Duke--an assistant professor at Duke 
University, all confirming that there is negative impacts on 
people living near these facilities.
    Now, the EPA, in 2017, did issue a letter, five-page 
letter, saying that the State of North Carolina was not doing 
enough to protect the citizens in southeastern North Carolina. 
We invited them to come down in 2016, which they did, and that 
was the result of their findings. And I still that--even though 
they wrote a letter saying that the State of North Carolina was 
not doing enough, DEQ is still not holding the industry 
accountable for their behavior. They themselves admitted that 
they know this is an antiquated system, so why not do something 
about it?
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you.
    I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus, Representative Shimkus, for 5 
minutes, please.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Chairman.
    And first to Commissioner Cribbins, I was touched by your 
testimony. I represent southern Illinois. During the 
Depression, they established and created a new national forest 
there, promising that by taking the land they would then, 
through tourism, create more jobs than they took away by taking 
the land. Can you speak to that in respect to your experience 
with the spotted owl?
    Ms. Cribbins. Absolutely. I graduated from high school in 
Coos County in 1990, the year after the spotted owl was listed. 
And I can tell you that when I graduated from high school, 
there were people that were getting a job immediately out of 
high school and raising a family on it.
    Tourism wage jobs do not pay the same that forestry and 
manufacturing jobs do. So what we find is a lot of families, 
even with two parents working, are still falling farther and 
farther into poverty. Their children are still qualifying for 
free and reduced lunch, and people are not enjoying the 
American Dream the way they thought they would be able to.
    Mr. Shimkus. The thing I talk about in this committee quite 
a bit--I mean, there is the yin and yang of manufacturing and 
business, and that is the tax base for local school districts 
and counties. Can you speak to that as a commissioner?
    Ms. Cribbins. Absolutely. What we find is that, you know, 
we have a lot of Federal lands in our county that we are unable 
to tax, and we don't have the business and industry that allows 
us to grow our tax base in the way that we would like to, and, 
of course, that is a trickle-down effect because then the tax 
base of the residents also doesn't grow.
    Mr. Shimkus. So the payment in lieu of taxes, which we 
discussed here in Washington numerous times, did not nearly 
meet the needs to fund the local government services that you 
need to do as a commissioner?
    Ms. Cribbins. No. We appreciated the contribution, but, 
unfortunately, it does not.
    Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Mr. Ford. You know, last year we 
passed--the title of the bill is the Brownfields Enhancement, 
Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act, in a 
bipartisan manner through this committee to help communities. 
Can you talk about--before I mention that, the EPA just 
announced the Environmental Justice Progress Report in 2019, 
and they mentioned that because of this and other things, 149 
communities, 151 brownfield grants totaling $64.6 million will 
be distributed.
    For an economic development guy, talk me through why this 
was a good thing that we should be proud that we did and how it 
can help distressed communities.
    Mr. Ford. I will tell you, what was really cool about that 
program--and this is the first time I truly appreciated how 
government worked. Our congressmen approached us and said, 
``What can we do to give you the tools that you need to better 
do your job?''
    Well, prior to that act, nonprofit organizations could not 
access that money, only government agencies. And we were just a 
small nonprofit, two and a half, three people, shared staff, 
little resources. Not only did that bill give us access to 
millions of dollars, what you also did, the problem that we 
had, is that it cost, on average, $100,000 an acre to clean 
that property--$100,000 an acre.
    So if you have got a 5-acre site, and your cap is only 
$200,000 a grant, you are going to have to take multiple years 
to clean that property, which is what we did. So what you all 
did is that you increased that to $500,000, which cut the time 
it took us to clean up properties in half.
    So, again, and that happened in the course of 3 months, and 
so what I appreciated----
    Mr. Shimkus. And then tell me what happens once the cleanup 
occurs. Then what can you do?
    Mr. Ford. Oh. Then what happened is, because we always have 
industries on the hook. I mean, the beautiful thing about our 
economy is we are growing, and we need to move at the pace of 
business.
    And for I don't want to say the first time, because I 
appreciate all of the support we get, but what was nice about 
that is we were getting legislation that was equipping us at 
the pace of business to ready sites, and we were making 
business deals at an accelerated rate, actually condensed it in 
half the amount of time.
    And, again, the numbers are right there in your report--a 
half a billion dollars of investment over the course of 10 
years, more money, more resources. Now, I will also tell you, 
as a poor nonprofit, we could always use more money. But at the 
same time, it was fantastic how you responded to the need, 
changing legislation, and getting us the resources we need.
    Mr. Shimkus. And my time is getting close to being expired, 
so I thank you for this. To those I didn't get a chance to ask 
questions, really want to make sure that there is justice 
provided to all communities. We want economic development. We 
want to grow the local tax bases, and we want a clean 
environment. We are trying to get that. Thank you for being 
here.
    And I yield back my time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, 
Representative Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really 
want to thank this important panel. There were so many things 
that were said that really resonated with me, and particularly 
the State of Delaware.
    One of the things that, as this hearing was coming up, I 
was thinking about the fact that some people might say, ``Well, 
why don't you just move?,'' which is so incredible to me. There 
are so many reasons.
    Number one, many people in my State say they can't even 
find affordable housing. That is number one. Another thing has 
been mentioned, but we have changing employers and changing 
industries. So there are some companies that move into a 
neighborhood and change the dynamics of that neighborhood, and 
then there are some companies that move out and take away jobs.
    Another reason are restrictions on housing. I was visiting 
a constituent who was living in a trailer that did not have 
running water, and I asked, you know, ``Did you have other 
options?'' She was kicked out of the place where she was living 
before because her husband was a returning citizen, had just 
reentered back from prison, and the restrictions on her living 
in that place meant she had to find somewhere else to live.
    And another reason that has been described so well by Ms. 
Lavigne and Ms. Herring is that for many families there is a 
history and there is a proud legacy of the land itself.
    So I want to first start with a few questions, and it kind 
of picks up on the panel from before, because I was asking 
about resources for capacity building, for communities, and 
whether or not there were enough resources, whether people even 
knew that they had those opportunities out there to help them.
