    [Senate Hearing 117-375]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-375

      OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: A YEAR IN REVIEW

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 11, 2022

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                     ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    48-682 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2022

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                  MAY 11, 2022

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     4

                                    WITNESS

    Mallory, Hon. Brenda, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality....     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    12
            Senator Padilla..........................................    16
            Senator Capito...........................................    19
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    34
            Senator Cramer...........................................    36
            Senator Boozman..........................................    36
        Response to an additional question from Senator Wicker.......    37

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    The Natural of Oil and Gasoline Markets, Massachusetts Institute
      of Technology, April 1, 2022...................................    50
    What drives crude oil prices? An analysis of 7 factors that
      influence oil markets, with chart data updated monthly and
      quarterly, U.S. Energy Information Administration, March 8,
      2022...........................................................    55
    Why gasoline prices remain high even as crude oil prices fall,
      the Washington Post, April 11, 2022............................    78
    How to Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly, the Wall Street
      Journal Editorial Board, April 20, 2022........................    89
    The Role of the Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded
      Highway Projects: Background and Issues for Congress, the
      Congressional Research Service, April 11, 2012.................    99
    Oilfield services bounce back as US drilling boom gathers pace,
      the Financial Times, May 3, 2022...............................   145
    Rotary Rig Count, Baker Hughes, May 6, 2022......................   153
    Application for Permit to Drill Status Report....................   154
    DEC's Comprehensive Study of PFAS and Metals Finds No Clear Link
      to Norlite's Operations, No Indication of Human Health Risk,
      New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, March
      9, 2021........................................................   159
    National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusion Survey
      Review, U.S. Department of Transportation, November 27, 2012...   162

      OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: A YEAR IN REVIEW

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2022

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Cramer, Lummis, Wicker,
    Sullivan, and Ernst.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to
    call this hearing to order.
        I want to begin by welcoming our witness, Brenda Mallory,
    Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, back before our
    Committee today. We appreciate your being here to discuss the
    CEQ's work since your confirmation last year.
        Some of you have heard me, and she has heard me say this
    before, but I know one Delawarean who has been the Chair of the
    Council on Environmental Quality. He is a former Governor, a
    Republican, and he had been a leader at the DuPont Company and
    became Governor of Delaware. When Richard Nixon was President,
    and later, Gerald Ford, they nominated Russ Peterson, who
    served under two Presidents as Chairman of CEQ.
        I used to ask, when I was in the State Treasury, I used to
    ask, Governor Peterson, just what did you do when you were
    chair of CEQ? He used a music analogy. He said, it is like,
    when you are CEQ chairman, you are the orchestra leader, and
    you have an orchestra with many people playing instruments.
    They make different sounds. But the idea of the chair of CEQ is
    to make sure that the different pieces that have, and the
    government have, just like musical instruments, to make sure
    that they play in harmony. That is the way he described it to
    me. I think it is a pretty apt description, so the orchestra
    leader here today is Brenda Mallory.
        We welcome you.
        We also thank you for celebrating Earth Day with us in
    Delaware last month. Your visits to Delaware State University
    and Delaware Technical Community College made a real impact on
    everybody we met, especially the kids, large and small. They
    ran the gamut, everything from kindergarten to doctoral
    programs at Delaware State University. And you are welcome to
    visit us in Delaware at any time. Thanks for coming.
        Since the moment that he took office, President Biden has
    made leading our country out of the greatest economic downturn
    since the Great Depression, as well as addressing climate
    change and advancing environmental justice, top priorities of
    his Administration. The role that CEQ plays in achieving these
    goals cannot be overstated, but it is not well understood by a
    whole lot of people.
        CEQ ensures, and I mentioned earlier, that Federal agencies
    work in harmony to protect our environment and to improve
    public health, which is critical to creating a nurturing
    environment for job creation and job preservation. We are
    always interested in how to create, we don't create jobs in
    what we do, but we help create that nurturing environment, and
    CEQ plays a vital role.
        With more than 8 million Americans back to work since
    President Biden took office, that is a lot of people working
    who weren't working a year ago, it is clear that CEQ's urgent
    work is not stymying economic growth.
        Earlier this year, the Fourth National Climate Assessment
    made clear that nations throughout the world must dramatically
    and urgently reduce emissions if we are to avoid the most
    devastating impacts of climate change. Driving to the train
    station this morning, I was hearing the kinds of problems that
    they are having in New Mexico with fires, wildfires. Really
    devastating stuff. That is just another example of what we
    face.
        These impacts are already being felt in communities in the
    United States and across our planet, showing us just how
    vulnerable we are to climate change and extreme weather. Just
    last week, I don't know about where you all live, but on the
    East Coast, we had 4 days of rain. We saw some of that in
    Washington, and it produced flooding in places where, frankly,
    it doesn't flood a whole lot, including Delaware.
        Prior to that, in the last year alone, we witnessed record
    heat waves in Oregon, where only a third of households have air
    conditioning. Think about that. Wildfires burned millions of
    acres in California, Montana, Arizona, and other western
    States.
        The same hurricane that knocked out access to power and
    water for a million people in Louisiana and Mississippi then
    went on up the East Coast to produce flash floods in New Jersey
    and New York. People there actually drowned in those places,
    especially in New York, actually drowned in their basements,
    unable to escape the torrent of floodwater.
        According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, damages from last year's disasters totaled
    roughly $145 billion, $145 billion. That is just in 1 year. So
    it is becoming increasingly clear that the Administration's
    focus on climate change is both timely, and I believe,
    critical.
        Addressing the longstanding environmental inequities in our
    Nation is equally important and also linked to climate change.
    We know that while climate change threatens to disrupt all
    communities and affects all aspects of our economy, it poses
    unique threats to communities that are already vulnerable.
        In other words, Americans living in lower income and
    marginalized communities have less ability to prepare for and
    recover from extreme weather. The least among us have the most
    to lose from inaction on climate.
        That is why our Federal agencies need to address these twin
    goals of climate action and environmental justice together.
    Fortunately, we have an important tool to improve Federal
    analysis and decisionmaking, and that is the National
    Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA.
        NEPA established the Council on Environmental Quality in
    1969. This was done in part to provide agencies with high
    quality information on the environmental effects of their
    proposed actions. Over the years, we have made a number of
    adjustments to NEPA. It is not exactly the same as it was in
    1969. We have made some tweaks, I hope improvements, ensuring
    that the law functions as intended while also not being overly
    burdensome to industry.
        Earlier this year, CEQ finalized revisions to the rule that
    implements NEPA. This restored critical protection under NEPA
    and also provided agencies and other stakeholders with greater
    certainty as they begin to implement the programs created under
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which has its roots, its
    origins, literally in this room, in this Committee. These
    revisions will ensure that agencies consider the cumulative
    impacts of a project, such as the implications for climate
    change and the question of whether the impact is on a community
    that is already vulnerable.
        CEQ also has been coordinating efforts across the Federal
    Government to improve the Federal permitting process for clean
    energy technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration,
    something that several of us are very much interested in.
    Today, we look forward to hearing more about those efforts from
    our witness.
        I would also be remiss if I didn't set the record straight
    with respect to the Biden administration's policy actions and
    gas prices in our country, something about which there is a
    fair amount of controversy, as we know. The last time I
    checked, the United States is still the top oil and gas
    producer in the world, producing more than we consume. With
    more than 9,000 unused, approved permits to drill offshore, the
    oil and gas industry, not the Federal permitting process, bears
    more than a little responsibility for the current level of
    domestic production. But we can get into more of that later.
        In addition to its permitting efforts, CEQ has also been
    hard at work delivering on the Administration's promise to
    prioritize environmental justice and equitably distribute the
    benefits of climate actions. As part of that effort, CEQ has
    released a draft version of its Climate and Environmental
    Justice Screening Tool, helping agencies to better identify
    underserved or overburdened communities. And they have also
    recently hired, I believe, a new Director of Environmental
    Justice to oversee this important work.
        CEQ has also established sustainability goals for Federal
    buildings and other Federal procurements and launched a $1
    billion effort, known as the America the Beautiful Challenge,
    the America the Beautiful Challenge, to support conservation
    and restoration projects on Federal lands. All of this
    demonstrates, I believe, the Administration's commitment to
    leading by example when it comes to doing what is good and what
    is right for our planet.
        So, we are looking forward to hearing from you, Madam. Do
    people call you Chair Mallory? What is your official title?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, they do say Chair, if I am not able to
    stop them.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. All right, Ms. Mallory, we are delighted at
    the critical efforts that you are leading and whether CEQ has
    the resources it needs to effectively carry out your work.
        Before we do that, I turn it over to our Ranking Member for
    opening remarks and get us started.
        We have a Delawarean, Greg Williams, who has been nominated
    to serve on a Federal District Court in Delaware. I am
    introducing him in about 5 minutes on the Judiciary Committee,
    so I will rejoin you shortly. In the meantime, I leave you in
    good hands. Thanks so much.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you for leaving me in charge, and thank you for holding today's
    hearing to conduct oversight on the Council on Environmental
    Quality, CEQ, and thank you for coming to be with us today,
    Chair.
        I know that both you and I are very proud of this
    Committee's monumental achievement of developing and reporting
    surface transportation and drinking and wastewater legislation
    unanimously last year. And we are also very proud that when
    those bills became law at the end of the last year as part of
    the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, IIJA, and soon,
    hopefully, our WRDA legislation, which we passed last week out
    of Committee unanimously, will also join that IIJA into law.
        A top priority for all of us in the Committee is to make
    sure the programs and authorizations we carefully negotiated
    move from being words on a page to projects on the ground. If
    IIJA is implemented as Congress intended, we will develop
    modern roads and bridges to connect rural communities, critical
    water infrastructure projects to create access to clean water,
    improvements to our transmission system to ensure access to
    reliable and affordable power, and the development of natural
    gas pipelines and other energy projects to ensure fuel for both
    here and exports abroad, a need that has been made all the more
    real by the Russia war in Ukraine.
        The funding and authorizations provided by IIJA will propel
    development. But those projects must also complete
    environmental reviews and secure Federal permits before shovels
    can actually go in the ground.
        In that legislation, we also recognized that the status quo
    for NEPA reviews and permitting has been unacceptable, so a
    2020 CEQ report found that the average environmental impact
    statement took 4 and half years to be completed. We know that
    some projects can take up to 10 years to get through the NEPA
    permitting process.
        Congress explicitly directed streamlining of environmental
    reviews for transportation projects, particularly by codifying
    the One Federal Decision policy for certain transportation
    projects. That policy recognizes that delays caused by a never
    ending environmental review process can kill or stifle projects
    and investment.
        IIJA puts in place a common sense guidepost that NEPA
    reviews for major transportation projects will take no longer
    than 2 years, and all environmental permits and other project
    authorizations should follow within 90 days after that. A clear
    project timeline will help to plan, finance, and construct
    transportation projects within the 5 year authorization window
    for the Federal Highway programs.
        Congress's clear intent, both in the highway bill and in
    other portions of the IIJA, such as the permanent
    reauthorization of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering
    Council, was to ensure projects are completed faster so that
    the American people can benefit from the investments.
        As the agency charged with overseeing implementation of the
    NEPA Act, as well as the agency that serves as an environmental
    coordinating hub Administration-wide, CEQ can play a unique and
    instrumental role in implementing Congress's goals.
        CEQ could institute environmental review and permitting
    efficiencies that can make the IIJA implementation a success. I
    will say that nothing that I have seen coming out of CEQ
    assures me that this is what is going to happen. Certainly,
    improving NEPA efficiency does not appear to be a priority.
