[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





    EXAMINING THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FISCAL YEAR 2024
               BUDGET REQUEST AND RELATED POLICY MATTERS

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               before the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                        Thursday, June 22, 2023

                               __________


                           Serial No. 118-41

                               __________


       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources





                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

52-650 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024











                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA		     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA		         CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			     Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		     Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	     Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		     Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		     Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	     Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			     Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		     Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		     Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			     Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA			     Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU			     Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		     Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                 ------                                







                               CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, June 22, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     1
    Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arizona...........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Mallory, Hon. Brenda, Chair of the Council on Environmental 
      Quality (CEQ), Washington, DC..............................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    12

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Radewagen

        Samoa News, article titled, ``StarKist employees submit 
          petition and comments opposing PIRA expansion''........    20

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Kamlager-Dove

        Examples of Benefits from the NEPA Process for ARRA 
          Funded Activities, May 2011............................    26

        GAO Report to Congressional Requestors titled, ``National 
          Environmental Policy Act, Little Information Exists on 
          NEPA Analyses,'' April 2014............................    37

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Leger Fernandez

        Center for American Progress, article titled, ``The 
          Inflation Reduction Act Is Building a Clean Energy 
          Economy and Good-Paying Jobs''.........................    52

        American Clean Power--Clean Energy Investing in America, 
          April 2023.............................................    54

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Equitable & Just: National Climate Platform--
          Environmental Justice Scorecard........................    83

        Equitable & Just: National Climate Platform--Executive 
          Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
          Environmental Justice for All..........................    84
                                     


 
    EXAMINING THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FISCAL YEAR 2024
               BUDGET REQUEST AND RELATED POLICY MATTERS

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 22, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bruce 
Westerman [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Westerman, Graves, Radewagen, 
LaMalfa, Stauber, Tiffany, Bentz, Moylan, Hunt, Collins, Luna, 
Hageman; Grijalva, Huffman, Porter, Leger Fernandez, Stansbury, 
Peltola, Hoyle, Kamlager-Dove, and Magaziner.

    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 
Committee at any time.
    The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
Examining the Council of Environmental Quality Fiscal Year 2024 
Budget Request and Related Policy Matters.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member. I would therefore ask unanimous consent that all other 
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record, 
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE A. WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    The Chairman. Good morning and again, thank you for joining 
us for this full Committee hearing Examining the Council in 
Environmental Quality's Budget Request and Policy Issues.
    I would especially like to thank Chair Brenda Mallory for 
being here today to testify on behalf of CEQ. This is the first 
time we have been able to hear from you in person here on the 
Committee and I know we all have lots of questions about the 
work of CEQ and programs your agency has implemented under the 
Biden administration.
    For those of you who may be unfamiliar with CEQ, this is an 
agency that was originally established as part of the National 
Environmental Policy Act as part of an effort to remedy some 
ongoing ecological issues that, quite honestly, would be 
unrecognizable today.
    It is safe to say the world is now vastly different than it 
was in the early 1970s and our environmental safeguards have 
grown tenfold, and I would say that the work of the CEQ in the 
past with administrations has been part of that solution to 
getting NEPA implemented and getting a much better environment 
in place in the United States that we experience today.
    But, at the same time, this does call into question what is 
the modern purpose of CEQ? President Biden has transformed the 
once small staff from their core mission of ensuring NEPA 
compliance into a legion of people implementing social change 
and ecojustice initiatives across the Federal Government.
    CEQ's own chief of staff has described the responsibilities 
and powers bestowed upon the agency by President Biden as 
unprecedented.
    In many ways, CEQ has acted as the enforcers for every 
anti-energy and unscientific ecoagenda that President Biden has 
prioritized via Executive Order. The explosive growth of CEQ's 
mission and bureaucratic morass is mirrored in the dramatic 
rise of their budget.
    From 2019 to 2023, CEQ's baseline budget more than doubled. 
On top of that, CEQ received an additional $62.5 million from 
the Inflation Reduction Act to support environmental and 
climate data collection.
    President Biden's proposed budget reports an unexpired and 
unobligated balance of tens of millions of dollars for each 
fiscal year. In addition to separate line items for additional 
CEQ funding.
    In short, this Administration is funneling millions of 
taxpayers' dollars to an agency which at best, as I can tell, 
primary goal is environmental justice above all, whether or not 
the communities impacted actually benefit.
    Rather than focusing on improving clean air and water in 
our country by improving the permitting processes and ensuring 
that NEPA processes are carried out in an efficient and timely 
manner, CEQ instead spends its time implementing Executive 
Orders and rulemaking that vastly exceeds its statutory role 
and prescribed authority.
    This is not the first time I have raised these concerns 
with CEQ or the Biden administration. In February of this year, 
I invited Chair Mallory to participate in a hearing on the 
BUILDER Act, which would provide long overdue updates and 
improvements to NEPA, despite this being the landmark law CEQ 
was created to implement, the Council's leadership made the 
decision not to appear, answer questions, or provide 
accountability for their actions.
    Committee Republicans sent a letter in October 2022 asking 
CEQ to provide a list of the rulemaking and specific 
congressional authorities for each rule, in light of the 
Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA. Eight months later 
we have yet to receive a response.
    Our members have also heard numerous concerns that CEQ has 
directed agencies like the U.S. Forest Service to oppose 
legislation protecting the use of aerial fire retardant, 
directly contradicting the scientific expertise of land 
managers.
    This repeated silence from CEQ and what they are doing with 
an unchecked stream of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable. No 
agency is above accountability and certainly not one which is 
grossly overstepping its stated purpose.
    Chair Mallory, I am sure that you are aware that as a 
result of this prolonged silence from your organization and as 
a reminder of the need for congressional oversight, I ask the 
House Committee on Appropriations to cut funding for the 
salaries and expenses of CEQ's senior leadership and set 
funding levels at reasonable amounts.
    I genuinely hope that we can have a productive conversation 
today and get some real answers to the questions we have been 
asking for months. I believe we share many of the same goals of 
wanting to protect and conserve our resources wisely, so I look 
forward to hearing how we can work in bipartisan ways to 
accomplish this mission.
    Given the historic permitting reforms recently signed into 
law as part of the debt ceiling negotiations, I hope to see 
many more productive conversations on how to continue improving 
and modernizing NEPA in the future.
    And again, this is a role of Congress that was delegated to 
us by the people in the Constitution that we have checks and 
balances over the Administration and this hearing is hopefully 
one that will be proactive, where we can understand what the 
purpose, modern day purpose of CEQ is, why the vast increase in 
funding, how that funding is being spent, and what adjustments, 
if any, we should make going forward.
    Again, I thank you for being here today and I look forward 
to your testimony and the questioning. And I now recognize 
Ranking Member Grijalva for his opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for the 
hearing.
    Global ocean surface temperatures for April and May of this 
year were the highest on record. North Atlantic temperatures 
are off the charts. Experts are ringing alarm bells and have 
been doing so for some time.
    However, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
continuing to not listen to the experts. It makes you wonder 
who they are listening to. Fortunately, Democrats and President 
Biden have already made historic investments in climate action 
and our clean energy future through the Inflation Reduction Act 
and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act.
    Those two bills are predicted to cut carbon pollution by 40 
percent by the year 2030. Those investments include $1 billion 
investment to cut permitting timelines by increasing Federal 
permitting offices capacity.
    Interestingly enough, every Republican last Congress voted 
against it despite their constant rallying cry on the need to 
speed up permitting and permitting reform. That could be 
because they are more interested in reciting big oil's talking 
points than actually doing anything to invest in a safer, more 
sustainable future.
    Today's predictable attacks on CEQ are bound to provide 
many more examples of that. The Council on Environmental 
Quality is overseeing the development and implementation of 
environmental policies for more than 50 years.
    As we look to a future that requires significant new 
infrastructure for clean energy and meaningful climate 
solutions, they have a critical and more important role to 
play.
    CEQ's FY 2024 budget request reflects the seriousness of 
what is ahead and what it is going to take to continue to 
follow that charge. Chief among the responsibilities CEQ is 
currently reviewing is updating NEPA regulations and making 
sure we are meeting the Administration's ambitious 
environmental and climate change goals.
    CEQ is also working to set up the new Office of 
Environmental Justice created by President Biden's 
Environmental Justice for All Executive Order. The Office will 
coordinate EJ policy and strategy across the Federal 
Government. This isn't trivial work.
    The long history of underinvestment and legacy pollution in 
these communities requires comprehensive, systemic change. But 
rather than support that important work, Republicans are 
continuing to try to kneecap CEQ by pushing an extreme 
industry-funded agenda that weakens NEPA, guts key agency 
authorities, limits community input, and restricts and 
eliminates judicial review.
    Not only does this GOP agenda not address our clean energy 
need, but it also puts our environment and communities even 
further in harm's way than they already have been for decades, 
and for what reason? Just so that polluting industry can rack 
up even more profits more easily and with less restriction.
    Don't let them fool you. We do not need to choose between 
protecting communities and building out our clean energy 
future. We can and must do both.
    I want to thank Chairman Mallory for working in good faith 
with the Majority to be here today. I look forward to hearing 
your testimony and I do hope that at this hearing, the Majority 
will not continue to weaponize the oversight and legislative 
responsibility of Congress in this Committee.
    The crude action on Representative Adam Schiff, the pending 
impeachment of President Biden, legislating by threat with the 
debt ceiling hostage taking, the threats of government 
shutdown, when is a deal not a deal question, and trust becomes 
a reality in those discussions, conspiracy and boogeyman rabbit 
hole dives that go on forever cost money and don't impact the 
real needs of the American people, like climate crisis.
    And personalized and unfounded attacks on Representatives 
of the Biden administration for being here before us and doing 
their job or with any Committee here in Congress.
    Having said that, I look forward to the testimony and I 
yield back.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Grijalva. I will 
now introduce our witness. Our witness today is the Honorable 
Brenda Mallory, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.
    And let me remind you that under Committee Rules, you must 
limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire 
statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' button on 
the microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I now recognize Chair Mallory for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRENDA MALLORY, CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL ON 
          ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ), WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. 
Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished 
members of the Committee, it is an honor to be here with you 
today.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of 
President Biden's 2024 Budget for the Council on Environmental 
Quality.
    In my role as Chair of CEQ, I advise the President on 
environmental and natural resource policies that improve, 
preserve, and protect public health and the environment.
    Under President Biden, we are fulfilling Congress' original 
vision that CEQ would function as an environmental policy 
council within the White House, focused on the most pressing 
environmental and climate challenges of our time.
    I would like to begin by highlighting three different areas 
of CEQ's work. Permitting and environmental reviews, 
environmental justice, and conservation of our lands and 
waters.
    Across the Administration, we are laser focused on ensuring 
environmental reviews occur efficiently and serve as effective 
decision-making tools. President Biden has elevated this issue 
to the highest levels of government for the first time by 
forming an Investing in America Cabinet that meets regularly on 
permitting and other priority issues for infrastructure 
implementation.
    Last year, the President released the Biden-Harris 
Permitting Action Plan, which sets forth a strategy for 
ensuring that environmental reviews and permitting processes 
are effective.
    The President has also been working, on a bipartisan basis, 
to advance the Administration's permitting principals, some of 
which are reflected in the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
    In particular, we believe the Fiscal Responsibility Act 
provides important tools to help agencies use categorical 
exclusions and programmatic environmental reviews to accelerate 
permitting timelines for projects that do not have significant 
environmental effects, or where an analysis of effects has 
already occurred.
    It also codifies pre-existing accountability measures, like 
timelines and page limits. CEQ is working expeditiously to 
integrate these changes into our regulations.
    The Biden-Harris Administration believes that every person 
should be able to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and 
live in a healthy community. During his first week in office, 
President Biden signed Executive Order 14008, which launched 
the most ambitious environmental justice agenda in our nation's 
history.
    As part of the Executive Order, we set up the Justice40 
Initiative, which seeks to deliver 40 percent of the overall 
benefits of certain Federal investments to disadvantaged 
communities.
    Justice40 is fundamentally reshaping how the Federal 
Government ensures communities that were left behind and under 
invested in for decades see the benefits.
    In April, the President signed Executive Order 14096, 
revitalizing our nation's commitment to environmental justice 
for all.
    The new Executive Order outlines an ambitious approach to 
environmental justice that is informed by scientific research, 
high quality data, and meaningful Federal engagement with 
communities.
    Finally, I would like to turn to conservation. CEQ works to 
conserve important aquatic, marine, and terrestrial habitats 
while also supporting healthy communities. In his first weeks 
in office, President Biden launched the American the Beautiful 
Initiative to bring together locally led voluntary efforts to 
conserve and restore lands and waters across the country.
    The initiatives key principals include respecting private 
property rights and working closely with Tribal Nations. Its 
early focus areas include expanding access to nature, 
supporting the voluntary conservation efforts of private 
landowners, and safeguarding wildlife corridors and enhancing 
habitat connectivity.
    Additionally, this Administration has committed to protect 
historically and scientifically important sites, honor 
culturally significant areas, and conserve and restore our 
country's treasured outdoor spaces.
    The President has been pleased to sign legislation to help 
protect and restore our public lands and waters. He has also 
used the authority given to him by Congress to designate three 
new national monuments, Camp Hale Continental Divide National 
Monument in Colorado, Avi Kwa Ame National Monument in Nevada, 
and Castner Range National Monument in Texas.
    These and other community-led designations are helping to 
tell our nation's conservation story and ensure that America's 
public lands reflect the full diversity and history of 
American.
    CEQ is hard at work delivering on the President's 
commitment to environmental justice, conservation, and building 
a clean energy economy. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today and I look forward to our continued partnership 
and welcome any questions you have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Mallory follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Brenda Mallory, Chair, Council on Environmental 
                                Quality