    Already the three witnesses mentioned your connections to 
EPA, and whether or not--just a yes or no--if you yourselves 
have known about the capacity-building grants or received any. 
Ms. Santiago?
    Ms. Santiago. No.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Ms. Lavigne?
    Ms. Lavigne. No.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Ms. Herring?
    Ms. Herring. As I stated before, Rural Empowerment 
Association for Community Help, they have taken advantage of 
those grants.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Right. But not you personally.
    Ms. Herring. But not me.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Herring. But it does impact my communities.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes. You need them, and it is----
    Ms. Herring. Yes. Absolutely.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester [continuing]. Very impactful.
    And, Mr. Ali, if you could just follow up a little bit on 
that question about the gap in terms of what is needed and what 
is out there and how do people actually access it?
    Mr. Ali. Sure. So let's make sure we get the narrative 
correct. Many of the things that you heard the previous panel 
talk about that they are sharing their successes came out of 
recommendations from years ago from frontline communities. In 
the late 1980s, early 1990s, they are the ones that put the 
recommendations forward to have the Office of Environmental 
Equity, which became the Office of Environmental Justice, 
created the Small Grants Program, the Interagency Working 
Group, so forth and so on.
    So there have never been enough resources, but to cut the 
Environmental Justice Grant Program, something that has shown 
so much success, something that has actually helped both rural 
and urban communities to garner the information that is 
necessary to understand the impacts that are happening inside 
of their communities, and to help them to be able to build the 
capacity to start a journey moving forward, does a disservice 
to all of our communities across our country.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And, Mr. Ali, could you give us some 
examples of either State or local areas--we have heard some 
great testimony here earlier--that would have--that really 
could help us, particularly as it pertains to cumulative 
impact. Could you talk a little bit about that and what we, as 
the Federal side, could learn?
    Mr. Ali. Well, on the cumulative impact side, folks really 
need to better support the science inside of a number of 
different agencies to make sure that we have the facts, but 
that we also are understanding these impacts, because lots of 
times we will have a single source that we will regulate and 
that we will look at and not looking at the totality of what is 
happening inside of communities.
    So, and just let me real quickly say also--I know we are 
running short here on time--there are a number of programs over 
the years that have shown much success that would benefit all 
of the folks who are in this room, one with the Environmental 
Justice Small Grants Program that has provided close to 1,600 
communities now, so I am not sure where they got their numbers 
from.
    The collaborative problem-solving program, which has 
yielded huge benefits of bringing both business and industry 
together, along with frontline communities, public health 
organizations, so forth and so on, to make real change happen. 
State and Tribal environmental justice programs, to build the 
capacity inside of the States, and inside of Tribes, was 
another program that folks could probably find a lot of 
usefulness in this time. And that also helps us to build the 
bridge, build the bridge between the States, the counties, the 
local governments, and frontline communities.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. In my last 5 seconds, I just want to 
highlight a few things that you said. Having a seat at the 
table, that we can coexist, whether it is industry, farms, and 
communities. And then the last thing, going from the American 
dream to the American nightmare to rising up.
    Thank you so much for your testimony, and thank you for 
your leadership.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Representative Walden, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Chairman. Thank you.
    And I want to thank our witnesses. I have read through your 
testimony. I have been in the middle of some negotiations on 
other legislation that we are going to take up here in a few 
minutes in the full committee, but I wanted to come back for 
some questions, especially for you.
    Commissioner Cribbins, thank you for coming out from 
Oregon. I know what Coos County, to a certain extent, has gone 
through in terms of loss of jobs over several decades, and I 
think you reference that in your testimony, and I think one of 
my colleagues raised the issue of the spotted owl, Mr. Shimkus 
from Illinois.
    And know it is a real tragedy because the communities 
around us in Oregon are surrounded by renewable forest 
resources, and yet we have seen 30 mills close, one in Coos Bay 
earlier this year I understand, and the median family household 
income is $20,000 per year below our State's average.
    When you think about that and the things we could do that 
are both good for the environment and good for the economy, 
what comes to mind?
    Ms. Cribbins. You know, I think the EPA brownfield grants 
are a great example. We have used those to clean up areas. We 
have these discussions about industry all the time. Industry 
does good work when they are there. Unfortunately, when the 
site becomes vacant, frequently it needs to be cleaned up.
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Ms. Cribbins. We appreciate the partnership of the Federal 
Government in getting those sites cleaned up and back on the 
tax rolls.
    Mr. Walden. Yes. We worked a lot in this committee when I 
chaired it last Congress in a bipartisan way to get that into 
an even better partnership for our local friends to be able to 
take advantage of. And so I think that is really important.
    And then, you know, what I have seen over the years is this 
great reduction in carbon emissions as a result of fuel 
switching, frankly, from coal to natural gas, with all due 
respect to my friend from West Virginia, but it has happened.
    And I have also seen in some of the international work I 
have done, including recently when I was overseas in Europe, 
this issue of Nord Stream 2 and Putin, Russian gas coming into 
Europe. And I have heard from various countries over time about 
how much they want us to get our natural gas into the world 
market, liquefied natural gas.
    And I think there is a project that would go--a pipeline 
through part of the district I represent and end up in Coos 
County, right?
    Ms. Cribbins. Absolutely.
    Mr. Walden. And what would that investment be in your 
county, if it is approved?
    Ms. Cribbins. The total project investment is projected to 
be over a billion dollars. It would be the largest project----
    Mr. Walden. Billion.
    Ms. Cribbins [continuing]. In the State of Oregon. Yes.
    Mr. Walden. Largest project in the State of Oregon. Do you 
know how many jobs that would create?
    Ms. Cribbins. It is projected to have 5,000 jobs at least 
during the construction phase and over 100 permanent jobs that 
pay well above our average median income for the area. They 
would be in the 70-to-100,000 range.
    Mr. Walden. And so when you are thinking about that, what 
are the impediments that stand in the way of getting this 
project approved?