        Instead, CEQ seems very busy implementing executive orders
    that direct CEQ to manage and develop countless new
    Administration led policies not authorized in statute, from
    coming up with an environmental justice screening tool to be
    employed Administration-wide to managing new Federal efforts to
    transition all Government cars to electric vehicles in an
    unrealistic timeframe.
        CEQ is bogged down with activities imposed by the President
    unilaterally, and even then, CEQ can't even keep up with the
    President's own timelines. For example, the draft environmental
    justice tool was not released until this February, which is
    actually 5 months after the President's self-imposed deadline.
    In the meantime, CEQ has not provided, I don't think, adequate
    attention to actually implementing NEPA.
        The one major action related to NEPA CEQ has taken I do not
    believe will speed up projects. Last month, the CEQ rolled back
    three key reforms made to NEPA under the Trump administration.
    CEQ proposes to put the Federal Government in charge of
    deciding a project's purpose and need. CEQ would encourage
    individual Federal agencies to layer on additional review
    requirements, and CEQ is directing agencies to bring in
    cumulative and indirect impacts that will have the effect of
    putting the thumb on the scale against certain projects. In
    doing so, CEQ has only amplified ambiguity and uncertainty that
    we are trying to get around within the NEPA review process,
    which will slow down our project delivery.
        The opposition from project developers across industries,
    from roadbuilders to energy producers, has been swift and
    emphatic. Their message is clear: Why is CEQ making the NEPA
    process more difficult, not faster and clearer? CEQ has shown
    no willingness to expedite the review and permitting review
    process for CCUS, as directed by Congress in the USE IT Act.
    CEQ has provided guidance that largely serves to present
    alleged pros and cons of CCUS and fails to provide concrete
    direction to Federal agencies to actually expedite CCUS
    projects. That is disappointing to me, as somebody who is a big
    supporter of that, and telling, that even with respect to
    projects that are clearly necessary to the Administration's
    well publicized climate goals, CEQ is apparently unwilling to
    propose reforms that could cut that red tape.
        Chair Mallory, thank you for coming today to discuss some
    of the issues that I have brought up. I am sure you will. This
    could not be a more important time for this discussion. Just
    this morning, the Administration has released an action plan
    for expediting permitting decisions, and I look forward to
    learning more about that plan, as well as how the
    Administration will implement the project delivery improvements
    enacted by Congress.
        The actions the Administration takes now concerning
    environmental review and permitting will determine the
    implementation of the IIJA, the USE IT Act, and other recent
    legislation, how it delivers to the American people the
    infrastructure improvements that Congress intended and that
    they deserve.
        I look forward to today's hearing, and I will turn it over
    to you, Chair, for your opening statement.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDA MALLORY,
                CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator Capito, and also thank you
    to Chairman Carper. It is a pleasure to be here.
        Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the
    Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
    today. Last month marked 1 year since I was confirmed by this
    body. Since then, my staff and I have been working on behalf of
    President Biden and the American people to find common sense
    solutions to the environmental challenges that families face in
    their daily lives.
        I have been fortunate to meet with a number of you to
    understand your priorities so that we can work together to
    deliver cleaner air, water, and lands to the American people.
    Serving in this role is an honor, and I am grateful to the
    President and to you for placing your faith in me.
        In my travels over the past year, I heard from residents of
    one of Michigan's most polluted areas, from communities in
    Delaware, to families in New Orleans, and neighbors in Tampa,
    all of whom live in the shadow of polluting industries. These
    communities have been coping for decades with toxic pollution
    in the air they breathe and water they drink.
        President Nixon once said, clean air, clean water, open
    spaces: These should once again be the birthright of every
    American. Indeed, the mission of safeguarding clean air and
    clean water has long been a shared American value. This value
    grounds our work at CEQ.
        Every person in this country should be able to expect clean
    water from their tap or well. That is not the reality for far
    too many communities. Every person in this country should be
    able to expect that air they breathe won't make them sick. That
    is also not the reality for far too many communities.
        For too long, we have failed to deliver on these basic
    protections. That is why our environmental justice work in the
    Biden-Harris administration is so important. While our work is
    far from over, I am proud of the work we have done so far to
    set the foundation to tackle a legacy of injustice. Together
    with Congress, we have begun the hard work of alleviating the
    environmental burdens that so many communities experience
    through unprecedented investments in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, many of which were unanimously supported by
    this Committee.
        We are replacing lead pipes, accelerating Superfund
    cleanups, cleaning up abandoned mines and oil wells, and
    protecting the most vulnerable communities from fires, floods,
    and storms. The impacts of these investments are not abstract.
    They are helping Americans right now.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is also helping us to
    plan for the future. Thanks to this historic funding, we are
    going to be doing a lot more building in the next few years,
    from electric vehicle charging infrastructure to wind turbines
    and solar farms, to the transmission that will move this new,
    clean power.
        The question we are grappling with is, how will we build
    faster and better? How will we build so that we protecting
    communities while growing our clean energy economy at the pace
    required by the climate crisis?
        This morning, we released a permitting action plan that
    tackles this challenge in four ways. First, we will set clear
    timelines for the projects to get reviewed and permitted.
    Second, we will use public dashboards so that everyone can
    track where projects stand in the process, including nearby
    communities. Third, we will hire more staff in the offices that
    are doing the hard work of permitting and reviews. And fourth,
    we will use the old saying, measure twice, cut once. Smart and
    early design, analysis, and public input save time by avoiding
    conflict, litigation, and waste.
        I want to close by saying that the investments that
    President Biden and Congress made will deliver a cleaner
    environment for generations to come, but we also need
    Congress's continued help to transition to clean energy at the
    pace and scale required to meet the challenge of climate
    change.
        The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law puts us on the right
    path, but there is still more work to be done. The clean energy
    provisions the Senate is considering would help cleanup and
    reduce carbon emissions in the power and transportation sectors
    while cutting energy costs for American families.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mallory follows:]

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Thank you very much.
        I will start the questions.
        I want to ask you just a quick question on one of your four
    points of the release of the information this morning. You
    mentioned, hire more staff. Is that at Fish and Wildlife, hire
    more staff?
        Ms. Mallory. I think, basically, what the plan calls for is
    agencies doing the assessment that is necessary to determine
    where they need resources, and then acting on that.
        Senator Capito. I would recommend Fish and Wildlife has
    been, is holding up a lot of the permitting, and it is very
    frustrating to a lot of people who are trying to move, whatever
    the project, clean energy, whatever the project. On that one, I
    think we both agree there are more resources needed.
        Let me ask you about the international situation, since I
    mentioned that in my opening statement. We see that the
    unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has really, I think, put a
    light, and the President has talked about this, on the need for
    energy security both here and abroad. And the President has
    mentioned the ability of the United States to help with
    liquefied natural gas and things of that nature to help Europe
    become less dependent on Putin.
        Would you agree that we must immediately act to replace
    Russian imports into Europe with American made energy? Do you
    agree with that?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, what I would say is that the
    President has been clear that the Ukraine situation and
    Russia's unprovoked action causes us to look at the current
    crises that we are already dealing with, the climate crisis
    being critical to that to assess how we take action that helps
    the Ukraine situation but doesn't undermine our overall goals
    for climate action.
        Senator Capito. I was going to ask next, have you taken any
    specific actions to strengthen our energy security, increase
    our domestic energy production to meet this, and export more? I
    think that answer to that is no.
        Ms. Mallory. Senator Capito, the answer is that what we are
    trying to do, as I said, is find that balance so that the
    President can continue to provide the support that Ukraine
    needs, but that we don't lose track of our overall goals to
    address the climate crisis.
        Senator Capito. I guess I am talking less about Ukraine at
    this point, although they are certainly in our hearts and
    minds, and we are probably going to be passing a very large
    package to help them. I am talking about the rest of Europe,
    which is now held hostage to Putin and his natural gas
    supplies.
        Let me ask you this question. On the permitting issue that
    I talked about with the IIJA, does this run into conflict with
    some of the goals that you have set forward in terms of a 2
    year timeline and a 90 day repeat, shortening the time of the
    projects? How do you see those working in conjunction with one
    another? Because we feel, I feel, as though you could create a
    conflict there.
        Ms. Mallory. First of all, thank you, Senator, I appreciate
    that question. One of the things that I have been trying to do,
    consistent with the President's goals from the beginning of my
    time at CEQ, is find a way to meet the multiple goals that the
    President has set before us. He has been very clear that he
    wants us to ensure that we get the projects done that are
    necessary in order to meet the investments that we have
    identified as being important through the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and other laws, but to do it in the right
    way, so that we are making smart decisions that allow us to
    meet our multiple goals.
        I would say that the whole effort that is reflected in the
    permitting action plan this morning is us trying to bring
    together the best tools that are available, to take advantage
    of what we know has worked in the Federal Government to get
    decisions done in a way that is both appropriate but also
    recognizes what our ultimate values are. And that is what we
    believe we can achieve through the permitting action plan, so
    that you get the projects, but you also get them done well.
        Senator Capito. I was interested in one of the quotes from
    your statement is, more building in the next few years, and it
    appears sort of laced through the action plans that you took on
    the NEPA regulatory changes, where you have taken down three of
    the major provisions that the Trump administration put forward,
    I mentioned it in my opening statement, only sets up more
    regulations from different Federal regulators. Again, it looks
    like a burdensome, how do I want to say this, a burdensome
    package, again, to slow any kind of new construction, or even a
    CCUS project.
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, thank you for that question. One of
    the things that the work that we did in the NEPA provisions was
    focused on is making sure that we are able to do the analysis
    that effectively determines what are the impacts that a project
    is going to cause. If you narrow your focus to such an extent
    that you are not actually considering the real impacts of a
    project, that is just setting us up for failure. So our focus
    has been on making sure that the agencies have the tools to do
    the necessary analysis, but then to support them in ways that
    they can do it in a time efficient manner.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        I am going to go to Senator Cardin. Is he on Webex?
        Senator Cardin. I am with you, thank you, Madam Chair. Let
    me thank our witness for your work.
        The Infrastructure Bill is a once in a lifetime opportunity
    for this country, so your role is critically important to make
    sure we do it right. You were very clear that environmental
    justice is one of our goals in regard to how we rebuild our
    infrastructure in America. I was proud that included in this
    bill was the removal of lead from our water pipe systems that
    we have, reconnecting communities that have been divided by
    highways that were destructive to the residential communities,
    and the list goes on and on. We have resiliency in this, et
    cetera.
        My home State of Maryland has the Maryland Environmental
    Justice Screening Tool. You have the White House Climate and
    Environmental Screening Tool that is available. Let me ask you
    how you intend to implement the use of these tools with the
    opportunities that we have with the infrastructure bill to make
    sure that we are sensitive to the communities' needs, that we
    recognize that the communities that have been hit the hardest
    as a result of climate change have been low income communities,
    communities that have been hit the hardest in regards to our
    efforts to build interstate roads have been our low income
    communities.
        How do you intend to use this opportunity to make sure
    that, in fact, we carry out our commitment for environmental
    justice?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, I appreciate that
    question, because the work that CEQ is doing has environmental
    justice squarely at the center of our priorities.
        What the President has directed in the early Executive
    Orders, including the specific direction that we do a screening
    tool, is that we use the tool to help decide how we prioritize
    the allocation of resources and benefits to communities to make
    sure that the folks who have been underserved in the past,
    whose communities have been under-invested in, are among those
    that receive the benefits of the Federal investment.