Introduction

    Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, and distinguished 
Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 
today in support of President Biden's 2024 Budget for the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ).
    CEQ was created by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969. In my role as Chair of CEQ, I advise the President on 
environmental and natural resources policies that improve, preserve, 
and protect public health and the environment for America's 
communities. As the agency responsible for implementing NEPA, CEQ also 
works to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects 
and Federal actions are effective and efficient, and reflect the input 
of local communities.
    Under President Biden, we are fulfilling Congress's original vision 
that CEQ would function as an environmental policy council within the 
White House, focused on the most pressing environmental challenges of 
our time. CEQ is leading the government's efforts on environmental 
justice, land and water conservation, PFAS and toxic pollution, climate 
resilience, Federal sustainability, and more. Through strong, 
coordinated collaboration with our agency partners, CEQ is proud to be 
helping advance the nation's priorities on the environment, natural 
resources, and energy.
President Biden's Fiscal Year 2024 Budget

    For fiscal year (FY) 2024, the President has proposed a budget of 
$4.825 million in discretionary appropriations for CEQ, an increase of 
$149,000 from the FY 2023 enacted budget. The FY 2024 budget builds on 
critical investments in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 117-
169) and supports the following CEQ priorities and goals:

     Combating climate change by transitioning to clean energy 
            and making our communities more resilient;

     Pursuing environmental justice so all communities have 
            clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment in which 
            to live;

     Protecting the nation's lands, waters, and wildlife; and

     Ensuring that environmental reviews are conducted fairly, 
            effectively, and efficiently.