    Ms. Cribbins. Congressman, it is primarily a permitting 
issue. Yes, it is a permitting issue.
    Mr. Walden. OK. I will leave that part because I think I 
know the permitting issue pretty well in the State of Oregon is 
backtracked on anyway.
    Ms. Cribbins. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Walden. It has been a real problem. So these would 
create family wage jobs that would get cleaner natural gas, and 
my understanding is some of the takeout contracts would be in 
Japan where they are using coal now for energy resource. Is 
that right?
    Ms. Cribbins. That is correct. And, you know, if we look at 
emissions, they really have to be looked at on a global scale.
    Mr. Walden. So, if you are going to reduce emissions and 
create jobs in depressed areas, it would be projects like this 
that would make sense to you.
    Ms. Cribbins. Projects like the Jordan Cove project make 
sense to rural Oregon because it is an opportunity for rural 
Oregon to determine its own future.
    Mr. Walden. And would you get some of the tax revenues from 
this pipeline as it goes through Coos County as well as the 
facility itself?
    Ms. Cribbins. We would. There has been an enterprise zone 
agreement negotiated for the facility, but the schools 
primarily would benefit from the tax revenue on the pipeline, 
and the county to some degree.
    Mr. Walden. Do you know how much that would be?
    Ms. Cribbins. I apologize. I don't off the top of my head.
    Mr. Walden. That is all right.
    Ms. Cribbins. I could get you the numbers easily.
    Mr. Walden. Yes. I know some of the counties the pipeline 
would go through in my district would benefit pretty 
dramatically, although for I think NIMBY purposes they have not 
been supported. But at some point here, I have been a fan of 
putting fuel in pipelines as opposed to necessarily rail or 
vehicles on the highway. I think it is a safer way to 
distribute.
    And I think utilizing America's great energy reserves help 
our economy and can help reduce carbon emissions from more-
polluting energy sources overseas, such as we are talking about 
here.
    So I want to thank you for coming back. I want to thank all 
of the panelists for being here. Obviously, when I get an 
Oregon witness, I am going to focus on that witness, but your 
testimony is really helpful as well.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative Ruiz, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to the witnesses who are here today. I commend 
your advocacies for environmental justice communities. It is a 
priority of mine to make sure everyone in my district and 
across the Nation has access to clean air to breathe and clean 
water to drink.
    And I would like to share with you a little bit about the 
current environmental justice situation in my district. You 
see, I grew up in a farm worker community in a trailer park, 
and in a rural area in the county of Riverside, southern 
California. For many years, the community has been plagued by 
environmental hazards that have affected the public's health.
    For one, it is a very impoverished area that is 
underdeveloped, and you have dust and PM10s that is easily 
kicked up with any kind of traffic on the dirt roads or high 
winds.
    Two, you have agricultural communities. There was a recent 
report a few years ago where pesticides were sprayed while kids 
were at a nearby high school. You have noxious air coming from 
different companies in the area. In fact, one was shut down, 
Western Environmental from a nearby area.
    Now, currently, you have an unpermitted waste recycling 
facility, unpermitted, that is on private allotted land within 
a Tribal reservation. So it is under the BIA's jurisdiction, 
and the Tribe and the BIA has been trying to get this company 
to stop their operations. But because it is on private land, 
they continue to do so.
    That property has caught on fire about seven times over the 
last probably 14 months. Recently, it caused havoc. I mean, the 
fire is still burning for over a month because it is a very 
complex mulch-fire-type fire. But there is so much smoke, so 
much smell, the school district shut down, 25 kids had to go to 
the hospital, 6 kids went via ambulance. It was an 
environmental injustice.
    And, as we know, poor schools, poor neighborhoods, 
communities of color, minorities, and rural areas face these 
kind of problems. In addition to that, you have Oasis Mobile 
Home Park in Thermal, whose water filtration system just broke, 
they stopped sending samples. The EPA caught it. Six months 
later went and found 10 times high arsenic level that was 
permissible in the water, and now they are being tricky in not 
providing and not complying with the EPA's order to provide 1 
gallon of water per individual in their mobile home park until 
it is cleared by the EPA.
    So my office has been working with the EPA to ensure that 
residents have access to clean water and working with the BIA 
and other stakeholders to come up with a comprehensive 
environmental justice plan for the region.
    Mr. Ali, it is good to see you again. We worked together on 
the environmental justice bill, including cumulative impact, 
and all of these things that we are talking about is in the 
Environmental Justice Act that we discussed.
    But, after working with the EPA for 24 years, you are 
keenly familiar with the risk environmental justice communities 
face. Do you think there is currently an effective system to 
hold bad actors accountable in these communities?
    Mr. Ali. No. And the reason why is because you have a huge 
cut in the enforcement actions that are happening at the 
agency, and you have less inspectors that are actually out 
there inspecting and doing their job.
    Mr. Ruiz. In your experience working with the EPA, have the 
environmental justice grants and the CARE Grant Program helped 
address environmental justice issues?
    Mr. Ali. They have been game changers, and the best folks 
to talk about that are the communities themselves that saw 
incredible value in that.
    Mr. Ruiz. And do you think these grants are properly 
funded?
    Mr. Ali. No. We need to increase that. We need to take a 
serious look and then say how many additional dollars are 
needed based upon all of the applications that come in that 
never get funded.
    Mr. Ruiz. You know, one of the problems that we face in air 
pollution is that the emergency management departments and FEMA 
know they are the best at evacuating communities and responding 
to environmental hazards that are an imminent risk to life or 
property, right? But what we are talking about here is a 
cumulative effect of environmental hazards that have created a 
hazardous situation in which the communities live in already.
    So we don't have a national guideline response to what to 
do in situations where you have smoke in the air when you don't 
have imminent threat to life or property. And how do we create 
an emergency response or a public health response to help those 
members who don't have the capital, don't have the money, to 
move or to visit other affluent areas where the environmental 
hazard is not.