        That is the goal of the tool. The tool is a mapping tool.
    It allows us to prioritize areas where the programs that show
    that communities have high air pollution, that show that the
    communities have high impacts to climate impacts, that show
    that there is a high health burden, these are the things that
    are built into deciding how we focus on the communities who
    need the most help. So our idea is that once the tool is
    finalized, that this will be a resource that the agencies look
    to as they are trying to make decisions that relate to their
    funding.
        Senator Cardin. I am very supportive of that. I just hope
    you will keep us engaged at every stage. This is a relatively
    new opportunity that we have, and we want to make sure that we
    actually take advantage of it. So I would appreciate your
    keeping our Committee informed as to how this tool is in fact
    working in practice in dealing with these issues.
        I want to ask you one additional question on the American
    the Beautiful Initiative by the Administration and what role
    you will play in regard to working with the private sector to
    expand the lands that are protected through conservation under
    the American the Beautiful Initiative. Will your office play a
    role in this?
        Ms. Mallory. Absolutely. This is one of our central
    activities. I in fact chair a committee working with Secretary
    Haaland, Secretary Vilsack, and Secretary Raimondo on managing
    the America the Beautiful Initiative across the Government.
        The key about the America the Beautiful Initiative is that
    it is the first time a President has set a conservation goal,
    our goal here being to conserve 30 percent of the lands and
    waters by 2030. And our focus is on making sure that we elevate
    and lift up the great work that is going on across the country,
    where people in each community have identified what are the
    important measures of conservation in their communities, and
    create programs that really help to provide support for those
    efforts.
        Last week, in fact, I was in Florida and had the
    opportunity to see how activities are going on the ground where
    the public and private sector are working together on some
    conservation efforts that really reflected exactly what we want
    America the Beautiful to look like when it is put in place.
        So the grant program that I announced last week, which is
    $82 million that is going to be run through a request for
    proposal that brings together funding from several different
    agencies is an available resource that communities in the
    public and private sector could use.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much. I look forward to the
    results of your work.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Carper [presiding]. Senator Cardin, thanks very
    much for those questions.
        Senator Inhofe is next. I think he will be followed by me,
    and then we will move along. I think after that, Senator
    Cramer, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Padilla.
        Thanks, everyone.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see
    you again, as I have already mentioned to you.
        Chair Mallory, I have two requests, and they are not
    related to each other. They are separate. Let me start with the
    first one. Just so there is not any misunderstanding in what I
    am asking for, I am actually going to read it, so I have a
    record of what I am saying. All right?
        DOD is legally responsible for the cleanup of PFAS
    contamination that they cause. In order to clean up the
    contamination, they need to dispose of it. The best way to do
    so is incineration. DOD is ready to incinerate PFAS waste, but
    has been told by someone in the Administration not to do it.
        The two questions I would have is, first of all, who is
    telling them that they can't release their incineration
    guidance? The second thing is, if they can't incinerate, how do
    you propose they dispose of PFAS contaminated materials? You
    are from the right area to respond to those questions, I
    believe. What would be your response?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you Senator for that question. PFAS is
    obviously a really important issue that the Administration is
    spending a fair amount of time on. Specifically, in my office,
    I am chairing an interagency policy council that is focused on
    trying to coordinate the PFAS activities that are occurring all
    across the government. From the campaign until right when the
    President issued early Executive Orders, PFAS and the need to
    address it has been a high priority for them.
        One of the things that I am trying to do within the
    interagency policy forum is to make sure that the agencies are
    working together as they are identifying what are the actions
    and tools that are necessary in order to make sure that we are
    meeting the challenge of PFAS. We are in a place with PFAS
    where the science is still evolving, the standards still need
    to be put in place. There are a variety of technical things
    that need to happen.
        Meanwhile, there are families and people who are being
    harmed every day. So trying to make sure that we are able to
    move in a way that allows for the agencies to address the
    issues and address them in a way that is responsive to the
    health concerns of the community, I think, is important.
        Incineration is an issue. I know EPA, in guidance that they
    issued, I believe it was last year, talked about incineration
    being kind of--it is among the things where it is an approach,
    but it is one that we have to be very careful about because of
    the air quality impacts that are associated with that. We are
    talking to DOD about the studies that they have underway and
    getting additional information about the work in incineration
    and PFAS. And that is part of an ongoing discussion.
        Senator Inhofe. It is my understanding that New York has
    already crossed that bridge. They have made a statement as to
    any dangers having to do with this. So that study has been
    going on, I assume, for quite some time.
        So I just want to find out when this is going to be
    resolved. Right now, if you leave it the way that you are
    stating it there, that it is something you don't like in the
    first place, and therefore it is going to take you a while, how
    long is this going to take so that you will be able to clean
    this up?
        Ms. Mallory. First of all, Senator, I think we are spending
    real effort in trying to get the agencies to work together
    around this issue.
        Senator Inhofe. But your agency is an agency that has the
    responsibility to resolve this problem.
        Ms. Mallory. What I am saying is that we are gathering the
    information that will make that possible. The New York study
    that you made reference to, I think that there are other
    studies that we are not able to make available at this point,
    the DOD has done, and we want to see what those studies look
    like, which I think will be this summer.
        Senator Inhofe. If this is the only study that has been, is
    this the only study, then, that has been publicized?
        Ms. Mallory. I don't know the answer to that question, but
    I am happy to get back to you on it.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, there is not a lot of time to get
    back, because we have to do something with this right now.
    Nothing is being done. I came to this meeting because it is
    apparently the White House that is stopping this or delaying
    this. Is it being stopped or delayed? Can you inform me as to
    the status of this?
        Ms. Mallory. What I can say about it, Senator, is that we
    are having conversations with DOD about this guidance. I did
    not perceive us as stopping or even delaying it. But we are
    having conversations with them about what is their plan and
    what is necessary to address this issue.
        Senator Inhofe. But aren't you precluding them from doing
    cleanup?
        Ms. Mallory. What I asked DOD to do was to pull together
    the information so that we can have a briefing for everyone
    about what their plan is. I did not preclude them from doing
    anything.
        Senator Inhofe. All right, then give me a timeframe of
    this. This is an inconvenience issue, I understand, for DOD.
    DOD would have things that they need to be doing, and we need
    to be using this technology that has been accepted, and we just
    want to get to the bottom of where we are today, how much time
    it is going to take to accomplish the different things you are
    trying to determine, and where we are going to be with this.
        Ms. Mallory. Again, thank you, Senator, for the question. I
    will definitely get back to you with what the status is. I will
    say that DOD actually was arranging for, and I think we were
    assisting and arranging for a meeting. I am not sure if it is
    scheduled yet.
        Senator Inhofe. All right. I know my time is--I have one
    other issue I want to talk about, so let me just wind up this
    one really quickly, here. You have nothing today that you are
    going to be able to share with me in terms of when we will be
    able to clean up this mess?
        Ms. Mallory. Not unknown, no, Senator, I will definitely
    get back to you on that. It might be today, but it won't be
    while I am sitting here.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, all right. You have made that clear.
    How long do you think it would be? Give me a timeframe.
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, I mean, I commit to you that, today is
    Wednesday, I commit to you that we will get back to you,
    certainly by the end of the week, on where we are on the issue.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, that is good. The other issue I will
    bring up on the second round.
        Senator Carper. That is great. I would just ask you keep
    both majority and minority staffs in the loop on your responses
    to Senator Inhofe and his staff on this issue, OK? Thank you
    very much.
        I think I am next.
        Let me just say, I applaud the President's commitment, and
    your commitment as well, to address decades of under-investment
    in environmental justice communities. President Biden's
    Justice40 Initiative sets a lofty goal of delivering 40 percent
    of the Federal benefits from a variety of programs to low
    income, disadvantaged, and minority communities. At the same
    time, the Biden administration, under your leadership, has
    proposed a climate and economic justice screening tool to help
    agencies identify disadvantaged communities and address
    historic injustices. With that said, meaningful historic
    changes are hard to make overnight, as you know.
        Here is my question. Briefly, please share with us some of
    the achievements that CEQ has made in advancing environmental
    justice under your leadership and expand on the challenges you
    are facing to ensure the goals of Justice40 are met across the
    Federal Government. And if you would like to suggest a couple
    of ways we could be of help, please let us know that. Go right
    ahead.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I
    said earlier, the environmental justice part of the President'
    agenda is central to the work that we are doing at CEQ. It is
    personally a very high priority for me in terms of meeting this
    long challenge.
        Under the President' direction, there are a number of
    things that we were directed to do in order to really put in
    place the infrastructure that would allow us on a regular basis
    to think about, to make sure that we are considering what the
    impacts of Federal actions are on all communities. Ultimately,
    what we want to achieve in our environmental justice work is an
    assurance that every American, no matter where they live, can
    count on having clean air, clean water, and healthy
    communities, and that we are doing our part as Federal servants
    to try to deliver on that.
        So, the President instructed us to create a White House
    Advisory Council in which we have a regular interaction with 25
    experts and academics in the field who have been working in
    environmental justice for many years, to get their input, their
    reaction about things that need to be addressed as part of our
    policymaking. We created a White House Environmental
    Interagency Council so that the senior leadership all across
    the agencies comes together and has an opportunity to discuss,
    what is each agency doing to try to meet the President's goals,
    and how we collectively can work together to make sure that we
    are accomplishing the mission.
        Then the creation of the Climate and Economic Justice
    Screening Tool was obviously one of the central pieces to help
    us deliver on the President's commitment to do a Justice40
    Initiative, which is the 40 percent commitment. And the way
    that we are carrying that out is to finalize the tool, but then
    working with all of the agencies as part of Justice40 to make
    sure that they have the approaches for identifying how within
    specific programs they would need to make adjustments in order
    to carry that out, what the methodologies are, what the best
    benefits are. So all of that work has been going on since July
    2021. And Justice40 is up and running in the way that we are
    approaching our implementation of programs, even as we are
    trying to finalize the tool.
        More importantly, and I think what is going to be more
    impactful, is that within each of the agencies, the leadership
    and the rank and file career folks who are working there are
    now getting into the habit of thinking about more directly, how
    will this affect all communities? How will this affect the
    specific communities that are often not on people's minds in
    terms of what impacts are? I think that is actually one of the
    successes of the work so far.
        Senator Carper. All right. Sometimes, folks ask me, what do
    you mean by environmental justice? Why are they making such a
    big deal about it? Senator Inhofe and I have been, for years,
    on Thursdays around noon, participating in the same Bible
    study. Our chaplain is Barry Black, as our colleagues know, who
    is a retired Navy Admiral, former Chief Chaplain of the Navy
    and Marine Corps.
        He is always reminding us of the importance of the Golden
    Rule, treating other people the way we want to be treated. I
    think he once said it is the only rule that is in every major
    religion in the world. Everyone ought to treat other people the
    way we want to be treated. I think that certainly applies with
    respect to clean air, clean water, and protection from this all
    this climate crisis that we are witnessing.
        Thank you. With that, my time has expired. I am going to
    yield, happily, to Senator Cramer for his questions.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Chair Mallory, for being here.
        Again, thank you for the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
    for teeing up that question, because I want to elaborate on it
    a little bit and ask you to, as well. I am looking at the White
    House Environmental Justice Advisory Council's Justice40, some
    of the conclusions that they drew, and this is going to get me
    to my first question.