Investments from the Inflation Reduction Act
    The IRA provided CEQ with $62.5 million for FY 2022-2026. 
Specifically, it provided $32.5 million to support environmental and 
climate data collection efforts and $30 million to support efficient 
and effective environmental reviews.
    CEQ is using the $30 million for environmental reviews to bring on 
talented professionals who can guide the Administration's permitting 
initiatives, train professional staff across the Federal Government on 
NEPA and other environmental review requirements, and facilitate the 
smooth and efficient implementation of CEQ's NEPA regulations. We are 
also exploring opportunities to improve the permitting process using 
programmatic approaches and digital tools.
    Regarding the $32.5 million for data collection, CEQ is working to 
improve the quality and availability of data that supports the Federal 
Government's efforts to address environmental injustice, pollution, and 
climate change--and to ensure that decisionmakers put that data to use. 
In particular, funding will support CEQ's continued development and 
improvement of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) 
and other information products that can help inform Federal decisions 
and investments. Funding will also enable CEQ--through partnerships 
with other Federal agencies and nonprofit institutions--to bolster 
national-level data on the cumulative and disproportionate impacts of 
climate change, pollution, and other environmental and socioeconomic 
burdens on disadvantaged communities. We will work to ensure these data 
are used effectively to reduce burdens and improve outcomes for 
communities with environmental justice concerns.
National Environmental Policy Act

    NEPA is the crucial mechanism through which decisionmakers account 
for the potential environmental impacts of agency actions, make 
informed decisions, listen to affected communities, and enable 
sustainable and healthy economic growth. Done right, NEPA reviews lead 
to better decisions that generate more value for every taxpayer dollar 
we invest. Yet, we know that we can and must take steps to improve and 
modernize our permitting processes and we can do so without losing 
sight of the important values they serve. I am here today to talk to 
you about how we are pursuing that critical work.
    We at CEQ and across the Administration are laser-focused on 
ensuring that these reviews occur efficiently and serve as effective 
decision making tools. I'm pleased to share the improvements we are 
making to the permitting and environmental review process in light of 
lessons learned across the Federal Government and the recent amendments 
to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). CEQ is working 
expeditiously to integrate these NEPA amendments into our modernization 
of the NEPA regulations, and will soon propose a rule to help agencies 
implement these new efficiencies while encouraging early community 
engagement and advancing environmental justice.
The Value of Environmental Review
    Prior to the bipartisan passage of NEPA, our government made 
decisions in an uncoordinated, inefficient manner that often wasted 
Federal resources and failed to take communities' perspectives into 
account. Not surprisingly, this resulted in damaging and costly 
environmental and economic outcomes.
    One of NEPA's key functions is to prevent the damage and costs that 
arise from rushed, biased, and incomplete environmental decision 
making. NEPA requires intergovernmental coordination; objective 
analysis of alternatives and potential mitigation strategies; 
appropriate evaluation and consideration of environmental effects; and 
meaningful public engagement. These are hallmarks of democracy and good 
governance that result in stronger, smarter, scientifically supported 
decisions, with benefits for everyone in the United States.
    Each year, NEPA helps inform approximately 100,000 Federal agency 
actions and decisions. More than 95 percent of these actions are 
approved under the most expedited form of environmental review, called 
a Categorical Exclusion, or CEs. Of the remaining 5 percent, nearly all 
are reviewed and approved using environmental assessments, or EAs. Only 
around 200 projects each year across the Federal Government--around 
two-tenths of 1 percent--require the most comprehensive type of 
environmental analysis: the environmental impact statement, or EIS and 
these are done on the projects that have the greatest potential impact 
on people and the environment. To inform good project design and 
decision making, it is critically important that all of these reviews 
be done right. It is also essential that these reviews be conducted 
efficiently, to avoid unnecessary and costly delays.
    Permitting delays can come at a steep cost to communities, the 
economy, and the environment. CEQ and the Administration are already 
taking major steps to address this challenge and reform the permitting 
process to secure faster and better decisions that benefit the American 
people. And CEQ's forthcoming rulemaking will enable us to do even 
more.
The Administration's Efforts to Date
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (P.L. 117-58) and the IRA provide 
more than one billion dollars to make sure that agencies have the 
environmental review and permitting experts they need, because 
insufficient personnel and resources is a serious cause of delay. 
Additionally, President Biden has elevated this issue to the highest 
levels of government for the first time by forming an Investing in 
America Cabinet that meets regularly on permitting and other priority 
issues for infrastructure implementation.
    Last year the President released the Biden-Harris Permitting Action 
Plan, which sets forth a strategy for ensuring that Federal 
environmental reviews and permitting processes are effective, 
efficient, and transparent; guided by the best available science to 
promote positive environmental and community outcomes; and shaped by 
early and meaningful public engagement--without unnecessary delay. 
Following the Permitting Action Plan, we are developing strategies to 
maximize efficiency in key sectors, including offshore wind, broadband, 
and transmission.
    The President has also been working on a bipartisan basis to 
advance the Administration's permitting principles that were released 
in May, some of which are reflected in the NEPA amendments in the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). In particular, we believe the FRA 
provides important new tools to help agencies use CEs and programmatic 
environmental reviews to streamline permitting timelines for projects 
that do not have significant environmental effects or where an analysis 
of effects has already occurred. CEQ is also convening an Interagency 
Working Group on CEs to promote their effective use across the 
government.
    CEQ has also published guidance for Federal agencies on appropriate 
ways to consider greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in 
environmental reviews. CEQ's interim NEPA Guidance on Consideration of 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change promotes consistency and 
predictability across Federal agencies in this important area.
Looking Forward on Environmental Reviews
    Over the next several months and the upcoming year, CEQ will 
continue to advance efforts to improve Federal agency decision making 
and the environmental review and permitting process, so that we deliver 
on NEPA's goal to harmonize economic growth and environmental 
sustainability. CEQ's forthcoming draft rule will propose reforms and 
updates to the regulations implementing NEPA to ensure full and fair 
public involvement in the NEPA process and promote better decision 
making consistent with NEPA's statutory requirements, including the 
recently enacted amendments. We are planning a robust public engagement 
process to ensure that the regulations will achieve better outcomes for 
our communities and our environment.
    In addition to using IRA funding to improve environmental reviews, 
we also look forward to carrying out the E-NEPA permitting portal study 
required under the FRA. CEQ will also continue to work with our 
partners at the Office of Management and Budget and the Federal 
Permitting Improvement Steering Council to continue to implement the 
Permitting Action Plan by identifying additional agency-specific and 
sector-specific strategies for accelerating project delivery.
Environmental Justice