    So one of the questions, for example, was--one of the 
recommendations that the community received was stay indoors in 
a closed AC unit system. We are talking about people living in 
trailer parks, like I did at one point in my life, using swamp 
coolers that bring air from the outside that increases the 
concentration.
    And this environmental injustice is in a population that 
has the highest pediatric asthma hospitalization state in the 
State of California. So you add all of this together.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    We now recognize the representative from West Virginia, 
Representative McKinley, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Santiago, I had the pleasure 2 weeks ago to go to 
Puerto Rico. We wanted to see--three of us went down. We wanted 
to see how the reconstruction was underway, and I was impressed 
with the robust level of activity, construction activity. I saw 
roads under constructions, bridges being built.
    There was a lot of excitement with the people, and they 
were talking how much construction activity was taking place in 
Puerto Rico. Would you agree that it has been pretty active?
    Ms. Santiago. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I 
cannot agree.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. Well, let me just go on, because you got 
into my wheelhouse when you mentioned coal ash, and I just want 
you to know in the construction--because all of the newspapers, 
everyone else, was talking about how proud they were of the 
level of construction activity that was underway down there.
    Now, do you understand with coal ash it goes into concrete? 
So the more--you can do more construction if you use coal ash 
than you can do if you use Portland cement. I am an engineer. I 
have designed many roads and bridges and concrete mixes. So the 
more fly ash we can put into it means we can pour more concrete 
as a result of it.
    We also can do it in a road base, and they are using it in 
road base in Puerto Rico. They are using it in drywall when 
they are rebuilding after the hurricane came through. It is in 
the drywall. They are in concrete blocks. It is in bricks. It 
is--all of the construction material that I saw down there I 
know was embracing using fly ash.
    So there is a market. It is not all going to a landfill. 
They are going to use it in that product.
    But more importantly with it, just so you understand, too, 
they are using it now--the Department of Defense and Department 
of Energy are using that coal ash to extract the material for 
rare earths. And the fact that China is the one that is 
controlling rare earths, let's be careful about vilifying 
something that maybe is going to get part of our national 
defense
    Now, in your travels, maybe you missed this, but this was 
the article in the morning--today's paper in The Financial 
Times published in London, and it talks about maybe in America 
we have a problem with burning coal. But the rest of the world 
has a voracious appetite for that, and China has now just 
announced they are opening up more power plants this year in 
China than the entire coal-fired power plants of Europe. Their 
understanding, they can use this.
    So, Ms. Lavigne, let me go to you. I wish you some 
tremendous success in driving the Formosa Plastics out of 
Louisiana. Do you have any idea where I would like to see it 
go? Why don't we bring it up to West Virginia, and let's go to 
Welch, West Virginia, or let's go to Harlan, Kentucky, or 
Hazard, Kentucky, that desperately want to see an alternative 
to mining coal. But those companies aren't coming there.
    So I wish you a lot of success in making that happen, and I 
do--I am very serious about that.
    Ms. Lavigne. Thank you.
    Mr. McKinley. So now I want to turn to Mr. Ford. We worked 
together. I remember when we had that conversation when we were 
talking about the legislation we had. It was House Bill 3017. 
We brought it to you and said, ``How can you best--what can we 
do to improve on this legislation?'' And you came up with some 
excellent ideas, and we tried to embrace those, and we did, the 
bulk of them.
    So I am pleased that we saw a good partnership developing 
here to be able to get that, and I am proud to be the author of 
that piece of legislation.
    But let me ask you now, in the short time I have left, how 
can we improve on the brownfield legislation? What is it? What 
is there more that we can do to make something positive even 
better? Because we have seen in the Weirton area where you 
left--that was your previous--the dramatic turnaround, taking 
over abandoned sites and making them work.
    So what can we do to continue that and use that in other 
places around the country?
    Mr. Ford. Two things that I would suggest. Number one, it 
would--if you could emulate the application process at the EPA 
that they have in Economic Development Administration--in the 
EDA, when you all appropriate money to the U.S. EDA, you give 
them a lump sum of money, and then they have rolling 
application deadlines that are every month.
    In the U.S. EPA, we only have one shot to apply, and that 
is in December. So if we come up with a project in January, we 
have to wait until December to apply. And the way we do 
business today, that is not moving at the pace of business. So 
if you can change those deadlines to rolling deadlines, that is 
number one.
    Number two, again, going back to the math, $100,000 per 
acre to clean up properties per the current requirements in the 
United States. So, again, $500,000, that was generous when you 
are looking at these small sites. But when you have a site like 
we currently have at the former steel mill, ArcelorMittal in 
Weirton, that is 600 acres. Do the math to clean that up.
    So, and multiply that times the number of abandoned 
industrial sites that we have. There is never enough money. But 
what I have also found out is it is also a product of capacity, 
and what we do appreciate is that, every time we brought a 
problem to EPA, to Congress, you have always delivered, and I 
thank you for that.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Matsui, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want 
to thank the witnesses for being here today, especially 
elevating voices from communities across the country that often 
get overlooked. Thank you for being here.
    As we consider the impacts of climate change and the 
solutions to prevent further warming of our planet, it is 
absolutely critical that we ensure we are not leaving any 
communities behind. Whether it is from poorly designed 
transportation corridors, the influence of large industrial or 
agricultural corporations, or the negligence of companies 
storing coal ash waste, we see the same issue facing frontline 
communities across the country, and this absolutely must stop.
    While there are tools within the Federal Government to 
address environmental justice issues, such as NEPA or Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we are certainly--and should 
be--doing more to ensure that no one is left behind.
    Ms. Herring, thank you for being here today and sharing 
your story. I am horrified by what you and your family and your 
neighbors have been through but inspired by the fight you have 
brought to polluters and the message you are sharing today, 
especially the recent victory achieved through Title VI.
    While we all know this is an important victory, obvious 
issues with the law persist. Before it even became an issue, 
what could have prevented the devastation your community saw 
from increased hog farm operations near your home? And have you 
seen other local governments engaged with communities in a way 
that might have prevented these operations from occurring?