        Some of the conclusions, for example, examples of types of
    projects that will not benefit a community, here is a list from
    your--fossil fuel procurement, development, infrastructure
    repair that would in any way extend lifespan or production
    capacity; transmission system investments to facilitate fossil
    fire generation or any related subsidy; highway expansion, that
    certainly wouldn't help any community; road improvements or
    automobile infrastructure other than electric vehicle charging
    stations--really?--industrial scale bioenergy, God forbid that
    that would happen in a community. That certainly wouldn't be
    good.
        Critical to me in these discussions, around social justice
    and what is not good for a community, I have been
    participating, a number of us have, in a bipartisan discussion
    right now, as we speak, in these weeks, on trying to find a
    bipartisan energy and environment climate plan that we could
    agree on that would forward reliable power, whether it is for
    vehicles or for electricity, while at the same time, meeting
    certain goals.
        I think you have been talking in circles, frankly, but I
    think I understand you are just trying to find the balance. You
    are talking about balance, right? We have demands. We have an
    economic demand, we have national security demands, we have
    Europe pleading with us for our natural resources because they
    voluntarily cut themselves off of Russia's natural resources.
        But critical to all of this, in my mind, is prioritization
    of commercialization of emerging technologies. Emerging
    technologies, particularly in the power sector, that would also
    reduce emissions, technologies like carbon capture utilization
    and storage, listed as one of the things that don't help
    communities, for example. Direct air capture is also listed in
    the White House document as something that doesn't help
    communities. Emission free nuclear power generation, I don't
    know how you could want to advance cleaner energy and not be
    for nuclear. I want to remind you that President Biden's
    emission goals say that carbon capture utilization and storage
    and nuclear are critical components to reaching the targets.
        Then you have this Environmental Justice Advisory report
    stating they believe CCUS will not benefit communities. CEQ
    says environmental justice considerations must be incorporated
    into all permitting decisions.
        Some who see these, really, are left with some pretty
    obvious questions. Does the Administration actually support
    CCUS and nuclear? Do they actually support all communities, or
    only certain communities? If so, why are they simultaneously
    making it harder for these types of projects to get permitted?
    Help me find the balance here.
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, first of all, thank you for the question,
    Senator. I appreciate what you are struggling with. One of the
    things that the President is trying to do through the
    environmental justice work and I think was critical in his
    interaction with the communities during the campaign, and that
    was reflected in early Executive Orders is, he wants the
    authentic voices of communities to be heard, to be elevated, to
    be part of the conversation. What you read, the recommendations
    that we heard from the Environmental Justice Advisory Council,
    that is their reflection of their authentic voices.
        That doesn't mean that every single item there the
    President shares exactly that view with. He has also been very
    clear, I think, through the campaign, throughout early
    activities, that we think that technology is an important part
    of the solution for decarbonizing the environment, that we have
    to not only work hard to reduce the emissions of carbon, but we
    also are probably not going to be able to do it sufficiently
    without removing, having some technology that can help remove
    environment.
        I think the President has been clear about what his views
    are on that.
        Senator Cramer. I don't think it is clear at all. I think
    it is very confusing, quite honestly. I don't think there is
    anything clear about it.
        What I would like, I wonder, if anybody, when they do these
    surveys or they are talking to these communities, if they ever
    ask the question, how would it be if your natural gas gets
    turned off in the middle of winter? How about the air
    conditioning gets turned off because there is no electricity
    because God forbid, we have nuclear power or carbon capture
    utilization on a coal fired power plant, and we are only going
    to rely on the wind on the days that it blows?
        What is the process for coming up with crazy, frankly, this
    is cartoonish, this Justice40 document. I don't think the
    President is clear at all. I think the President sends
    confusing messages. I think investors see them as confusing, if
    not hostile, quite honestly. I prefer him to remain committed
    to carbon capture utilization storage and nuclear, frankly, as
    parts of the solution.
        I will get to some more questions in another round. Thank
    you.
        Senator Carper. Before I turn to Senator Whitehouse, since
    Senator Whitehouse has not returned yet, I think maybe we are
    going to go to Senator Padilla next. Is that correct?
        Before I do that, let me just say that as my colleague
    knows, let me say to Senator Cramer, I think you know how
    strongly I feel about nuclear. Old Navy guy, 70 years we have
    been doing nuclear in the Navy, and I think you have an idea,
    as a native of West Virginia, what I think about CCUS. I think
    we are poised to do good things there.
        Senator Cramer. I don't worry about you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. I wish more people felt that
    way.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cramer. I don't even worry about Senator
    Whitehouse. I rather like him.
        Senator Carper. Senator Whitehouse has rejoined us. After
    him, I think, maybe Senator Lummis after Sheldon.
        Senator Whitehouse, welcome.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        First, responding to some of the comments we have heard
    here, yes, to helping Europe disconnect from Russian fossil
    fuels. The Ukraine War is a fossil fuel powered war that sends
    important messages about the danger of this international
    industry. And for national security reasons, totally yes to
    helping Europe get off fossil fuels.
        Let's do remember that there is no American energy security
    in oil and gas. It can't happen. It can't happen for the very
    simple reason that the price of oil and gas is not set here in
    America. It is set by an international cartel of Iran and
    Venezuela and Russia and Saudi Arabia and others, and a horde
    of speculators who surround them.
        Every day, the American oil and gas industry has the choice
    whether to set their prices based on their cost of production
    here in America or whether to ride the cartel prices way up
    into the stratosphere and pocket billions and billions and
    billions of dollars in excess profits. And every day they
    choose that.
        We could knock a dollar of the price of gasoline tomorrow,
    if President Biden had the authority to, and they would still
    make money. That is how grotesque the excess profits are. And
    it is a choice that the oil and gas industry makes, not to
    follow market price based on cost of production, but to follow
    international cartel price. I hope we take a good hard look at
    that in the future.
        With respect to carbon capture, a place where we have done
    a lot of good work in this Committee; first of all, thank you
    for your interim guidance. I think that is a very good start.
    We need carbon capture for the very simple reason that we are
    going to miss the 1.5 degree safety threshold. We are going to
    overshoot, and going to zero carbon doesn't get you back once
    you have overshot.
        We need these technologies; we need to develop them, and we
    also need to make sure that communities that have been burdened
    by pollution understand that this is not another end run around
    their concerns.
        So, thank you for you focus on environmental justice. Thank
    you for the screening tool, which I have used for Rhode Island.
    It is very accessible and easy to use. I am grateful to you for
    it. Thank you for the focus that we have to engage communities
    in order to succeed, and in particular, with carbon capture, we
    have to engage communities.
        I think the question of NEPA reform and moving forward
    efficiently is a very important one. To me, the lesson is the
    sooner you can engage the conflicting uses, the better. We did
    this with offshore wind in Rhode Island, as you may know. We
    had a very good process that got all the users together with
    really good data from the University of Rhode Island. And
    because our process was good, we got the first steel in the
    water, the first electrons on the grid.
        We showed that you could site offshore wind in America, and
    now there is this explosion that President Biden is counting on
    for 30 gigawatts of clean and renewable energy. But it is going
    to happen a lot quicker if you get the lesson right, which is
    that all the conflicting users have to be brought together as
    soon as possible.
        I don't know if you have been following what BOEM did, but
    they got off to a terrible start with Vineyard Wind. It stubbed
    the toe of the whole offshore wind movement because they had
    not done that. They had not gotten everybody in the room who
    was a conflicting user. They had instead tried to roll
    communities.
        Now, with the progress going forward, BOEM has been better.
    They have moved the conflict identification forward. The New
    York Bay process has been much, much, much improved, so we are
    really, I think, gaining ground. To me, the lesson is that the
    process can't be one that is designed to steamroll communities
    and people who will be victims of pollution, but one that hears
    them early so that their concerns can be taken into
    consideration as quickly as possible. I hope that is the theory
    that will guide you.
        We are trying to improve carbon capture and carbon removal
    by creating a market for it. As you know, it is free to
    pollute. The fossil fuel industry fights incredibly hard every
    day to make sure that it is free for them to pollute and dump
    carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and tons and tons and tons
    and tons and tons, so let everybody else pick up the tab for
    those bad effects.
        We will be launching very soon a bill to give the
    Department of Energy a role buying carbon removal to jumpstart
    the market and move these technologies forward, in addition to
    the 45Q support that we have given. And I hope you will take a
    look at that bill. I hope you can round up Administration
    support for it. It is called the Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal
    Leadership Act.
        With that, congratulations to you on the CCUS work.
    Congratulations on the environmental justice work.
    Congratulations on the screening tool, and good luck making
    sure that our regulatory siting issues are dealt with in a way
    that does not steamroll local communities, but rather
    efficiently resolves the conflicts that they inevitably
    produce. Thank you.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much, Senator. I would just like
    to emphasize that the permitting action plan that we issued
    this morning is designed to do exactly what you are saying, to
    take the best lessons that we have learned, to use the senior
    leadership across the government to work together to make sure
    that we are organizing our work on individual actions to bring
    people together and resolve issues. I think that is hugely
    important.
        On the CCUS front, I think we absolutely are, as an
    Administration, supporting CCUS as a technology. The President
    has been clear on that. I think that we have to work harder to
    make sure that CCUS does not end up harming communities. That
    is what they care about. That is what they are worried about.
    They are worried because they are often the afterthought, and
    as a result, they have concerns that that is what people are
    thinking about now. We are trying really hard to avoid that.
        Senator Whitehouse. That is the right thing to do. Thank
    you.
        Senator Carper. Let me say, as we used to say in the House
    of Representatives, colleagues, I want to associate myself with
    the words of the Senator from Rhode Island.
        Senators, I want to submit for the record a unanimous
    consent request. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record materials describing the cause of the volatility in
    global energy markets, including a memorandum from MIT
    Economist discussing three conclusions, which I will not
    elaborate on right here.
        [The referenced information follows:]

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I think Senator Inhofe has a unanimous
    consent request as well.
        Senator Inhofe. One request, and that would be that I can
    submit for the record my second question.
        Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you.
        [Senator Inhofe's question is included in the questions for
    the record printed earlier in this hearing document.]
        Senator Carper. With that, we are ready to here from
    Senator Lummis.
        Take it away.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Chair Mallory, for being here.
        I am hearing a total disconnect between what the Senator
    from Rhode Island just said and what the Administration is
    doing. So I am going to ask you the question now, but then I
    want a few minutes to vent before you answer it.
        So here is the question. In May of last year, the White
    House Environmental Justice Advisory Council released a report
    that said carbon capture is among the types of projects that
    will not benefit a community, not benefit a community. And yet
    the Senator from Rhode Island, a member of your own party and a
    tremendous advocate for environmental justice, believes just
    the opposite. There is a disconnect in your own party among
    people who are real advocates for environmental justice. So,
    here is what I am going to say in the way of venting, but that
    is my question.
        You know, everything that you do at CEQ relates to the
    West, everything you do. It makes a difference for us on
    whether we have enough electricity in our homes via
    transmission lines. It impacts our abilities to fight
    wildfires, to commute to work on roads and bridges in massively
    large States. So it is a huge consequence.
        It is because of NEPA that I wanted to serve on this
    Committee. It is that important to our State. It affects us
    that much, so I am really disheartened by this Administration's
    actions in rolling back what were common sense reforms made by
    the last Administration.
        Let me paint a picture as I see it. Americans are facing
    the highest inflation in 40 years. The cost to the average
    household of this inflation is $5,200 annually. There is this
    sense of frustration and doom, and some say magical thinking,
    about inflation as it relates to the way this Administration
    looks at it. That was reported in Bloomberg yesterday.