    For far too long, communities across our country have faced 
persistent environmental injustices through toxic pollution, 
underinvestment in infrastructure and critical services, and other 
disproportionate environmental harms thrust upon low wealth and low 
power communities and often associated with a legacy of racial 
discrimination, including redlining. These communities with 
environmental justice concerns face even greater burdens due to climate 
change. For the first time in our nation's history, the President has 
made it a goal to recognize and undo the intersectional burdens from 
environmental injustice, the climate crisis, and underinvestment in 
disadvantaged communities.
    Like President Biden and Vice President Harris, I believe that 
every person should be able to breathe clean air, drink clean water, 
and live in a healthy community. During his first week in office, 
President Biden signed Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate 
Crisis at Home and Abroad, which launched the most ambitious 
environmental justice agenda in our nation's history and established 
several of the President's environmental justice initiatives, including 
the Justice40 Initiative, the Climate and Economic Justice Screening 
Tool (CEJST), and the Environmental Justice Scorecard. CEQ is committed 
to continuing to deliver on the President's environmental justice 
vision. We are working with Federal agencies to create more equitable 
policies, ensure government funds are reaching the communities that 
need them most, and broaden our policy perspective by creating space 
for the voices of impacted communities.
Justice40 Initiative
    The Justice40 Initiative is a national commitment to secure 
environmental justice and confront decades of underinvestment in 
communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by 
pollution.
    The Justice40 Initiative seeks to deliver 40 percent of the overall 
benefits of certain Federal investments to disadvantaged communities. 
Since President Biden created the Initiative in January 2021, it now 
has the participation of nearly 470 programs across 19 Federal 
agencies. These agencies are actively reimaging and transforming their 
programs to meet the Justice40 goal--for example, by prioritizing 
applicants that serve disadvantaged communities, and by engaging with 
stakeholders and the public to ensure that the benefits and outcomes of 
programs meet disadvantaged communities' needs. The Justice40 
Initiative is fundamentally reshaping how the Federal Government 
ensures communities that were left behind and underinvested in for 
decades are seeing the benefits of our historic investments in clean 
energy, clean water, public transportation, affordable and sustainable 
housing, and more.
    Communities have been involved in shaping the Justice40 Initiative 
from the beginning of this Administration, making clear that delivering 
Federal climate, clean energy, clean transit, clean water and 
wastewater infrastructure, and other investments would help advance 
environmental justice and address decades of underinvestment. Through 
the Justice40 Initiative, we are already seeing meaningful change on 
the ground in communities all across the nation.
Data Collection and Transparency
    In order to inform equitable decision making across the Federal 
Government, the Administration is creating new tools that will not only 
promote the latest science and research, but also elevate transparency 
and accountability. Two of these tools are the CEJST and the 
Environmental Justice Scorecard.
    The CEJST is a geospatial mapping tool for Federal agencies to 
identify disadvantaged communities that are marginalized and 
overburdened by pollution and underinvestment for purposes of the 
Justice40 Initiative, and other programs that are required by law to 
benefit disadvantaged communities. The Environmental Justice Scorecard 
is the first-ever government-wide assessment of what the Federal 
Government is doing to advance environmental justice. The Phase One 
Scorecard, released in April 2023, provides a valuable snapshot of the 
Administration's key environmental justice work to ensure that all 
communities experience the protection of our nation's bedrock 
environmental laws.
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing our Nation's Commitment to 
        Environmental Justice
    In April, the President signed Executive Order 14096, Revitalizing 
our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All. This action 
is a testament to the work of community members and leaders from across 
the country who have devoted their lives to moving environmental 
justice to the heart of national policy. It also honors and builds on 
the foundation of environmental justice work undertaken by the Federal 
Government.
    The new Executive Order outlines an ambitious approach to 
environmental justice that is informed by scientific research, high-
quality data, and meaningful Federal engagement with communities, as 
well as through consultation with and respect for Tribal sovereignty, 
self-governance, cultural practices, and Indigenous Knowledge. It 
establishes the first White House Office of Environmental Justice 
within CEQ to coordinate the implementation of environmental justice 
policy across the Federal Government.
    The Executive Order makes clear that the pursuit of environmental 
justice is a responsibility of all executive agencies, and directs 
agencies to make achieving environmental justice a part of their 
missions, consistent with their relevant statutory authorities. It 
requires Federal agencies to develop, implement, and periodically 
update environmental justice strategic plans with their visions, goals, 
priority actions, and key metrics. And it requires agencies to develop 
and publish regular assessments of their progress on environmental 
justice. The Executive Order also requires Federal agencies to notify 
affected communities in the event of a release of toxic substances from 
a Federal facility.
    Never before has the Federal Government committed to and delivered 
such an ambitious, structured, and intentional approach to improve the 
health and well-being of communities across the country. While visiting 
communities across the nation, I have seen the impacts of this work 
firsthand. The Administration's historic investments in water 
infrastructure, clean energy, legacy pollution cleanup, and more will 
lead to cleaner air and better health in communities that need it most. 
CEQ will continue to work to improve coordination across the Federal 
Government on a whole-of-government approach to advancing environmental 
justice.
Conservation of Land and Water

    CEQ works to conserve important aquatic, marine, and terrestrial 
habitats, while also supporting healthy communities, consistent with 
the land conservation and water quality initiatives of this 
Administration. In his first weeks in office, President Biden announced 
the first national conservation goal: to conserve at least 30 percent 
of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. The President launched the America 
the Beautiful Initiative to bring together locally led, voluntary 
efforts to conserve and restore lands and waters across the country. 
The Initiative's key principles include respecting private property 
rights and working closely with Tribal Nations, and its early focus 
areas include expanding access to nature; supporting private lands 
conservation; and enhancing natural corridors and connectivity.
America the Beautiful Challenge
    With once-in-a-generation investments from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, this Administration 
has worked to expand voluntary land conservation efforts through 
several coordinated funding initiatives. The Administration's America 
the Beautiful Challenge is a one-stop shop for States, Tribes, and 
other collaborators to access conservation and restoration funding 
using a simplified application process administered by the National 
Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    In the first year alone, the program received over $1 billion in 
applications for projects in all 50 States, 3 territories, and the 
District of Colombia. The program awarded 55 grants, totaling $91 
million, and leveraged an additional $50 million in matching funds for 
a total conservation investment of $141 million. Over one-third of the 
grants went to Tribal partners, which was a historic first for the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
    Overall, Congress provided over $10 billion in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act for these 
restoration and resilience investments. Key investments have included 
$161 million that the Bureau of Land Management recently awarded to 
projects to restore 21 priority landscapes across 11 western States and 
$1.2 billion that the Forest Service invested in restoration projects 
in 2022. Finally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service is leveraging Inflation Reduction Act 
investments to partner with farmers, ranchers, and private landowners 
to support resilience, conservation and climate-smart agriculture. 
These activities provide significant co-benefits for water quality, 
wildlife habitat, and other conservation outcomes.
Water Conservation
    In an era of increasing water extremes--too much, not enough, wrong 
place, wrong time, or too polluted--CEQ's work to address the nation's 
water challenges is multifaceted. We have convened interagency 
conversations that advance key environmental and economic objectives. 
For example, in the Puget Sound, endangered salmon and Southern 
Resident Orcas require strong conservation measures, but the 
development and maintenance of infrastructure, including piers, is 
fundamental to the economy of the region. CEQ helped broker a joint 
resolution memorandum between Army Civil Works and the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration that clarifies how these agencies will 
work together to make efficient permit decisions while also addressing 
the protection of endangered species.
    Likewise, in the Yazoo Backwater Area in Mississippi, we convened 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
the Fish and Wildlife Service to think innovatively about how to 
address flood risks while avoiding irreparable harm to wildlife and the 
environment.
    We are continuing to advance the President's directive to consider 
the designation of a national marine sanctuary in the Pacific Remote 
Islands area. The proposed sanctuary would be among the largest marine 
protected areas on the planet, and would honor the traditional 
practices and ancestral pathways of Pacific Island voyagers. With input 
from Tribal partners, this Administration has also begun the 
designation process for multiple new national marine sanctuaries, 
including the Hudson Canyon in the Atlantic Ocean and the Chumash 
Heritage National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Southern 
California.
    CEQ also collaborates closely with the Ocean Policy Committee, 
which I co-chair with the Director of the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP). CEQ helped the Ocean Policy Committee author 
and launch the first-ever United States Ocean Climate Action Plan; and 
CEQ and OSTP are now working with members of the Ocean Policy Committee 
to develop an Ocean Justice Strategy and a National Strategy for a 
Sustainable Ocean Economy. The ocean spans 70 percent of the globe, 
from shallow bays to the depths and areas beyond any nation's 
jurisdiction. And although climate change is having numerous 
unprecedented impacts on the ocean, the ocean also has the potential to 
advance a powerful set of solutions to address the climate crisis.
Land Conservation
    This Administration has committed to protect historically and 
scientifically important sites, honor culturally significant areas, 
support and enhance our working lands, and conserve and restore our 
country's treasured outdoor spaces. Congress has both led on and 
supported these efforts by passing conservation bills, including the 
Amache National Historic Site Act and the Blackwell School National 
Historic Site Act.
    The President has built upon these conservation efforts by 
designating three new national monuments: the Camp Hale-Continental 
Divide National Monument in Colorado, which protects the site of a 
World War II-era military training range; the Avi Kwa Ame, or Spirit 
Mountain, National Monument in Nevada, which is the center of the 
creation story for numerous Tribal Nations in the southwest; and the 
Castner Range National Monument, on the site of a former Army depot 
right outside of El Paso, Texas that now provides a refugia to numerous 
plants and animals and will provide critical outdoor access in the 
future for the surrounding community. These and other community-led 
designations are helping to tell our nation's conservation story and 
ensure that America's public lands reflect the full diversity and 
history of America.
    We know that nature's most important benefits are often 
immeasurable, and America's outdoor spaces are more than just travel 
destinations. They bring nature into the communities where people live, 
serving as refuges to take in fresh air, escape urban heat, and unwind 
in a safe space. Those benefits should not only be available to the 
fortunate few, but to everyone. Yet so many Americans, especially in 
low-income communities and communities of color, are without meaningful 
access to nature. That's why we will continue to build on the 
President's record of delivering the most ambitious land and water 
conservation agenda in American history.
Conclusion

    CEQ is hard at work delivering on the President's commitment to 
environmental justice, conservation, and to building a clean-energy 
economy that will combat climate change and make our communities more 
resilient. The investments that Congress made through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act will deliver the 
benefits of a cleaner environment to all Americans for generations to 
come. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to 
our continued partnership and welcome any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to Brenda Mallory, Chair, Council on 
                         Environmental Quality

Ms. Mallory did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
    Question 1. CEQ is responsible for overseeing the NEPA process 
across the government in all of the various agencies. Bipartisan NEPA 
Reforms were recently signed into law as part of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act (FRA), Public Law 118-5. As you know, these changes 
were effective immediately and all agencies must implement the new 
provisions immediately.