    Ms. Herring. When the hog operations first came into our 
communities, we were not aware of them. When I approached the 
industry about this, they said that the hog growers talked to 
their neighbors. They never talked to their neighbors.
    When these facilities were first built, they were hidden. 
We didn't even know where the stink was coming from, but it was 
coming from these facilities. So when you don't know where the 
pollution is coming from, you don't know really who to approach 
about the issue.
    Ms. Matsui. Right.
    Ms. Herring. But because of the deforestation and the 
continual cutting down of trees, all of these facilities, the 
landscape in southeastern North Carolina, as far as you can 
drive, all you see are CAFOs. And these CAFOs are having a 
negative impact on our lives.
    Ms. Matsui. Sure.
    Ms. Herring. And it has devalued our property, has impacted 
our health, and we don't even--we are not even able to enjoy 
our property rights, which is to simply walk outside, if you so 
desire, sit outside on your porch, cut your flowers, whatever. 
There is just no activity outside at all. We are just basically 
held prisoners in our own homes, and we had no idea what was 
going on.
    Ms. Matsui. Certainly. So, although EPA expressed agreement 
that minority populations are being disproportionately 
impacted, do you feel that there were limitations on how EPA 
was interpreting Title VI to prevent as much progress as could 
have been made in protecting your home and the community?
    Ms. Herring. When we approach the EPA and invite them to 
come down, this was all based on the Title VI, and the 1964 
civil rights law guarantees that corporations cannot take 
Federal funds and discriminate, but that is what they are 
doing.
    There is over 2 million pigs in Duplin County, with a 
population of 60 people.
    Ms. Matsui. OK.
    Ms. Herring. And the EPA did not and does not pressure DEQ, 
when they were renewing these State swine permits, to include 
safeguards for the community people. We were totally left out 
of the decision.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. So United States Commission on Civil 
Rights' Report on Environmental Justice issued in 2016 found a 
lack of enforcement and significant delays in EPA's handling of 
complaints under Title VI.
    Mr. Ali, you worked at EPA. What effect would delays on 
Title VI complaints have on communities?
    Mr. Ali. It puts their lives in greater danger. So they are 
continually--that is the interesting thing. People always want 
to move so slowly in a process, and they forget that everyday 
folks are the ones that are having to breathe in and drink 
these various toxins that are impacting their health and their 
life. And you just can't continue to do that.
    Ms. Matsui. So you feel that these civil rights complaints 
are not being taken as seriously as they should be?
    Mr. Ali. When I was there, I thought that there could be 
more attention to it. In the previous panel, they said that 
they have cleaned everything up, so we will have to see.
    Ms. Matsui. What could they do to better move forward here?
    Mr. Ali. There should be stronger community engagement. 
There should be more transparency in the process. We should 
make sure that the expertise that needs to exist inside of the 
Title VI programs are there. That means that you have got to 
hire the right folks, and you have also got to actually spend 
real time out in people's communities to see what they are 
dealing with.
    I understand the law, but there is also another component, 
that there are real impacts that are happening to real people, 
and we need to be utilizing the law in a better fashion.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McNerney, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. McNerney. You caught me off guard there, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, I thank the panelists. This has been a very 
informative set of discussions.
    Mr. Ali, we have heard from witnesses how industrialization 
has deleterious effects on the surrounding communities. Do you 
believe we can have prosperity, including a variety of 
industries, along with a healthy environment?
    Mr. Ali. I believe we should be focused on cleaner 
industries. For those that have been impactful, we need to get 
them to clean up, and we also need to make sure there are 
opportunities for greener and cleaner types of businesses to be 
in especially our most vulnerable communities.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, do you think that well-thought-out and 
fairly enforced government regulation would help industry be 
more clean and healthy?
    Mr. Ali. I do.
    Mr. McNerney. You know, we have heard a lot from the other 
side of the aisle that we need to reduce regulations across the 
board, and I think that is counterproductive in terms of 
environmental justice.
    Mr. Ali. You know what is always interesting, 
Representative, is that, when it comes to communities of color, 
when it comes to the police, no one ever has a problem with 
there being more enforcement in that space. But when it comes 
to the environment, they don't want to have more enforcement, 
although our most vulnerable communities will continue to tell 
you that they want stronger enforcement.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that comment. Well, at the time 
of your stepping down from the EPA, you mentioned that the 
Agency's leadership had not given, quote, ``any indication that 
they are focused or interested in helping vulnerable 
communities.'' What was your reaction to the first panel's EPA 
witnesses this morning?
    Mr. Ali. Well, I thought it was interesting that many of 
the ideas that myself and others had came up with, they had now 
started to use that language, so that was interesting. 
Secondly, it is very difficult--and I understand the dynamics 
that they had to deal with, but the reality of the situation is 
that this administration, besides brownfields and Superfund 
work, has done nothing to better protect the communities that 
are being disproportionately impacted.
    If you look at the 85 regulations and statutes that have 
been rolled back and are being deconstructed, all of those are 
necessary for people to have the basic protections in place.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. In your opinion, has the EPA 
become more focused or interested in helping frontline 
communities since the time you left?
    Mr. Ali. I think it would be difficult for them to say that 
they are, considering that now more people are dying based upon 
their own analysis and the various things that they have been 
rolling out. So I am not sure how you say that you care about 
these communities and that you are protecting them better.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, do you see any way for the EPA to 
change course and engage those communities in a fair and 
meaningful way?
    Mr. Ali. Yes. Open the doors, allow frontline communities 
and others who have expertise in this space to make sure that 
the various actions that you are moving forward on are actually 
going to be more protective, make sure that you actually have a 
senior advisor for environmental justice in the Environmental 
Protection Agency that gives advice to the Administrator.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, it is evident that the climate crisis 
we are facing disproportionately impacts low-income communities 
and communities of color. Can you speak more to the public 
health emergency that has arisen in these communities as a 
result of climate change?