        Gas prices hit a brand new record high. The average
    American is paying $2,000 more per year just for gasoline, and
    it is higher in my big State of Wyoming. Americans are looking
    at the stock market and their 401(k)s with horror. On top of
    that, our Nation is facing a supply chain crisis. There is a
    nationwide shortage of baby formula; brownouts are being
    discussed as possibilities in our energy sector.
        And CEQ, through its permitting regulations, are a key
    player in addressing these challenges. And CEQ's answer has
    been more government, more red tape, more bureaucracy. So that
    is the kind of magical thinking in response to all of these
    problems our Nation is having right now that I just think has
    got to stop.
        Now, listen to this: Terry O'Sullivan, the President of the
    Laborers International Union of North America, said it best,
    concerning CEQ's latest actions. This is a huge labor union
    talking about CEQ's latest actions. The rollback of updates to
    the National Environmental Policy Act reinstates burdensome
    requirements that will cause excessive permit delays and allow
    project adversaries to use frivolous lawsuits to disrupt or
    upend long overdue construction.
        Once again, communities in need of vital infrastructure and
    the hardworking men and women who build America will be waiting
    as project details are subjected to onerous reviews. Americans
    will continue to bear the expense of NEPA related delays, which
    costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Lengthy review
    processes and unpredictable legal challenges are also having a
    chilling impact on private investment in infrastructure.
        So, this Congress puts out a big infrastructure bill.
    People on this Committee worked hard on it, including the Chair
    and the Ranking Member, to get infrastructure moving in this
    country.
        And what does CEQ do? It slows it down. It throws up
    roadblocks. It puts up delays. It makes this country move
    slower and more expensively. It takes projects longer. They are
    more expensive. And our ability to respond to the demand for
    infrastructure is being roadblocked by CEQ, by the White House.
    This is, you give with one hand, and you take away with the
    other. And the American people know it.
        So, the frustration level is high with me. It is high with
    the labor unions. And I want to tell you, then when you move to
    this report on carbon capture, again, this report says carbon
    capture is among the types of projects that will not benefit a
    community.
        So, what I am just saying is the frustration is, what we
    are trying to do as a Congress is just being thwarted at every
    turn by what you all are doing in the White House. This is the
    expression of frustration that you are hearing at this table
    today.
        I haven't given you enough time, because I needed to unload
    on you. While I turn over the questioning to the next member of
    the Committee, I may submit some questions for the record,
    because I am 100 percent confused about what this
    Administration's goals are.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Ms. Mallory. Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
        Senator Carper. Yes, go ahead.
        Ms. Mallory. Yes. I am sorry; I will be very quick because
    I know the time is over.
        I did want to say a couple of really quick things. First of
    all, on the idea about what NEPA is, what we are doing for the
    NEPA program, those changes that we made are fundamental to
    ensuring that, in fact, we actually assess the impacts. If we
    are not able to look at the impacts, then we are moving forward
    on very expensive projects, spending a lot of money, as you all
    authorized, and we are doing it without the right information.
    So that is No. 1. That is critical to what we are doing. Those
    were not common sense changes that occurred.
        Second, I think it is important to separate out the White
    House Environmental Justice Advisory Council recommendations
    from the President. The President is setting forth what he
    believes to be important, key elements for our strategy, which
    includes the investments in technology, on carbon capture,
    which includes thinking about removal as a technique.
        The communities don't like it because they have decades of
    experience, even some would say centuries of experience, of
    people not doing projects in a way that is beneficial to them
    or that even takes into consideration their potential harms. I
    think that is the thing that we have to address.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        Senator Markey, I believe you are next. Thank you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        First, I would like to associate my remarks with those of
    Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
        Chair Mallory, I want to applaud the work that you have
    done so far in releasing an initial version of the Climate and
    Economic Justice Screening Tool. As the Senate author of the
    Environmental Justice Mapping and Collection Act, along with
    Congresswoman Cori Bush in the House, this has been a
    longstanding priority of mine. Low income and disadvantaged
    communities, especially those overburdened by pollution,
    deserve justice and targeted relief from polluted air and
    water.
        Some stakeholders in the movement for environmental justice
    have expressed concern that the tool does not explicitly screen
    for race, and could overlook thousands of disadvantaged census
    tracts as a result. Others have asked for a system that looks
    at how burdens interact in order to paint a picture of the
    cumulative impacts on a community.
        Chair Mallory, how is the Council on Environmental Quality
    continuing to work to take these and other stakeholder concerns
    into account as it continues the development of the screening
    tool?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I
    appreciate it. As I have said already, the work that we are
    doing on environmental justice is really central to the work
    that CEQ is doing, and that the screening tool is a very
    important factor in that.
        The way that we have structured the screening tool is
    directly related to the types of programs that are going to be
    affected by the distribution of resources. The Justice40
    initiative is about looking at clean energy projects, about
    climate change related projects, about some affordable housing
    issues. So what we did is to establish criteria that really
    focus on those issues within the community. We are identifying
    communities that have high health burdens; we are identifying
    communities where the climate change impacts seem to be high;
    we are identifying communities with low education. All of these
    factors will actually allow us to focus on the disinvestment
    that we think is critical for making sure that the underserved
    communities are addressed.
        Senator Markey. So, the initial version of the Climate and
    Economic Justice Screening Tool has many regions for which
    there is little or no data, including in tribal communities and
    U.S. territories. We can't help protect all communities if we
    don't understand all communities. Are you now going to be
    filling in the gaps to make sure all that information is in
    fact gathered so that those communities can be served?
        Ms. Mallory. One of the things that we did when we
    announced that we were doing the screening tool or putting out
    the beta version of it is that we are going to have an NAS
    study that is helping us with data sets. We know that there are
    data gaps. We used the data that was available at a national
    level to really set up the beginning of the tool. But we know
    that we need more data. That is part of the effort that will go
    on even after we release what will be the final, or at least
    the operating tool.
        Senator Markey. So after the information is developed, the
    communities are going to need more than just money or
    proclamations. They need a seat at the table in order to make
    sure the government gets this right.
        How will CEQ support ongoing community interaction with
    this tool?
        Ms. Mallory. I think we have been actually making ourselves
    available with a number of members of the community, and also
    creating folks who can serve as ambassadors for helping to work
    with the community on how to use the tool, on what is necessary
    in order to operate it. We know that technical assistance is
    very important as it relates to communities. That is something
    that we are working with our agency partners on to make sure
    occurs.
        Senator Markey. So you are saying that there will be a way
    for community members themselves to report their needs for
    investments in certain areas and comment on the current status
    of Justice40 related programs in their area?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, absolutely. Even the tool created,
    actually the tool itself allows for people to be able to submit
    information if they think we have missed something.
        Senator Markey. That is great. Thank you. It is just so
    important, thank you for your great work on this issue.
        Chair Mallory, I applaud the CEQ's new final phase one rule
    to restore the potential of the NEPA process to protect human
    health and the environment. The National Environment Policy Act
    is our bedrock statute for bringing the public good into the
    Federal decisionmaking process. The public good is not slowing
    down good decisionmaking; it enables it. For example, delays in
    permits for mines are more likely due to plan changes from the
    applicant than from the NEPA process itself.
        For example, on LNG exports, FERC has already permitted
    facilities that could move 28 billion cubic feet per day of
    liquid natural gas, facilities that so far have not yet been
    built. But that is not a NEPA problem getting them constructed.
    The work has already been done to get them permitted.
        Sometimes I hear concerns, but LNG is a big issue. It is
    already permitted. And for the small subset of Federal projects
    that require full environmental impact statements, those
    projects are longer lasting and better for the fact that the
    public can weigh in and understand what is happening in their
    community. Just like on a grade school test, NEPA means big
    corporations have to show their work in order to get an A. That
    is all NEPA really requires, that the work be produced, that it
    can be examined, and it can be done in a timely fashion.
        I want to say, I think you are doing a great job on this.
    Without a working NEPA process, small business owners, local
    community leaders, concerned parents or other stakeholders
    would not be able to weigh in on these massive Federal
    projects. Do you agree with that?
        Ms. Mallory. Absolutely. I think that is what we are trying
    to focus on, particularly with the release of the affirming
    action plan today, is to highlight how we can make the process
    work with the values of ensuring that we are doing impact
    analyses.
        Senator Markey. And you are making disadvantaged
    communities can have their voices heard?
        Ms. Mallory. Absolutely.
        Senator Markey. Beautiful. Thank you so much.
        Senator Carper. The Senator's time has expired.
        Senator Sullivan is next. He is en route to join us; when
    he arrives we will be sure to work him into the lineup.
        I think Senator Padilla may be with us by Webex.
        Alex, are you out there?
        Senator Padilla. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Carper. We recognize Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. I will jump right in. Five minutes goes by
    fast.
        Last week, the Department of Justice made several important
    announcements in support of the Administration's new
    Environmental Justice Enforcement Strategy. And it certainly
    was welcome news. Part of that effort is one that I have been
    pushing for the Department to do, which is to create a
    dedicated environmental justice office within the Department of
    Justice to better hold polluters accountable and to support
    historically marginalized communities, as Senator Markey has
    just been discussing.
        I was also pleased to see that the Department of Justice
    finally issued an interim final rule to restore the use of
    supplemental environmental projects, also known as SEPs, in
    certain settlements. This is an important tool, because SEPs
    serve as an essential environmental justice function. They
    provide tangible, real world projects in below income
    communities, communities of color in many cases, who would
    otherwise be forced to deal with the pollution that is left
    behind by bad actors on their own.
        The restoration of SEPs is just one tool that we have in
    the toolbox. It is great to have it back. We need more to
    correct the injustices in overburdened communities.
        With that being said, my question, Chair Mallory, is can
    you talk about other tools in the toolbox to invest in
    historically marginalized communities, and what the Council is
    doing to help right these historical wrongs?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, Senator; thank you for that question.
    Yes, environmental justice is obviously central to the work
    that we are doing. I can talk about several of the steps that
    we have already taken.
        The underlying message as to all the work we are doing is
    just trying to make sure that all communities get the benefit
    of the environmental protection network ecosystem that exists
    in this country, that everybody has the benefit of clean air,
    clean water, and a livable community. So the President's
    direction to us has been focused on getting the voices in the
    White House so that we know what people are thinking, and we
    are doing that through the White House Environmental Justice
    Advisory Council.
        We are also doing that in, every time that I go out and
    visit a community, I make a point to ensure that I am meeting
    local representatives from different environmental justice
    organizations who can talk to me specifically about what they
    are experiencing and how they see the work that CEQ and the
    White House is doing and can be more helpful. So that is a very
    important tool.
        I think other agencies are doing similar things. If you are
    tracking any of the work that the Department of Energy or EPA
    or the Department of Transportation are doing, they are
    regularly interacting with the communities who are affected by
    their programs to find out how those communities are both
    feeling what the Administration is doing and planning, but also
    how we as an Administration can be helpful in ensuring that the
    work that we are doing actually has a positive benefit for
    everyone. That is a very important mechanism that we are using.
        Then within the Federal Government itself, the
    Environmental Justice, the White House Interagency Council is a
    really important mechanism for making sure that we all know
    what agencies are doing and can both use the good examples of
    individual agencies to encourage and inspire work around the
    Federal family, but also to make sure that everybody is aware
    of how we are taking advantage of the opportunities that are
    presented by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as an example,
    how we are taking advantage of that opportunity to make sure
    that good benefits reach all American people.