    1a) What has CEQ done to ensure U.S. government agencies are 
immediately implementing the reforms to NEPA and permitting?

    1b) Has CEQ, or have you in your role as Chair, issued a guidance 
and/or a memo to U.S. government agencies on how to comply with the new 
requirements in the FRA?

        [If no]: Why not? And will you commit to issuing a guidance 
        and/or a memo as soon as possible to U.S. government agencies 
        on how ensure they are complying with the law?

    1c) How do you plan to work with the agencies to ensure that they 
abide by the page limits and timelines for NEPA documents established 
in the FRA?


    Question 2. How is CEQ working with the Permitting Council to 
speed-up the approval process for much needed infrastructure projects?

    Question 3. What is your timeline for a Phase 2 rulemaking for 
NEPA?

    Question 4. The NEPA language in the FRA allows agencies to adopt 
other agencies categorical exclusions.

    4a) What is CEQ doing to facilitate the sharing of CEs between 
agencies?

    4b) Have you put any guidance or anything else out yet encouraging 
agencies to identify CEs from other agencies that would be helpful to 
them?

    Question 5. From 2017 to 2020, CEQ undertook a comprehensive 
process to support and the build the record for its 2020 NEPA 
rulemaking. In 2017 and 2018, CEQ issued reports on the timelines and 
page counts of Environmental Impact Statements. In June 2018, CEQ 
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that requested comment 
on potential revisions to update and clarify the NEPA regulations and 
included a list of questions on specific aspects of the regulations. In 
response, it received over 12,500 comments from a wide range of 
stakeholders. In January 2020, CEQ issued the proposed rule, held two 
public hearings, and conducted additional outreach.

    5a) What steps has CEQ taken to support its Phase 2 rulemaking?

    5b) In particular, can you provide the Committee with the list of 
stakeholders that CEQ has met with on the Phase 2 rulemaking?

    5c) Will you commit to updating the environmental impact statement 
timeline and page count reports?

    Question 6. When do you plan on amending CEQ's interim NEPA 
Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate 
Change to align it with the NEPA amendments made in the FRA?

    Question 7. According to the National Association of Environmental 
Professionals, the number of final environmental impact statements, or 
EISs, issued in 2021 was the lowest for the period of 1997 to 2021. 
Only 80 final or final supplemental EISs were issued. On average, 196 
EISs were issued annually between 1997 and 2021. That represents a 
decline of 245 percent.

    7a) How do you account for this decline?

    7b) Can you provide the Committee with updated figures for 2022, 
along with a commitment to work, government-wide, to increase this 
figure back to pre-2021 numbers this calendar year?

    Question 8. What was CEQ's role in the recent proposed rule from 
BLM that attempts to rewrite the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and change BLM's multiple-use mandate?

    8a) How did CEQ direct BLM to prioritize stakeholder engagement and 
input from folks on-the-ground in affected states?

    8b) How is CEQ balancing effective stakeholder engagement with the 
need for timely reviews?

    Question 9. Under your leadership, how much money has CEQ issued in 
grants?

    9a) How are you determining what projects to focus on?

    Question 10. How many full-time staffers does CEQ currently have? 
And how many detailees?

    Question 11. CEQ is charged with leading the Federal Clean 
Electricity and Vehicle Procurement Strategy and CEQ has an important 
role developing and implementing President Biden's push to build out 
the electric vehicle infrastructure across America. In February, the 
Biden administration issued a rule that companies seeking EV charging 
grants ``must'' have a Combined Charging System rather than the North 
American Charging standard. This is despite the fact that the North 
American Charging Standard--which is generally viewed by industry 
experts as technologically superior in charging speed, ergonomics, and 
reliability--is used by Tesla and, starting in 2025, Ford and General 
Motors. Tesla accounted for 60% of electronic vehicle sales in the U.S. 
in the first quarter of this year and, together with Ford, and General 
Motors, the three companies accounted for 75% of all EV sales in the 
U.S. in the first quarter of this year.

    11a) Can you explain why the Biden administration put its thumb on 
the scale and required companies seeking access to $7.5 billion in 
federal infrastructure funding for EV charging stations to use the 
Combined Charging System standard instead of the North American 
Charging standard?

    11b) Why do you think the federal government should play a role 
picking winners and losers and, even then, why should the federal 
government choose the inferior technology used by the small fraction of 
the EV industry?

    Question 12. Please send us a list of any nonprofits, 
nongovernmental agencies, and any individuals affiliated with any 
nonprofits or nongovernmental agencies that you have consulted with on 
CEQ's work during your time as CEQ Chair. For any entities or 
individuals listed, please describe the nature of the coordination and 
communications.

    Question 13. Earlier this month, CEQ announced the creation of an 
``Ocean Justice Strategy'' that will be developed by the Ocean Policy 
Committee. The first tasks for the Ocean Policy Committee include 
defining ``Ocean Justice'' and answering the question ``what is Ocean 
Justice?'' and, simultaneously, receiving input on ``barriers to ocean 
justice.''

    13a) How is the Biden administration simultaneously asking for 
comments on ``barriers to ocean justice'' without first defining what 
the term ``ocean justice'' means?

    13b) Wouldn't it be common sense to define ``ocean justice'' first 
before asking what barriers there are to ``realizing'' it?

    Question 14. How will the Ocean Justice Strategy ensure that 
economic development and job creation in coastal communities are not 
hindered by burdensome regulations or restrictions imposed by the 
Federal Government?

    Question 15. What safeguards will be put in place to prevent the 
Ocean Justice Strategy from impeding the exploration and responsible 
extraction of natural resources from the ocean and coasts which are 
essential for maintaining energy independence and supporting critical 
industries, including tourism through beach restoration?

    Question 16. What specific measures will be taken to balance need 
for economic growth and energy security in the coastal regions?

    Question 17. Considering that the Ocean Justice Strategy 
purportedly aims to advance equity and justice for communities near the 
ocean, how will it ensure that the burden of funding and implementing 
the strategy is not disproportionately placed on taxpayers, 
particularly those who do not directly benefit from these initiatives?

    Question 18. How will CEQ ensure that U.S. territories in the 
Pacific, like Guam, have a prominent role in developing the Biden 
administration's ocean strategy?

    Question 19. Please confirm in writing all WHEJAC meetings, 
including private sessions. Provide minutes for meetings, including 
information for all attendees, location of meetings, dates, and topics 
discussed.

    19a) It is the Committee's understanding that an open solicitation 
for WHEJAC council members, including those from industry, occurred. 
Please provide documentation that includes the process by which council 
members were selected, notified, and any remaining open positions on 
the council.

    19b) Please provide documentation explaining the bylaws of the 
WHEJAC, if any.

    19c) Please provide documentation explaining the process by which 
agendas for upcoming WHEJAC meetings are developed.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. The biomass wood pellet industry has ambitious plans to 
expand throughout the American South. As you may know, a number of 
civil rights, anti-poverty, conservation, and faith-based organizations 
are concerned about the Environmental Justice implications of this 
industry's growth. How is CEQ ensuring that these Environmental Justice 
issues are addressed across Federal agencies such as EPA, USDA, and 
DOJ?

    Question 2. How is CEQ working with Federal agencies to address the 
Environmental Justice impacts of industrial wood pellet facilities, 
which are frequently located in low-income, majority Black communities 
with populations at high risk of health problems such as asthma?