    Mr. Ali. Oh, without a doubt. The numbers that you have 
seen are going to continue to increase. You are going to lose 
more lives to air pollution. You are going to lose more lives 
in places like Princeville, North Carolina, which no longer has 
50-year floods. They now have 100-year and 500-year floods.
    You are going to see more things that happen in places like 
Puerto Rico. So all of these various things are going to be 
exacerbated because of the extreme rain events. The lagoons are 
going to have breaches, and all of the things you have heard 
people talk about, from coal waste to the waste from animals, 
is going to get into our water system.
    Mr. McNerney. What do you think is of impact to--I mean, 
specifically, climate change, why do you think climate change 
is impacting poorer communities specifically?
    Mr. Ali. Because our communities are hit first and worst. 
We have the least ability to escape. We are in low-lying areas. 
If you look at our public housing, traditionally it has been 
built in some of the most vulnerable areas. If you look at what 
has been going on with our transportation routes, when you have 
these extreme heat events, you are going to have more impacts 
that are happening from air pollution.
    Our communities are the sacrifice zones. They always have 
been, and now it is just being magnified. I often call it the 
double whammy effect. If you look where the fossil fuel 
facilities are located, they are disproportionately in our 
communities. If you look at the pipelines, disproportionately 
in our communities. If you look at the transportation routes 
that have been put in place in our country, disproportionately 
in our communities. All of this is going to be even more 
magnified by the impacts that are happening from climate 
change.
    Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Representative Barragan, for 5 minutes, please.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here today and for your work on this issue.
    Mr. Ali, you and I know each other very well. Thank you for 
your work, for being a champion on environmental justice, and 
for working with our office on highlighting the environmental 
injustices that are happening and the work that you have done 
for so long.
    And, frankly, we need more change agents like you on the 
ground who are speaking truth to power, who are telling people 
what is happening, and to ring the bell of the urgency. We 
heard this morning from one of my colleagues across the aisle 
talk about this like there was no urgency, talk about it like 
this is some made-up issue that just the far left has a concern 
with. But this is our climate, and this is environmental racism 
going on in our very communities, where communities of color 
are being disproportionately impacted, and they are hit, as you 
said, the worst and first. So thank you.
    As climate change leads to more severe weather, communities 
of color will be disproportionately impacted. It is critical we 
empower communities and enhance their ability to bounce back 
from a disaster. Mr. Ali, can you speak to resilient strategies 
Congress can support to address the issue?
    Mr. Ali. I mean, there are a number of different things 
that we can do. One of them is around natural infrastructure. 
We don't have enough conversations about that, about how we can 
restore our wetlands and our other types of water bodies that 
are out there. There are examples of literally hundreds of 
thousands of jobs that will be created.
    Just look at Florida. If we begin to address the needs that 
exist in that space--in Louisiana, there are examples also of 
how people are rebuilding some of the marshes and other things 
that are there. But we can also, as we talked about earlier, I 
think that jobs and economic opportunities are also a part of 
the equation of how we make change happen, and that is why I am 
a huge proponent of advanced manufacturing opportunities. As we 
get folks more connected to these new sets of jobs that will be 
available, that are available and will be available, you will 
see a change in the culture and the way that we approach this.
    You will also see a lowering of emissions. So we have 
opportunities around wind and solar that everybody talks about, 
but we also have opportunities around thermal and tidal, and 
there are huge amounts of parts that go into that, that we 
could be doing advanced manufacturing in those areas that need 
them the most.
    So there are a number of things that we can do for both 
mitigation, adaptation, and all of the other things that are 
going to be necessary.
    Ms. Barragan. Have you seen any legislation that you 
particularly like, think that we should be moving on? Or 
something maybe you haven't seen that you would recommend that 
we include in this bill that is being drafted, the 100 percent 
by 2050?
    Mr. Ali. Well, I mean, I appreciate, after so many decades, 
that folks are actually starting to unpack this. And just the 
other day, folks sort of shared with folks the Environmental 
Justice for All and some of the new bills that are coming out. 
I would just like to see us also think critically about these 
new sets of jobs and how, even in a green economy, we still 
have disparities in that space, we still have very small 
ownership by people of color in that space, and I think that 
that is important because it sends a message that you are a 
part of this, that you are valued, and that your voice and 
innovation matters.
    So the worker training part is important, but also the 
ownership part is very extremely important.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Ms. Lavigne, my district shares some of the same challenges 
that the St. James Parish is facing. In our case, heavy 
industry and urban oil drilling has made the air unhealthy. In 
your testimony, you request a moratorium on the oil, gas, and 
petrochemical industry in your parish. Can you expand on the 
importance of this? And do you have any thoughts as to how we 
could apply a moratorium for distressed communities like yours 
and mine nationwide?
    Ms. Lavigne. Well, in St. James, we have 12 petrochemical 
plants within a 10-mile radius. And those that we have, some of 
them are expanding. We are asking for a moratorium for them not 
to expand these. That is already there, and we are asking for 
them not to let any more come into St. James.
    We have seven districts in St. James, and they are putting 
all of the industry in the 4th and 5th districts. So we need 
something to stop the industry from coming in.
    Ms. Barragan. Mr. Ali, with just the few seconds I have 
left, do you have any recommendations for how we can make the 
clean energy sources such as solar more accessible to low-
income communities?
    Mr. Ali. We have to make the resources available, one on 
the capacity side, also on the education side, and then, again, 
going back to work with the Small Business Administration and 
others. Let's make sure that folks understand how to--if they 
don't, how to get their businesses up and running, and then 
let's partner with those existing entities that maybe already 
have experience in that place.
    So let's build some bridges, some ambassadorships, all of 
these different things that may definitely help those garner 
the necessary skills and abilities to be successful in that 
space.
    Ms. Barragan. All right. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 
Representative Peters, for 5 minutes, please.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 
witnesses. I know it has been a long session.
    I wanted to talk a little bit about sea-level risk and 
relocation. According to the 2018 National Climate Assessment, 
there are 49.4 million housing units along the coastal 
shoreline and coastal water shore. The communities and homes 
and businesses worth at least $1.4 trillion sit within about 8 
miles of the coast. Many of those are frontline communities, as 
you have described.