        Those are the mechanisms that we are using.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, in the minute I have left, I do have a follow
    up question on this topic, but I will submit in writing
    questions as it pertains to the American the Beautiful
    framework. I have questions about inclusiveness, what we are
    doing to ensure input from a variety of stakeholders. The
    question is if it pertains to PFAS cleanup, that has been
    brought up earlier at the hearing, and Federal procurement
    opportunities to advance an environmental justice agenda as
    well.
        But the one specific one, in my time remaining, talking
    about additional tools in the toolbox. If somebody is lost or
    going somewhere they have never been before, they need one of
    two things, good directions or a map. I put it simply there,
    because in the State of California, the State has led, when it
    comes to mapping tools for environmental justice, with its tool
    known as CalEnviroScreen. It is identifying how California
    communities, by census tract, are disproportionately burdened
    by and vulnerable to multiple sources of pollution. So I think
    it is a great model for something that we can understand and
    develop as a Federal tool at the national level.
        Chair Mallory, can you just briefly describe how the
    Council can help implement a climate and economic justice
    screening tool?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you for the question. What I would say
    to that quickly is just that when we were developing our own
    tool, we very much recognized that California and New York and
    several other States had their own tools that are in use. We
    collaborated with folks who were involved in those processes to
    both learn what the positive benefits we could take and sort of
    scale to a national level, but also some of the challenges that
    they faced and how that might affect Federal programs.
        So that is, the work that has been done in California and
    other States is very much front of mind on folks as they were
    developing the tool.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, I am going to ask you to
    wait for Senator Sullivan. It is his turn.
        Welcome, Senator Sullivan. You are recognized.
        Then I believe next is Senator Kelly.
        I am going to run and vote and leave the Committee in good
    hands to the gentlewoman to my right.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam Chair,
    thank you for being here.
        I am going to follow up on the questioning that a lot of us
    have that Senator Lummis started, and that is on this new NEPA
    reg. I think A, there is very much disappointment in CEQ, what
    they are doing with this; B, if you talk to the average
    Governor or mayor in America, it doesn't matter if they are
    Democrat, Republican, I guarantee you they are against this.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this Wall Street
    Journal editorial, if it hasn't already been submitted, How to
    Kill American Infrastructure on the Sly, the White House
    Revises NEPA Rules that Will Scuttle New Roads, Bridges, and
    Oil and Gas Pipelines.
        Senator Carper. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. So here is the issue. And it is a broader
    issue, and it is way before you came. But I am firmly of the
    view when the national Democrats get in power and they have a
    choice between the working men and women who build things in
    America, like the Laborers, I am going to quote from them like
    Senator Lummis did, and the radical elite environmental groups,
    coastal elites, they always side with the radical far left
    environmental groups. And the working men and women always get
    the shaft.
        The Democratic Party used to say they are the party of the
    working men and women. They are definitely not anymore. The
    head of the Laborers said, they opposed this, ``Rollback of the
    updates to NEPA reinstate burdensome requirements that will
    cause excessive permit delays and allow project adversaries to
    use frivolous lawsuits to disrupt and upend long overdue
    construction. Once again,'' I am still quoting from him,
    ``communities in need of vital infrastructure and the hard
    working men and women who build America will be waiting as
    project details are subjected to onerous reviews.'' He goes on
    to oppose this.
        Why did you not listen to the Laborers on this? Because you
    clearly didn't.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I
    have been saying today, our focus and the President's focus as
    we are moving forward in the work that we are doing on the
    National Environmental Policy Act is to make sure that we are
    taking advantage of good science----
        Senator Sullivan. No, no, no. Let me interrupt. I am sorry.
    But you guys always fall back on science, and it drives me
    nuts.
        Let me give you another example. The National Petroleum
    Reserve of Alaska set aside by Congress for oil and gas
    development, 2 weeks ago through an Executive Order you took
    half of that off the table. Almost 8 million acres of some of
    the most prospective oil and gas land in the country. It is not
    even controversial. You guys took it off the table. You cited
    science. It is ridiculous, OK?
        So don't fall back on science, with all due respect. Why
    did you not listen to the Laborers who clearly oppose this?
    What about the statement from the Laborers did you disagree
    with?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator Sullivan, what I would say is I will
    fall back on science, because it is about science. I will fall
    back on good government, because it is about good government. I
    will fall back on making sure you look before you leap
    because----
        Senator Sullivan. Delaying infrastructure is not good
    government. I voted for the Infrastructure Bill; Senator Capito
    voted for the Infrastructure Bill. This completely undermines
    the ability build infrastructure. The people who build it, like
    the Laborers, agree with my position.
        Let me ask another thing. When you talk about good
    governance, your rule says agencies have to analyze, compile
    reports on indirect and cumulative effects, ``aesthetic,
    historical, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts for
    every Federal, every single major Federal action.'' Where is
    the limiting principle where you have to focus on ``aesthetic,
    historical, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts?''
        Could any EIS survive a challenge when you are literally
    saying you have to focus on everything? What is the limiting
    principle here? This is an invitation for radical, far left
    environmental groups to sue. And that is exactly what this is.
    Help me in good governance with ``aesthetic, historical,
    cultural, economic, social, and health impacts.'' Who the heck
    can do that for every project in America? That is your
    language.
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, and it sounds like it is coming directly
    out of the statute itself. But the limiting principle is
    reasonably foreseeable impacts. That is what are focusing on.
        Senator Sullivan. How can you reasonably foresee aesthetic,
    historical, cultural, economic, social, and health impacts for
    every project?
        Ms. Mallory. It is not as hard as it may sound if you look
    at it in the abstract.
        Senator Sullivan. Really?
        Ms. Mallory. No, it is not.
        Senator Sullivan. How can you do an EIS that fits that
    principle?
        Ms. Mallory. It is done every day, Senator. There are
    professionals who know the environmental area and how you do an
    analysis, and it is----
        Senator Sullivan. Let me just ask one--I am sorry, I am out
    of time. Just, I would like to go back to the question, is, why
    did you ignore the Laborers' very significant, substantial
    comments, these are the men and women who are going to build
    American infrastructure, they know what they are talking about,
    why did you ignore their concerns?
        Ms. Mallory. We did not ignore them.
        Senator Sullivan. You did. You did.
        Ms. Mallory. The reason that we issued a permitting action
    plan today is because we are trying to balance those two
    things: How do we get projects done expeditiously but also done
    in a way that we are actually doing the analysis necessary? We
    are not ignoring them. We are trying to do it in a way that
    makes sense.
        Senator Sullivan. You have ignored it, right? They were
    against your rule.
        Ms. Mallory. That may be, but it was not because they were
    ignored. We definitely heard their comments. We talked to them;
    we have talked to them in different ways to try to make sure
    that the projects go forward in an expeditious way.
        Senator Capito [presiding]. Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Ms. Mallory, thank you for being here today.
    I want to discuss, as a I have a number of times before this
    Committee, the effect of a 20 year long drought in the western
    United States. While a drought of this magnitude is
    unprecedented, I know that if we act quickly enough we can
    advance some solutions which can guarantee water security in
    Arizona and the rest of the West.
        That is why I worked really hard to ensure that the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $8 billion for western
    water infrastructure. I am glad to see that the Bureau of
    Reclamation is already disbursing some of this funding with
    projects in the Yuma area receiving funding just this week to
    upgrade canals and some pipelines.
        We are also seeing innovative solutions throughout the West
    like water re-use and plans for some desalinization facilities
    which can help boost our scarce water supplies. But time is
    critical here. And a years long NEPA approval process for a
    pipeline carrying desalinated water or delayed updates to a
    dam's flood control manual can have some real consequences to
    our water security.
        Ms. Mallory, can you share how the regulatory actions
    undertaken by the Council on Environmental Quality in recent
    months will help ensure that projects which conserve or bolster
    scarce water reserves in the western United States are able to
    move through the environmental review and permitting process
    quickly and efficiently?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, Senator, thank you very much for that
    question.
        As I have been saying, with NEPA, the goal of the very
    targeted changes that we made to NEPA last month is to make
    sure that we are looking at the important suite of impacts that
    really are going to affect a project. For example, on any
    project that has to do with water in an area where drought is
    so profound, we are going to want to make sure that that
    analysis is actually fully considering not only the direct
    impacts of what is being built, but also what are going to be
    the repercussions of that. So what we are doing in the rule
    itself was to just make sure that we get that on the table.
        The work that we have done in the permitting action plan
    and other mechanisms that the government has used are designed
    to help move things in the expeditious way that you are talking
    about, that are designed to bring the senior leadership to the
    table to help resolve some of the sticking points that may come
    up on your projects. I don't know your specific projects that
    you were referencing.
        But the idea is, we know there are times at which we have
    to have everybody engaged and involved in coming to the
    solutions that are necessary to resolve those projects. Those
    are the things that we think will help resolve your concerns.
        Senator Kelly. So a hypothetical desal plant somewhere in
    the western United States requires a hypothetical pipeline to
    ship the water some distance. Could you give me an estimate for
    how long that NEPA process, that you would hope that would
    take?
        Ms. Mallory. I can't give you a specific estimate on that.
    I think the goal is that we are striving to make the projects
    go as quickly as possible, given those circumstances. Your
    project is obviously going to be very different than a narrower
    project that doesn't transgress over large areas of land and
    that have impacts on the numbers of species along the way.
    Those are going to be slightly different projects than a more
    narrow one.
        But I think the goal is to, at the beginning of the
    project, identify what we think is necessary in order to
    complete the project, to give an estimate on what we think the
    timeline is going to be. That is what we are committing to in
    the permitting action plan, then we would lay out a schedule,
    and then to work with the parties who are involved in it to try
    and make sure we can meet that expeditiously. That is our plan.
        Senator Kelly. The One Federal Decision rule, I believe it
    targets less than 2 years to get something through permitting.
    Would you expect this process to take less than 2 years on new
    infrastructure in Arizona that would help solve our water
    issues?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, what I would say is, it depends. It
    really depends on the circumstances, whether there is other
    information that is available that doesn't require you to re-do
    analyses, like existing analyses that can be used. The
    circumstances will really affect it.
        Our goal is to try to identify a schedule that will allow
    you to move as quickly as possible. That might be 2 years; that
    might be under 2 years. That is the goal. Then to try to use
    the accountability and oversight mechanisms to keep people on
    track.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Well, I think that concludes our first
    round. In waiting for the Chairman to come back, I will go
    ahead and take his spot and start the second round.
        In a filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    last year, the EPA ``recommended that attention should be paid
    to the costly irreversibility of constructing natural gas
    pipelines.'' EPA stated, ``An important question to consider is
    whether pipeline construction will lock in natural gas
    production and use at the expense of substitute energy sources
    with lower social costs.'' And I would remind you that
    according to the WHEJAC, some of those projects that would be
    eliminated would be the CCUS projects, the Direct Air Carbon
    Capture Projects, nuclear projects.
        I am very concerned to see a similar line of thinking
    incorporated into the NEPA regulatory changes that you signed
    last month. Under those regulations, the government defines the
    purpose or need of a project under NEPA and can override a
    project developer's purpose.
        As I understand it, under the new regulations an energy
    company could request permits for a natural gas plant and the
    Federal Government could instead say, through the NEPA review,
    that solar generation should be developed instead, regardless
    of what the business case is. Would you say that is a fair
    characterization?
        Ms. Mallory. Again, thank you, Senator. I think obviously
    you know how important this issue is for CEQ and for the
    President. So I appreciate the attention that we are getting.