    Question 3. One of the changes made in the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act relate to project sponsors preparing their own environmental 
reviews. How will CEQ guide and/or oversee federal agency approval and 
oversight of the environmental review preparation by project sponsors?

    Question 4. Does CEQ have an accounting or current estimate of the 
amount of covered Justice40 investments \1\ made to date and how these 
investments are being tracked?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Covered Federal investments including any grant or procurement 
spending, financing, staffing costs, or direct spending or benefits to 
individuals for a covered program in a Justice40 category, as described 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/environmentaljustice/justice40/

    Question 5. Will there be a tool to centralize information on 
Justice40 covered programs and funding opportunities to make it easier 
for communities with environmental justice concerns to access Justice40 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
investments?

    Question 6. With respect to the definition of ``disadvantaged 
community'' under the Justice40 Initiative, how are recommended changes 
relating to the U.S. Territories and Tribal sovereignty considerations 
being addressed?

    Question 7. Recently, USDA revised the scoring criteria for the 
Rural Energy for America Program, which provides grants and loans for 
clean energy and energy efficiency projects on farms and ranches to 
prioritize projects in disadvantaged or distressed communities as part 
of the Justice40 Initiative. However, some of these projects--like wood 
biomass and factory farm gas--are harmful to neighboring communities 
and will actually exacerbate environmental injustice. How will CEQ work 
to ensure that the Justice40 Initiative does not incentivize and 
support projects that exacerbate environmental injustice in 
disadvantaged or distressed communities?

    Question 8. I applaud the administration's commitment to achieving 
net-zero emissions procurement by 2050 as outlined in the Federal 
Sustainability Plan.\2\ What is your timeline for establishing an 
estimate of baseline emissions from federal procurement and what 
progress has been made toward establishing 2030 interim targets for 
procurement emissions reductions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.sustainability.gov/federalsustainabilityplan/
procurement.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Questions Submitted by Representative Radewagen

    Question 1. As you are aware, there are statutory limitations on 
the designation of new sanctuaries. As Chair, have you affirmed that 
legal obligations have been met?

    Question 2. Earlier this month, CEQ published an RFI for an Ocean 
Justice Strategy in the Federal Register, with little actual fanfare or 
public notice. Among other items, this RFI requests that stakeholders 
include information on the definitions of ocean justice, and the 
definition of ocean justice in the context of their communities and 
work. Rather than creating additional strategies and working groups, 
with new buzz words like ocean justice, can I ask why CEQ would rather 
not focus on streamlining NEPA, its core mission, which would provide 
the opportunity for millions of jobs across our country?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Fulcher

    Question 1. CEQ has directed stakeholders with an interest in the 
operations of the federal facilities throughout the Columbia River 
system to submit comments via the email address [email protected]. 
However, CEQ has not advised Members of Congress or members of the 
public as to what the purpose or intent of this inbox is.

    1a) Will the comments submitted through this inbox be made 
available to relevant Committees in the Senate and House? If so, when? 
If not, why not?

    1b) What is CEQ's process for the review and evaluation of emails 
in conjunction with the [email protected] email account as CEQ 
complies with any previous or future Freedom of Information Act 
requests?

    1c) CEQ recently issued a request for information (RFI) to solicit 
feedback on Columbia River salmon and other native fish restoration and 
other relevant information to an ongoing mediation (see Docket number 
CEQ-2023-0002). In the recent RFI, CEQ referenced the inbox as a 
``means for interested persons to share their thoughts on issues 
related to the mediation.'' What is CEQ's role in the mediation, and 
how does it intend to use these comments?

    1d) What is CEQ's process for incorporating replies to this RFI 
that may be errantly or inadvertently submitted to the 
[email protected] email account?

    Question 2. During this Administration, CEQ made multiple 
references to a ``convening effort'' related to the Columbia River 
System to examine multiple issues, including the federal facilities 
throughout the system, salmon conservation efforts in the region, and 
the ongoing litigation. Despite acknowledging that only Congress 
possesses the authority to authorize the removal of any ``federally 
authorized facility'', which you also confirmed with Mr. Bentz of 
Oregon during the hearing, amidst this convening effort, CEQ indicated 
a preference for a solution that would result in the removal of four 
federally authorized facilities along the lower Snake River (i.e., four 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer dams).

    2a) How many CEQ staff, including detailees, are working in working 
in whole or in part on issues relating to the Columbia River System or 
salmon conservation efforts? For detailees working on issues relating 
to the Columbia River System or salmon conservation efforts, what is 
their home agency or place of employment?

    2b) As part of this convening effort, does CEQ continue to 
recognize that the Executive Branch of government does not have the 
authority to direct the removal of a ``federally authorized facility''?

    Question 3. CEQ has been making references to salmon conservation 
efforts in the Columbia River basin using the terms ``healthy and 
harvestable'' and ``healthy and abundant'' while the various agencies' 
directive is to operate Federal facilities under authorized uses while 
managing species for no jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA).

    3a) How is CEQ defining either ``healthy and harvestable'' or 
``healthy and abundant?''

    3b) Is CEQ advising the agencies to manage the species in excess of 
what is required pursuant to the ESA?

    Question 4. On another issue, during a hearing two weeks ago on a 
bill to withdraw the BLM's ``Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,'' 
Deputy Director Nada Culver testified before the Committee on Natural 
Resources that CEQ was involved in the decision to certify this Rule as 
not having an economically significant impact.

    According to a letter we've received from the Small Business 
Administration Office of Advocacy they state, ``[I]f an agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, they must include a factual 
basis for such certification. BLM's certification provides no such 
factual basis and offers no information as to how they arrived at this 
conclusion.''

    4a) Can you please explain how CEQ came to the determination that 
this Rule, which will have a significant effect on small businesses and 
rural communities in my state, somehow did not have a significant 
economic impact?

    4b) During that same hearing, Deputy Director Culver testified that 
the BLM did not consult any small businesses in their economic 
assessment of this Rule. Did CEQ consult with any small businesses on 
the economic analysis of this Rule that you certified?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Collins

    Under a recently proposed rule, Federal Acquisition Regulation: 
Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial 
Risk (the FAR-GHG Rule), which your office was heavily involved in 
drafting, all major federal contractors would have to disclose their 
greenhouse gas emissions and set emission reduction targets that must 
be validated and approved by an international non-governmental 
organization known as the Science Based Target Initiative or SBTi. In 
effect, outsourcing government responsibilities to an outside foreign 
entity. SBTi has received criticism by some who argue there is an 
inherent conflict of interest in both setting emissions standards while 
also charging customers a fee to validate their emissions reduction 
targets.

    Question 1. Are you aware that a report determined that several of 
SBTi's emission assessments were ``contentious or inaccurate''?

    Question 2. Are you also aware that one of SBTi's founders, who has 
since left the organization, has accused SBTi of having several 
conflicts of interest and of ``putting their own interest above the 
interests of the public''?

    Question 3. Did CEQ vet any of these allegations to determine if 
SBTi was the best fit for vetting companies' emission targets?

    Question 4. Why didn't CEQ select a government agency to set 
emissions standards and vet companies?

    Question 5. Why did CEQ decide to select SBTi as the sole source 
provider of emission reduction targets?

    Question 6. Was a competitive process used in selecting SBTi as the 
sole source provider of emission target validation? What other agencies 
or non-profits were considered?

    Question 7. If the FAR-GHG Rule is adopted, who will conduct 
oversight of SBTi to ensure they are producing accurate scientific 
estimates?

    Question 8. If the FAR-GHG Rule is adopted, who will conduct 
oversight of SBTi to ensure that they do not allow donations from 
private actors to influence their decision making?

    Question 9. Since SBTi is not U.S. based, how will you ensure that 
they are not acting on behalf of a foreign power to negatively affect 
the U.S.?

    Question 10. Why didn't CEQ select a U.S. based non-profit to vet 
the emissions standards set by contractors?