    A couple of examples, experiences we have had, have not 
been all that smooth, and I will just describe them. In Alaska, 
in Newtok, in 2018, the Alaska Denali Commission, which funds 
rural infrastructure projects, awarded $15 million to relocate 
350 people to nearby Nelson Island. Those people had been 
forced to move there in the first place. It is a Tribe.
    But it is estimated that it will be 2023 before enough 
homes are built for everyone, and the Army Corps estimates in 
the end it will cost $130 million to relocate the village. So 
that is 350 people, $130 million.
    The other example is in Louisiana. At Isle de Jean Charles, 
is that close? Is that close? In Louisiana. It is 2 hours west 
of New Orleans. And this is a community of 60 to 80 residents, 
and we have earmarked $48 million for that. We have purchased 
land for $12 million out of that 48 million.
    In 2016, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
under President Obama, awarded $1 billion in disaster 
resilience grants to 13 States, $48 million for this group in 
Louisiana. The State bought a 515-acre farm 35 miles north of 
the island for about $12 million, but program eligibility is 
limited to permanent residents and those displaced by Hurricane 
Isaac in 2012. Residents are required to maintain the property 
as a primary residence for 5 years.
    Most residents here belong to the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw 
Tribe, but the Tribal Community Council has recommended 
withdrawal from the project because of unresolved concerns 
about the terms of the settlement. So you have two issues going 
on. One is, there is not going to be enough money to do this 
for everyone at these rates. And two is, we don't appear to 
have engaged the community in a way that was effective to 
provide the relief that they need.
    And so let me ask you, and anyone who wants to answer, how 
should--is there a good model for the Federal Government 
developing a way to engage local communities in developing 
relocation plans like this? Ms. Cribbins?
    Ms. Cribbins. I would be happy to jump in. I think, you 
know, working at the local government level, while we always 
appreciate its early consultation and discussion, I think it is 
really tempting for all of us to come up with solutions and 
then tell people what the solutions are that we have figured 
out for them.
    But, frankly, these communities want to be engaged early on 
in the process, and they want to know what their options are. 
And if there are other options, we should be exploring them. 
For example, in my county, there have been two large projects 
that have restored very marginal farmlands from willing sellers 
to marshlands.
    And that is because we have had repeated flooding in my 
community. We are a coastal community. So projects like that 
can help negate the need to do these relocations.
    Mr. Peters. Mr. Ali, you have spoken a lot, but you do have 
a unique perspective. You were a founding member of the EPA's 
Office of Environmental Justice. You serve as a board member 
for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Union of Concerned 
Scientists. And you are widely regarded as a global leader for 
grassroots climate change activism.
    Given your experience on both sides, inside and outside of 
the big gray buildings, do you think that Congress should 
create a lead Federal entity or sort of a national agency to 
deal with climate change and relocation?
    Mr. Ali. Most definitely. We are going to need something 
like that, if we are going to be able to address, as you have 
said, the economic challenges that exist in that space. And the 
other thing that we don't talk about is culture, so how do we 
protect culture in this space also?
    If you look at the Gullah Geechee off the South Carolina/
North Carolina coast, they are also going to lose their land 
because of what is going on. You mentioned our indigenous 
brothers and sisters in Louisiana. So we have got to be mindful 
also, and we have got to also make sure that people are honored 
in that space and that their housing values, that whatever we 
are going to give--not give because they are part of our 
family, our American family--that they have enough to be able 
to move as a full community if they choose to.
    Just one last thing. There is a model plan for public 
participation that was created by frontline communities and 
others for the engagement of folks. So we have tools that are 
out there that we could utilize.
    Mr. Peters. If that is written down, we would love to get 
it from you.
    Mr. Ali. Sure.
    Mr. Peters. And my time is expired. I yield back. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Energy that reports to the 
standing Committee on Energy and Commerce, Representative Bobby 
Rush. Bobby, you are recognized for 5 minutes of questioning, 
please.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
think all of our witnesses for participating in today's 
hearing. Our environmental policies must address the 
disparities associated with pollutants and climate change.
    Mr. Chairman, I see our witnesses, and when I see this wide 
array of witnesses before us, my heart and my mind and my 
spirit centers on Chicago, and which one on--in Chicago. And 
The Chicago Sun-Times recently reported that under this 
administration, the EPA Chicago Region 5 staffing levels have 
hit an all-time low, and compliance inspections are down 60 
percent.
    This decline is 30 percent higher than the national average 
of diminishing environmental law compliance inspections. 
According to the EPA, Mr. Chairman, environmental justice is 
achieved by equal protection from environmental health hazards 
and equal access to environmental protection.
    And I have a question for Dr. Ali. Dr. Ali, how does a 60 
percent reduction in Federal compliance inspections and 
declining staff levels provide constituencies like mine with 
equal protection and access to the same protection as described 
in the aforementioned policy and definition of the EPA?
    Mr. Ali. It makes it impossible for your communities and 
other communities that look like yours to have equal protection 
under the law. What it does is it sends a very clear message 
that African-American lives don't matter, that Latinx lives 
don't matter, that indigenous and Pacific Islander lives don't 
matter, and that even low-income White lives don't matter.
    Mr. Rush. Chicago has been called the epicenter of the 
dreaded asthma disease. According to the NRDC, low-income 
communities in the south side of Chicago are exposed to 
extremely elevated levels of toxic air and industry-related 
health hazards.
    Dr. Ali, what impact does EPA's mitigation or regional 
inspections and resources have on already-exacerbated health 
problems that persist in those communities and similarly 
situated communities all across the Nation?
    Mr. Ali. Yes, sir. Well, you remember the toxic doughnut 
that existed. Hazel Johnson is the mother of the environmental 
justice movement, and they are on the south side of Chicago. 
There was a toxic doughnut for years, with all of those 
emissions that were going into those communities.