        What I would say about that particular provision, what we
    were trying to address is the reality that various factors go
    into identifying what is the reasonable alternative or range of
    alternatives that should be considered. And what the previous
    Administration did is they made a change that made that scope
    very dependent on what the applicant said it was. All we are
    saying is that this is a public statement, this is what the
    agency sees as the available, reasonable options that should be
    analyzed, even if it would mean that this particular applicant
    isn't the applicant who would do the permit.
        The answer to your question is, the circumstances really
    would depend, but that sounds to me like something like that
    would be different than what I would expect the agency to ask.
        Senator Capito. It is funny, from what your explanation
    was, it sounded to me like the answer to that was yes, that the
    determination could be made that the applicants or the
    applicants' idea or purpose could be to provide more power to a
    certain area and that the method by which that is delivered
    through that developer's and private entity could shift.
        But I will shift to another question here. One of the key
    project delivery provisions of IIJA, I talked about this, was
    the codification of One Federal Decision for major
    transportation projects. In today's fact sheet on permitting
    action plan, you state that the IIJA's provisions ``enhance
    efficiency, accountability, predictability, and will provide
    the tools needed to ensure timely and sound delivery of these
    historic investments.'' You seem to recognize the critical role
    One Federal Decision plays in the environmental rule review and
    permitting process.
        So as you move forward to phase two of your update for
    NEPA, do you commit to keeping the elements of One Federal
    Decision as part of these regulations?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you for that question. What I can commit
    to you on a rulemaking process, Senator, is that we will
    certainly have discussions about what is included in that rule
    and reflect the fact that you have made this request.
        Senator Capito. I think you really have to follow the law
    here.
        Ms. Mallory. Absolutely.
        Senator Capito. It is in the law.
        Ms. Mallory. It is in the law, and we are following it.
    What I am saying is, whether it is part of the broader rule
    that will go beyond what the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    covered is the issue.
        Senator Capito. Yes, you stated we are going to be building
    a lot. We are not going to be building a lot if we don't stick
    with these, a lot, efficiency, and as we see, with inflation
    and everything else, this is a real issue. Time is money here.
    And I think it is very concerning.
        I would like to go to--I come from a State that has
    economic challenges, as you know. We talked about this. We have
    communities of real downturn and hopelessness. The statistics
    that just came out on drug deaths today, I read 108,000, I
    think it was, Americans lost their lives. Unfortunately, our
    State is subject to some of that.
        I think that a broader view of what is going to bring
    people out of poverty needs to be taken here by the
    Administration. I understand the clean air and the clean water,
    and that is what we all want. But at the same time, to exclude
    a highway expansion, a community might not have a way out. I
    know certainly in Senator Sullivan's case, in many of the
    communities in Alaska, they have no infrastructure to move, to
    progress, in some cases, both on the water and on the
    transportation.
        So I think a broader view of how this can open up
    communities and pull people out of poverty which is ill health
    and drug addiction and everything else that goes along with
    that sometimes, is what I think a lot of us are trying to make
    the point that you can't exclude communities who have been
    treated poorly, and that we want to have them treated like the
    Golden Rule. You have to have all the options on the table
    here.
        And I know you said we have got to listen to these
    communities, and I know you are listening to the communities.
    But there are conversations that go on with the communities who
    want to have cheaper energy, who want to have the availability
    of power costs that are going to be reliable and that are going
    to be there for them and for their children when they grow up
    in and around.
        You know, I am from a small area. A lot of our folks don't
    want to move from where they are. So the solutions I think, I
    think that is the frustration that I feel listening to the
    testimony, is the narrowing of the view of, it almost gives us,
    me, an impression of, I know better what is good for you than
    what you know is good for yourself.
        So I would just ask you to take that thought with you as
    part of my impressions today. Thank you.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your making
    those comments. First of all, I just want to be clear. Again, I
    feel like people are equating all of our views with the views
    that were expressed to us by the environmental justice
    advocates. We believe that those are views that we have to
    consider along with other views as well. We are not just
    limiting what we think and how we behave simply to
    recommendations. We are trying to make sure that those
    recommendations are part of the process of thinking how we move
    forward.
        I am making an effort, and I think other members of the
    Administration as well, to get out and reach out and talk to
    all communities. It is not that we are simply limited to our
    experts that are interacting with us through the Advisory
    Council. In our interactions with other people, we are
    listening to other people, and we are hearing different views.
    This is a big country, and in different regions people have
    different ideas about what is the best approach. We are trying
    to take all of that into account.
        Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you for presiding over
    this hearing while I had to run and vote. I think we have some
    more votes coming up.
        This is my second round. I would like to lead it off by
    giving you the opportunity, if you want to, to respond to some
    of the questions that Senator Sullivan raised that you may not
    have had a chance to respond to earlier. If you want to take
    that opportunity, it is yours.
        Ms. Mallory. I am not sure that there is not much new to
    add. As I was trying to say to the Senator, I think basically
    on the issues of carbon capture and sequestration, which is
    obviously something that we talked a little bit about, and how
    that is an important part of the President's agenda, and how we
    are approaching that issue, I don't know that there are new
    things to say on that.
        What we are trying to do is to make sure that we invest in
    the technology and conduct it in a way that we are not harming
    people who are living near or close to related facilities, and
    that that is as important a consideration as everything else in
    the planning. So that is really the main point that I was
    trying to reflect.
        Senator Carper. All right. I am not going to dwell on
    carbon capture sequestration, which is something that I am
    strongly interested in, as are other Democrats and Republicans.
        I would note that the issue of regenerative agriculture, in
    my State, we raise a lot of chickens, a lot of soybeans, a lot
    of corn, a lot of lima beans. We are always concerned about
    overdevelopment in our State. We have these beautiful beaches
    in southern Delaware, and there is a lot of interest from
    people to live in southern Delaware, and developers want to
    over-develop southern Delaware.
        So we are always looking ways to keep farmers on the land.
    One of the ways to do that is make sure they have greater
    income, have more fertile soil, and regenerative agriculture is
    something we are hugely interested in, as are the farmers. So I
    would just share that with you. We will come back later and
    talk about it.
        My next question would be, last month the Columbia Journal
    of Environmental Law published a study on NEPA's implementation
    at the U.S. Forest Service. The study reviewed over 40,000 NEPA
    decisions completed by the U.S. Forest Service between 2004 and
    2020, over 40,000 decisions by the U.S. Forest Service between
    those years. It uncovered that one of the biggest hurdles to
    quick or timely environmental reviews is lack of agency
    resources, lack of agency resources. And contrary to popular
    belief, less rigorous analysis does not actually lead to faster
    decision times.
        However, not having the right staff or sufficient resources
    to conduct NEPA reviews leads to slower decision times. This
    means that the past Administration's efforts to starve Federal
    agencies of staff and resources did not make the reviews move
    faster. It actually made the delays worse, not better.
        My question: Do these findings surprise you? And what are
    you and others in the Administration doing to ensure that the
    Federal Government has the resources and staff to conduct
    environmental reviews in a timely manner?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        It doesn't surprise me, having been a career staff person
    in the Federal Government for 14 years before I took on my
    first political position. What we know is that agencies are
    going to work to whatever you establish for them as the goal.
    And what gets cut is the quality of what gets done. That is why
    I think we are trying, in the action plan, one of the key
    pillars of that is to try to make sure that the agencies are
    assessing what their needs are and deploying the staff in
    places that are necessary, or at least working as a Federal
    team to try to help each other do well, to work in a way that
    we help each other, so that the resources that are necessary in
    order to conduct the whatever is necessary for the permitting
    is available. That is part of having the leadership in regular
    interaction around our permitting progress.
        Senator Carper. Second question. Given that, this involves
    State and local governments given that State and local agencies
    implement so many Federal programs, what guidance, technical
    assistance, and support do you anticipate providing to our
    partners at the State or local level with permitting action
    plans?
        In your answers, if you could clarify something for me, I
    would be grateful. In the action plan and recent rulemaking,
    did CEQ roll back any of the timelines for decisionmaking? Did
    you roll back any of the timelines for decisionmaking? And
    also, are the changes intended to delay the investments we are
    making in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law? I don't think that
    is the case, but I would like to hear it from you directly on
    this issue, please.
        Ms. Mallory. First of all, on the action that we just took
    recently, it was three very targeted actions that did not
    affect the timelines or the One Federal Decision process, or
    any of the efforts that were specifically efficiency focused.
    That was not covered in our most recent rule.
        On the question about the resources and what we need to do
    there, the action plan itself is designed to help us or make
    the connections with the State and local entities who are very
    active in actually implementing the rules. It does not say
    specifically what we are going to do, but we identify that as
    an area in which we have to get together with preferably like
    national level bodies that are coming from cities like the
    League of City Voters, that is not the right name, that work at
    a level that is representative of both States, ECOS is an
    example of a body that we would envision kind of creating a
    relationship to help figure out how we can best work together
    with States.
        We can improve our part, but our part is only one part. We
    can get the funding necessary to do our part. But ultimately,
    for a lot of the projects, it is really important that State
    and local entities be able to also do their part.
        Senator Carper. All right.
        We have just been joined by Senator Wicker. I am prepared
    to yield to him if he and Senator Sullivan are OK with that.
        But let me ask another unanimous consent request of my
    colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
    Congressional Research Report entitled The Role of the
    Environmental Review Process in Federally Funded Highway
    Projects, Background and Issues for Congress, which concludes
    the environmental reviews mandated by NEPA do not result in
    infrastructure project delays when early stakeholder engagement
    is part of the project planning process.
        [The referenced information follows:]

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I should yield to Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I would defer to Senator
    Sullivan. He has not yet voted, and I have.
        Senator Carper. OK.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, I am getting screamed at. This is
    too important for me.
        Senator Carper. Second bite out of the apple. Go ahead.
        Senator Sullivan. Hopefully they will keep the vote open
    for me.
        Madam Chair, I am obviously, I am expressing frustration,
    it is no--I am not trying to be rude to you. But this
    Administration, the Biden administration has issued 22
    Executive Orders or Executive Actions solely targeting Alaska,
    22. I guarantee you they are not doing it to Delaware. And my
    constituents are up in arms, because it is targeting their
    livelihood, it is targeting their access to Federal lands.
        Deb Haaland, Secretary Haaland was in Alaska 3 weeks ago.
    She meets with the Inupiat People of the North Slope, who every
    single one of them said no more regulations to lock up our
    lands. She smiled, nodded, she got back, and 72 hours after her
    return, she issued a giant Executive Order taking, as I
    mentioned, half of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska off
    of the table and had the audacity to put in their rule that
    they were doing it because the Inupiat People wanted their
    subsistence right protected. She had just met with them. And
    that is not at all what they said. It was an insult.
        So I am very frustrated. And I am frustrated on behalf of
    my constituents.
        Senator Kelly's question, I am sure you know, the average
    EIS takes almost 4 years. That is average. One-quarter of all
    EISes take 6 and a half years. Do you think those timelines are
    good for our country?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, as I was saying, one of the reasons
    that we have released the permitting action plan is that we are
    trying to get the processing efficiencies in place in a way
    that will allow us to----
        Senator Sullivan. There is a lot of smart people who think
    your NEPA rule will do the exact opposite and will give radical
    environmental groups the opportunity to sue away and delay
    more. I had a gold mine in my State. It is called the
    Kensington Gold Mine. Took 20 years to permit, 20 years. Do you
    think that is good for the country?
        Ms. Mallory. I know that there are extreme examples out
    there that we are trying to make sure that we address.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask, just with regard to the rule,
    as you know, under Federal law, you do not only have to publish
    that in the Federal Register, the rule must then be submitted
    to the House and Senate before taking action. When does CEQ
    intend to do that? That is a Federal law requirement.