                                 ______
                                 

    The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I will now move 
on to questions, and I will recognize Representative Stauber to 
begin the questioning.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and thanks for 
convening this hearing.
    NEPA was created over half a century ago and we should 
celebrate the incredible progress we have made. Today, the 
United States is the gold standard of environmental protection. 
Today, Americans breathe the cleanest air on record and have 
access to some of the cleanest drinking water on record.
    Frankly, however, much of the progress this country has 
made is not because of laws and regulations like NEPA but in 
spite of it. Over several administrations, both Republican and 
Democrat, NEPA has grown out of control.
    What was once a well-intentioned policy to improve our 
environment has now become a burdensome maze of bureaucracy 
that is holding our country back and global environmental 
progress back.
    Countless regulations and red tape under NEPA make 
permitting new projects virtually impossible. As a result, we 
are forcing our energy production, mineral extraction, and 
manufacturing sectors overseas to countries with minimal, if 
any, environmental or labor standards.
    In doing so, we are also shipping away jobs and the 
economic benefits that these activities could bring. That is 
why I was proud to support the permitting reforms that were put 
forth in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, of which you 
alluded to.
    This is the first time Congress has made significant 
changes to NEPA since 1983. While we have a long way to go, 
these reforms were a good first step in the right direction.
    Chair Mallory, in your prepared testimony, you state the 
following, ``One of NEPA's key functions is to prevent the 
damage and costs that arise from rushed, biased, and incomplete 
environmental decision making.''
    A report from the National Association of Environmental 
Professionals published last year found that the average time 
to complete the NEPA process is currently 4\1/2\ years, that is 
the average.
    Would you not say it is damaging and costly when the NEPA 
process takes, on average, and let me stress that, on average 
4\1/2\ years when much needed infrastructure projects are no 
longer viable because inflation has eaten away at the budget 
initially invested?
    When investments are flowing out of the country and no 
longer serving Americans, is that not damaging and costly?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I 
think this Administration believes that it is essential for us 
to make sure that our permitting process is functioning 
effectively and efficiently and that we are striking that 
balance that I referred to in my testimony, of having smart 
decisions that are done effectively that recognize the 
importance of environmental protection and engaging the 
communities, and we have done a number of efforts, over the 
last 2 years that are focused on that. The Federal----
    Mr. Stauber. Chair Mallory, just because I have a couple of 
minutes left. I appreciate your answer.
    It is clear that the timelines under the current NEPA 
process are unworkable. It is possible to conduct proper 
environmental reviews while still maintaining realistic review 
timelines for project sponsors.
    Luckily, the reforms put forth by Republicans in the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act will help address these excessive timelines 
by limiting an environmental assessment to 1 year and an 
environmental impact statement to 2 years.
    I would also like to note that these specific provisions 
were originally included in Republican legislation that was 
reported out of this Committee earlier this year. In an 
interview last week, Under Secretary of State Jose Fernandez 
shared the Biden administration's Mineral Security Partnership 
is currently evaluating committing financial resources to 15 
different critical mineral mining projects around the world.
    These projects are reportedly located across Africa, 
Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Notably, not one of them is in 
the United States of America. Indonesia happens to be one of 
the largest producers of nickel, one of the critical minerals 
being pursued by the Mineral Security partnerships.
    Chair Mallory, does NEPA or any other American 
environmental standards apply to mining projects in Indonesia 
or other countries?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, no.
    Mr. Stauber. They don't?
    Ms. Mallory. No.
    Mr. Stauber. I would like to note that while the United 
States has significant reserves of nickel, there is only one 
operational nickel mine in the United States today. Several 
other nickel mining projects are attempting to come on-line, 
including projects in my district in Northern Minnesota, but 
are being held up by this Administration.
    Instead, it seems they like to find these minerals 
elsewhere in countries with subpar, if any, environmental 
standards. Anywhere but America, any worker but American, that 
is the Biden administration's model.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Ranking Member Grijalva for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
    Madame Chair, I think my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle have been talking publicly about their plans to 
continue to use must-pass legislation to attack environmental 
laws, including NEPA, specifically, and the Clean Water Act, 
like they did during the debt ceiling hostage taking.
    Recently, Speaker McCarthy's staff said that the House 
Republicans will continue to take more small bites out of NEPA 
in the future. They have declared that they are going after 
judicial review, want to impose statute of limitations on 
lawsuits, and want to make it easier to approve interstate 
fossil fuel pipelines, and require mandatory energy leasing on 
all Federal lands.
    As part of the environmental justice commitment and the 
Executive Order of the Biden administration and also dealing 
with the transition issues around clean energy that are so 
vital to dealing with climate change, how would these actions 
affect that and affect frontline communities in particular?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman. I think the important 
anchor for all the work that we are doing around permitting is 
making sure that we are making smart decisions and putting the 
agencies in a position to make smart decisions that are 
effective, efficient, and include engagement from communities.
    I think, as we think about further reforms, and I 
understand that there are conversations about further reforms, 
it is important that those reforms not lose sight of that 
anchor.
    So, any changes that don't allow for the type of 
environmental review that is necessary for the engagement of 
communities that is contemplated, is one that, I think, we 
should think very hard about.
    Mr. Grijalva. [Inaudible] in the history of NEPA, CEQ, and 
the creation under that law and that has been 15 years and 
maybe the time has passed for CEQ that we resolved all those 
environmental issues. That climate crisis is not a crisis, it 
is just a passing phase.
    The role of CEQ. The role of that not only advisory 
capacity, but now kind of the information, the centralizing of 
those kinds of policy issues across the government and across 
the country, its role going forward? 50 years, but going 
forward. How do you see that role and has the time passed?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much for that question. I think 
CEQ's role is even more important today than it was 50 years 
ago, because our problems are more complex. The nature of the 
challenges that we are facing from climate change, among other 
things, are grave and require that we are working across the 
government in a whole-of-government capacity in order to serve 
those issues.
    So, I think CEQ's role, as you look at the statute itself, 
very clearly was intended to actually be an agency that dealt 
with the most significant environmental problems. That is what 
we continue to do and each administration has adjusted that in 
the ways that they think are important.
    For this Administration, climate change, environmental 
justice, ensuring that we are building out our manufacturing 
economy, our clean energy economy, those are factors that are 
critically important.
    Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Radewagen. Ms. Radewagen, you are recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Chairman Westerman, Ranking 
Member Grijalva for holding today's hearing. Thank you to Chair 
Mallory for your testimony.
    On March 23, President Biden announced plans to expand the 
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument by designating 
a new marine sanctuary. The President boasted as if this were a 
designation review that was ending, rather than beginning.
    This action could devastate the economy of American Samoa, 
where 80 percent of all private sector jobs and exports are 
related to fishing and tanning. This is very important to the 
overall health of my district and with the Committee's 
permission, I would like to submit, for the record, a news 
article published just this morning outlining how StarKist 
Cannery employees have submitted a petition opposing the PIRA 
expansion.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

StarKist employees submit petition and comments opposing PIRA expansion

Samoa News.com

https://www.samoanews.com/local-news/starkist-employees-submit-
petition-and-comments-opposing-pira-expansion

                                 *****

Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA--More than 1,200 StarKist Samoa cannery 
workers have signed a petition, which voices their opposition to the 
federal proposal for marine sanctuary designation for the Pacific 
Remote Island Areas (PIRA)--a move that would expand the Pacific Remote 
Island Marine National Monument (PRINMM).

Cannery workers displayed their opposition during a public meeting on 
the proposal held last month at the Tauese P.F Sunia Ocean Center in 
Utulei, as they joined ASG and others in the territory to oppose the 
federal plan.

The four-page petition, along with other public comments, was released 
recently on the federal portal (www.regulations.gov), which shows that 
as of yesterday morning nearly 6,000 comments have been received.

June 2 was the final date for comment submission and no new information 
is available on expanding the comment deadline as requested by Gov. 
Lemanu P.S. Mauga to the U.S. Commerce Secretary.

The public comments portal shows at least three cannery workers who 
posted their own short comments opposing the proposal, which has strong 
support from off-island based groups and individuals.