    So what you are finding today is that the actions that are 
currently going on by the Environmental Protection Agency are 
going to shorten people's lives, expose them to more diseases, 
and, unfortunately, we are going to lose more lives if we 
continue down the path that we are currently traveling.
    Mr. Rush. You mentioned the name Hazel Johnson. I was the 
chairman of the Chicago City Council Committee on Public 
Utilities and the Environment, and I had an opportunity to be 
associated with Hazel. And all that we knew, we all stand on 
the shoulders of Hazel Johnson. And I don't know, I think that 
it is about time that she gets the honor that is due to her, 
because she is the mother of the environmental justice 
movement, and she should be honored.
    Mr. Chairman, with that, I am running out of time. I thank 
you for allowing me to be on this committee for these purposes, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, you are most welcome, Mr. Chair, and thank 
you. The gentleman yields back.
    And the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, 
Representative Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for questioning, 
please.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I am going to--I am sitting in a 
hole in my seat. So I have to--there we go.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    But, mostly, I really wanted to rush back to thank all of 
you who are in frontline communities for coming here. The issue 
of environmental justice is so very, very important.
    So frontline communities face two of the worst consequences 
of the climate crisis. First, you are more likely to come in 
contact with hazardous substances, toxic chemical emissions, 
and other pollutants that are often emitted alongside 
greenhouse gases. And, second, you are disproportionately 
affected by worsening natural disasters. One-in-century floods 
are now like every couple of years. I have seen that in 
Illinois, in my district.
    The Environmental Protection Agency's mission to protect 
humans, and the environmental health has really been eroded 
every day by this administration. And there has been over 80 
deregulation actions, just in this administration alone.
    So, Ms. Santiago, where are you, Ms. Santiago? OK. Coal-
fired power plants pose particular threats to people that are 
living around them from coal to--coal ash has been such a 
problem in communities in Illinois. So the question is, do you 
believe that clean drinking water is a human right? And, in 
your experience, has the EPA protected your rights?
    Ms. Santiago. Clean drinking water is absolutely a human 
right, and the EPA is currently not protecting. There are about 
five rollback measures that would take away protections for 
drinking water. For example, the phase 2 rollback of the coal 
combustion residuals rule would take away the ability to 
monitor, to sample, groundwater at sites where coal ash waste 
has been deposited.
    And so that is one way in which coal plants can continue to 
operate without providing guarantees to people that they are 
not contaminating the water supplies, and there are a whole 
slew.
    There is also the wastewater that comes into contact with 
coal ash that is now one of the rollbacks being proposed, is to 
allow that to discharge into water bodies without treatment. 
There is the rollback that has to do with the impoundments, the 
so-called coal ash impoundments, where coal ash is stored in a 
wet form. Ninety-two percent of those impoundments throughout 
the United States have been found to be contaminating water 
bodies.
    If that is taken away, and it has already been the extent--
the closure dates that were supposed to go into effect have 
already been extended, there is a proposal to extend those 
closure dates and allow those impoundments to continue to leach 
heavy metals into water supplies.
    So that is just three examples, but there are more, of how 
the current actions that the EPA is taking endanger the water 
supply of people of the United States.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Is there anyone on this panel who thinks 
that the Environmental Protection Agency is doing the job that 
it was supposed to do? I don't see any--I don't see any takers 
on that.
    I am just wondering, aside from water quality and air 
quality, are there other issues that you brought to the table, 
any of you, that we need to hear about?
    Mr. Ali. Well, I will just say that the other--there are 
two sides to the coin of what we are discussing. There are the 
environmental injustices that you have heard us talk about and 
folks are trying to get their arms around and dealing with 
these impacts. The other side of the coin is environmental 
justice. How do we revitalize communities? How do we make sure 
that real positive change is happening?
    And you heard some folks talk about brownfields. I am going 
to call out three projects very quickly, and I hope that when 
folks do CODELs they actually go there.
    Ms. Schakowsky. I am running out of time here.
    Mr. Ali. One is the Environmental Health Coalition at 
National City in San Diego. Two is the Ivanhoe community, which 
is in Kansas City, which is led by Ms. Margaret May. And the 
third one is the Regenesis project in Spartanburg, South 
Carolina, that took a $20,000 environmental justice small grant 
and leveraged the almost $300 million in changes in that 
community that was labeled as the other sides of the tracks. 
That is a conversation we need to have.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So it is not just stopping the harm. It is 
improving the communities. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. And that, I believe, 
concludes all of the Members who chose to question the 
panelists.
    I would like to thank all of our witnesses from Panel I and 
now Panel II for joining us at today's hearing. You have 
offered great information.
    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. I would ask 
that each witness respond promptly to any such questions that 
you may receive.
    Also, I request unanimous consent to enter the following 
into the record. We received a letter from Representative 
McKinley on behalf of the City of Welch. We have a GAO report 
entitled ``Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: EPA Needs 
More Information and a Clearly Defined Strategy to Protect Air 
and Water Quality from Pollutants of Concern.'' A study 
entitled ``Environmental Injustice in North Carolina's Hog 
Industry.''
    A study by the Environmental Working Group entitled ``Under 
the Radar: New Data Reveals NC Regulators Ignored Decades-Long 
Explosion of Poultry CAFOs.'' A study entitled ``Mortality and 
Health Outcomes in North Carolina Communities Located in Close 
Proximity to Hog Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.''
    A study entitled ``Industrial Hog Operations in North 
Carolina Disproportionately Impact African-Americans, 
Hispanics, and American Indians.''
    A complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
submitted by EarthJustice. A letter from EPA to the North 
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. A letter 
outlining ``Faith Principles for a Green New Deal'' from 
Interfaith Power & Light.
    An FDA statement on concerns with Medicare device 
availability due to certain sterilization facility closures. An 
EPA statement on its recent actions to address ethylene oxide. 
And EPA's annual Environmental Justice Progress Report for 
fiscal year 2019.
    I ask that all of these--I request unanimous consent to 
enter all of these into the record. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The GAO and EPA reports and the Title VI complaint have been 
retained in committee files and also are available at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=110247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Tonko. At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]