        Ms. Mallory. I will have to get back to you on that.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. That is important.
        Let me ask just one final question. The President made this
    big deal about the lack of critical minerals, which really
    hurts our defense industrial base, our renewable sector,
    renewable technology, and that the Administration is going to
    do all this great stuff to make sure critical minerals are from
    America, not China.
        I had a recent amendment in terms of instructions for our
    conferees on the USECA conference that passed unanimously.
    Every U.S. Senator said, hey, we should get our critical
    minerals and technology from America, our allies, and not China
    and not Russia. So, pretty broad bipartisan support for that.
        And yet, and yet, this Administration reversed the Ambler
    Mining District road decision in Alaska. Huge stock of critical
    minerals for our country in the Ambler Mining District. You
    guys reversed it about 8 months ago.
        And then the big nickel, I believe it is nickel, prospect
    in Minnesota was also recently reversed. These again were super
    big goals of the radical left environmental groups. And the
    President is saying, we are going to do this, and yet the
    actions you take, the clear actions are harming America's
    ability to actually mine and process critical minerals. That is
    two examples, Minnesota and Alaska.
        So what is CEQ's role to oversee the Administration's
    implementation of addressing the shortage of critical minerals
    that we need desperately in our country across the board,
    including for EV technology and batteries and military issues
    as well?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Again,
    this is an area where the President has put some attention on
    the importance of our putting ourselves as a country in a
    better position on critical minerals. And he has also
    recommended that we pursue mining reform based on principles
    that will essentially bring our modern ethos around
    environmental protection into the way that we proceed on
    mining.
        So CEQ is actively engaged with other members of the White
    House on those efforts and initiatives.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. You bet.
        Senator Wicker, thanks for joining us today. Before you go
    forward with your questions, let me just make another unanimous
    consent request.
        I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record materials
    that show that U.S. oil production continues to recover despite
    claims that the Biden administration's actions have slowed
    drilling.
        Without objection, that is so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. With that, Senator Wicker, you are good to
    join us; the stage and the floor are yours.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
    seeing that document that you just entered by unanimous
    consent.
        Madam Chair, thank you so much for visiting our State of
    Mississippi, and thank you for meeting with me earlier today
    about a grave problem, manmade flooding problem that we have in
    the south Delta concerning the Yazoo Pump Project. I very much
    appreciate that.
        You visited our State in February. In a nutshell, can you
    share with the Committee what you learned?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes. It was a several day trip in Mississippi
    with Secretary Haaland, who basically was looking at some
    historic sites in the area as part of a direction from
    Congress. So it was my opportunity to visit the Medgar Evers
    site, to visit the area that was involved in the killing of
    Emmett Till, and then we saw another site that was related to
    those two projects. Then I left her, and I joined the Corps of
    Engineers, and we went and we visited the Yazoo Pump area.
        Senator Wicker. Let me just interject. All of those sites
    are very important to me also, so I am glad you did. But
    specifically, you were about to get to Yazoo.
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, to Yazoo. The purpose of that meeting was
    because, obviously, there is action that was taken by the
    Environmental Protection Agency that reinstated basically the
    404(c) veto that had been used over that area. So we are at a
    place where the question is, now what? What do we do about what
    has to happen in this area in order to address the regular
    flooding that is occurring for communities, and to make sure
    that we are doing it in a way that balances with the eco-
    concerns that have been raised previously?
        So that was the point of my seeing the area and having a
    chance to hear from the Corps' experts on what they thought
    that the issues and opportunities were.
        Senator Wicker. I realize I asked you a very general
    question. But you saw the area where the recurrent flooding
    takes place, is that correct?
        Ms. Mallory. Correct.
        Senator Wicker. It is indeed a manmade problem, caused by a
    project built by the Federal Government, is that not correct?
        Ms. Mallory. That is correct.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you so much about that, and also
    thank you for meeting with me earlier, as I already said. I
    think we agreed that a schedule has been pretty much finalized
    concerning getting all of the relevant agencies together and
    moving by the middle of July. I do appreciate that, and I
    appreciate your assurance that you will get a copy of that
    schedule to me. You are planning to do that, are you not?
        Ms. Mallory. That is correct.
        Senator Wicker. Yes, ma'am. Then I think there is a two
    pager where you and other agencies that are involved in this
    have sort of boiled down the relevant issues with regard to
    this proposal, and you are going to get that to me also?
        Ms. Mallory. I am going to talk to the agencies about that.
    We are going to have some discussion about that.
        Senator Wicker. OK. Well, I hope you will do that. So I
    might ask you also to get back to us on the record about that.
    But I hope you will.
        The six counties most affected by the flooding near the
    proposed Yazoo pumps are Sharkey County, where 30.3 percent of
    the residents are in poverty; Issaquena County, 43.3 percent of
    the residents there are in poverty; Humphreys County, 33.3
    percent of the residents in that county are in poverty; Yazoo
    County, 31 percent of the residents are in poverty; Warren
    County, 19.2 percent of the residents are in poverty, the best
    one of the group but still way, way too much. And Washington
    County, 27.7 percent of the residents are in poverty.
        The President has made environmental justice central to his
    environmental and climate agenda. And I understand you have
    been asked about that earlier. But would you agree that the
    statistics that I have read to you argue strongly for looking
    at this proposed projects in terms of environmental justice?
        Ms. Mallory. I will say, Senator, that is actually one of
    the things that is high on my list of follow up on this
    project. Because I have not yet had a chance to talk to the
    communities or even community leaders about either the project
    or just their own situation. So that is something that is
    definitely on my list of things to do on this project.
        Senator Wicker. OK. I think we agreed in our meeting
    earlier, which again I appreciate so much, that maybe some
    weekend soon, a long weekend, a break, or during the August
    break, at least by then, you might facilitate a team coming
    down and looking, talking to stakeholders, the low income
    populations are very much in support of this project, the
    minority populations who are in support of this project.
        So I appreciate your working with us. I think we are on the
    road to a schedule that gets us to a point in mid-July of
    actually decisionmaking. And I certainly look forward to
    learning as much as I can about the list of the issues that
    they boil down to.
        So thank you very much for working with us on behalf of the
    residents of the south Delta.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us, and for your
    persistent focus on this issue.
        As our colleague knows, one of the things that we talked
    about is the level of poverty in some of those counties, which
    is almost unbelievable. One of the things I have found in my
    own work as Governor and as chairman of the National Governors
    Association, a huge focus, I have always hugely focused on job
    creation and job preservation. If you want to help somebody,
    best way you can help is make sure they have a job and that
    they can lift themselves out of poverty.
        The 8 years I was Governor in Delaware, more jobs were
    created in those 8 years in Delaware than any 8 years in the
    history of the State. I didn't create one of them. We helped
    create a nurturing environment for job creation and job
    preservation, and one of those factors, work force is
    important, tax is important, reasonable regulation is
    important. Also important is the quality of the environment, is
    the water drinkable, is the air something you can breathe. How
    about landfills and pollution and that sort of thing? All that
    is important as well. It all works together. I don't know of
    any business that wants to live or operate in a place where the
    water is undrinkable and the air is something you cannot
    breathe. That is not a good thing.
        Having said that, I am going to give you a couple minutes,
    if you wish. I am going to ask one unanimous consent request,
    and then I am going to give you a minute or 2 or 3 to come back
    and wrap up anything you feel like you would like re-emphasize,
    maybe something you didn't have a chance to respond to.
        While you think about that for a moment, I am going to ask
    unanimous consent to submit for the record a report from the
    Federal Highway Administration which found that between 90 to
    99 percent of all road and bridge projects are completed as
    categorical exclusions, and therefore are not subject to
    lengthy review under NEPA.
        That is worth repeating. I ask unanimous consent to submit
    for the record a report from the Federal Highway Administration
    that found that between 90 to 99 percent of all road and bridge
    projects are completed as categorical exclusions, and therefore
    are not subject to lengthy review under NEPA. That surprises
    me, and probably surprises you and others on this Committee.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Carper. All right. That being said, I have
    something I am going to say, I call it boilerplate, right at
    the end. But I want to give you the opportunity to say
    something you didn't have a chance to say, question that wasn't
    asked that you wish had been. The time is yours.
        Ms. Mallory. First of all, thank you, Senator Carper. I
    really appreciate it. And I really appreciated the opportunity
    to be here today to share some of the work that CEQ is doing. I
    hope that my pride in the work that we are doing and of my
    staff and all that we are doing for the American people has
    come through in the discussion. I think we have accomplished a
    lot in this first year. We have much more to do, obviously,
    because the President has a very ambitious agenda. And we are
    working hard to achieve that sort of balance that really comes
    through in every single issue.
        I have probably used the word balance many times today, but
    what is important is trying to meet the multiple goals that the
    President has set out. We want to have well thought out,
    analyzed decisions that will endure, that will not be problems
    that are affected by flood plains that we fail to analyze. We
    want to make sure that the choices that we make reflect the
    public's expectation and investment in the Federal Government
    that we are using our funds in an effective and a thoughtful
    way.
        So I think NEPA continues to be, it is a hard issue for
    people, because people want their projects fast. But they also
    want them to last. So what we are trying to achieve through the
    NEPA rules is that.
        The focus on environmental justice could not be more
    important. It is central that we reset the way in which we look
    at our approach to communities, our willingness to bring them
    into the process early, our willingness to make sure that they
    are part of our decisionmaking. That doesn't mean we are going
    to agree on everything. But I think we ought to be working in a
    way that we are trying to minimize the impacts that people are
    feeling, even if we don't agree on an actual technology or
    approach. But we should be trying to set things up so that
    people are not suffering because of choices that we are making.
    So I think that continues to be really important in the work
    that we are doing.
        We didn't get into a number of areas that CEQ is working
    on, we didn't talk much about sustainability today or a lot of
    the work that is going on in the conservation area. But I can
    just assure you that we are pursuing all of our issues with
    that same focus: What is going to benefit the American people
    under the agenda that this President has set? How do we do it
    so that all Americans get the benefit of it? And how do we do
    it so that we are being good servants and ensuring that the
    work is done in an effective way?
        I will end there. Thank you so much for the time.
        Senator Carper. You bet. Thank you for those comments.
    Those were worth waiting for.
        This is a wonderful Committee, and I feel privileged to
    help lead it with the great leadership of Senator Shelley
    Capito. Members of this Committee don't agree on everything,
    but we work hard to try to find consensus and principal
    compromises where possible.
        It is important, I use the phrase often, we can walk and
    chew gum at the same time. That thought comes to mind as we
    discuss some of these difficult issues.
        Thank you for coming today and joining us and sharing an
    update of what you all are up to at CEQ and the important work
    that you and your team are doing, not without its challenges.
    But I think that you demonstrated today, and in the last
    months, that you are up to the challenge.
        Thank you again for joining us on Earth Day in Delaware,
    for your attention to the concerns raised by Senator Wicker. I
    think I heard in his comments an invitation to head down to
    Mississippi sometime later this year. If you can do that, I
    know he would appreciate that. I would, too.
        Before we adjourn, a little bit of housekeeping. Senators
    will be allowed to submit written questions for the record
    through the close of business on Wednesday, May 25th. We will
    compile those questions, and we will send them to you and your
    staff. We ask that you reply to us by June 8th of this year.
        Unless there is something else that I am missing, with
    that, I take this gavel and declare this hearing is adjourned.
        Thank you so much.
        [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             [all]