In the petition--which appears to have been submitted by StarKist, and 
publicly posted on the federal portal yesterday morning--the cannery 
workers declared that: ``We stand firm in our opposition to the 
expansion'' of the PRINMM.

``We urge the [federal] administration to reconsider and reverse this 
expansion in order to safeguard the American Samoan fishing industry, 
protect the local economy, and promote sustainable fishing practices,'' 
the workers said.

It also notes that the signatures on the petition ``are the many 
dedicated fish cleaners and cannery employees who represent the true 
faces of those who will be affected by the expansion.''

``They are among the thousands of workers who would bear the adverse 
consequences and they are here to emphasize the on-the-ground impact,'' 
they said and declared in bold: ``WE SAY NO TO THE EXPANSION OF THE 
PRINMM.''

The petition has the names of the workers, their StarKist Samoa 
employee badge number, village, phone number and signature.

Many local residents and some in the private sector also submitted 
comments which all oppose the proposed expansion, due to its impact on 
the cannery and the local economy.

                                 ______
                                 

    Ms. Radewagen. The NOAA comment period for this expansion 
just closed and I wanted to share some of the key comments that 
I would like to align myself with.
    President Obama's former Assistant Secretary of Insular 
Affairs, Esther Kiaaine commented at the NOAA outreach session 
in Hawaii that you attended in May that, ``Some Federal 
agencies have shown more concern about the protection of 
natural resources and ocean resources than the actual welfare 
and quality of life for the Indigenous people who live in these 
areas.''
    Kitty Simonds, executive director of the Western Pacific 
Regional Fishery Management Council stated that day that, ``We 
support the process, but we want to make sure they include 
fishing in their goals and objectives.''
    American Samoa Governor Mauga stated, ``American Samoa is 
repeatedly left out of the conversation of what is best for our 
communities. We are disappointed that actions could cripple the 
economy of a U.S. territory would be taken without the 
consultation of its people.''
    The governors of all three pacific territories of Guam, 
CNMI, and American Samoa jointly wrote to the President, ``We 
are alarmed and concerned over the prospect of expanding 
potential fishery enclosures through designating a marine 
sanctuary. Further closures would be in direct conflict with 
the Biden administration's IndoPacific economic framework and 
run counter to the principals of equity and environmental 
justice.''
    No. 1, these are just a few of the comments that reiterate 
the same or similar point. So, my question, Chair Mallory, is 
how does CEQ plan to address these key stakeholder concerns?
    Ms. Mallory. First of all, thank you so much for the 
question. The designation or the beginning of the designation 
process under the Marine Sanctuary process is one that the 
President sees as fitting into his overall conservation goals 
under the America the Beautiful framework.
    That goal and that framework sets as an overall goal of 
preserving and protecting 30 percent of the lands and waters by 
2030, and this particular designation, if it were to conclude, 
would be a significant contribution to that overall goal.
    I think the process, as you laid out, is underway. NOAA is 
receiving, has received the comments that have come in and 
NOAA's responsibility, as part of the sanctuary process, is to 
resolve those issues and to address those issues.
    So, how exactly they will do that, I can't speak to, but 
the process is robust and I think that it will continue to take 
in comments from people like those that you suggested and 
others.
    Ms. Radewagen. My time is short and I have a couple more 
questions, which I will submit. But very quickly, with how 
important fishing access is to our local communities and the 
need to push back against reliance on foreign goods, is CEQ 
going to ensure a domestic tuna source and does the Biden 
administration support buy American for Tuna in the school 
lunch program and our military rations, to ensure a safe 
American supply of tuna for our children and servicemen?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much for that question. That is 
an issue that, I think, it sounds like NOAA is leading on and I 
would defer to them on that.
    Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Huffman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Chair 
Mallory, it is good to see you. I appreciate your testimony. As 
the Ranking Member of the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries 
Subcommittee, I was especially interested in your reference to 
one of the things the Administration is doing that I support 
and that is the first ever comprehensive United States Ocean 
Climate Action Plan. I am eager to work with you on this 
because I believe that our oceans are central to the 
conversation about the climate crisis and also could be very, 
very important to many of our climate solutions.
    But before we get too far into that, I want to address one 
of the messy political items that tend to come up in this 
Committee a lot. A few weeks ago, we had a hearing where I 
believe you were invited to testify. You couldn't be here, but 
our colleagues had a lot of fun at your expense suggesting that 
you were lounging around on beaches in Hawaii and having a good 
time, instead of doing the people's work.
    My understanding is that you were actually doing the 
people's work in a very serious way in Hawaii, talking to 
stakeholders about marine sanctuary policy, something Mr. 
Graves and I care about. We co-chair the Congressional Marine 
Sanctuary Caucus.
    But I think our colleague, Mr. Case, who is not here today 
would also probably take exception with the suggestion that 
anytime people go to Hawaii, they are just having a good time 
and not doing serious work.
    You want to tell us what you were doing that day so we can 
just set the record straight?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. The 
week that I spent in Hawaii, I went as part of the launch of 
the sanctuary process that was just referred to and I did the 
kickoff to express the Administration's interest in that 
activity and in that process continuing.
    So, I was there for that. I also had the great privilege of 
meeting with a number of the on-the-ground stakeholders who are 
taking advantage from the funding from the Inflation Reduction 
Act to put in place restoration projects that have been desired 
but not afforded for some time.
    So, I had a chance to see how the on the ground impacts of 
the Inflation Reduction Act are really helping communities with 
their restoration efforts.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. It was a productive trip?
    Ms. Mallory. It was a very productive trip. I met with a 
whole range of people, including government members, including 
the governor himself and to hear about how we can work in 
partnership with that community.
    Mr. Huffman. Good. What sounds like serious, productive 
work. Certainly the people's business and that is a lot more 
than you could say for what typically passes for an oversight 
hearing in this Committee and the Subcommittee, so good on you.
    Could you speak a little more about the Ocean Climate 
Action Plan and how the Ocean Justice Strategy and National 
Strategy for a sustainable ocean economy are going to help us 
achieve our climate goals and promote the blue economy?
    Ms. Mallory. Absolutely. And thanks so much for the 
question.
    As you know, 70 percent of the globe is made up of the 
water, so if we are going to actually try to address the 
climate challenges, we have to be using all of our tools, and 
we believe that the ocean provides some tremendous solutions to 
addressing climate change, among other things.
    We also recognize that in order to make sure that the 
productive nature of the ocean continues to thrive, that we 
have to take measures to allow for the resources to function. 
So, all of that is reflected in the Ocean Climate Action Plan, 
which is the first that the Federal Government has ever done.
    And under that is a climate justice strategy. And the 
reason for the climate justice strategy, as we have talked 
about throughout the Administration, is we recognize that when 
you look at climate change, environmental justice communities 
are hit first and most often.
    So, we want to make sure, as we are thinking about how we 
are going to protect our coastlines, how we are going to make 
sure we take advantage of the opportunities presented by the 
oceans, that all communities benefit from that.
    We have already started having some great workshops on that 
issue and hearing from folks about the kinds of things that we 
need to be considering.
    Mr. Huffman. Excellent. And you have done a lot of 
listening and fact-finding. You were in my district last year 
or the year before to talk about the offshore wind opportunity 
we have, which we are very excited about. We have set some 
ambitious goals there.
    And you mentioned that you were on the Investing in America 
Cabinet that is working on streamlining. We have to achieve a 
lot more high-capacity transmission to fully realize this 
amazing opportunity in my district and other places.
    Can you just, in the few seconds I have left, tell us how 
you are prioritizing transmission in that process?
    Ms. Mallory. First of all, I am not on that cabinet, but 
that cabinet is occurring. But we have put in place----
    Mr. Huffman. You should be in the room though. I hope you 
are in the room.
    Ms. Mallory. We have put in place a Memorandum of 
Understanding across the agencies to take advantage of the 
existing authorities that we have, in the Federal Government, 
to try to both expedite the process, ensure that we are dealing 
with the necessary coordination on transmission.
    And I think there is a recognition, though, that in order 
for transmission to work more effectively, we do need 
congressional assistance.
    Mr. Huffman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Graves for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Madame Chair, thank you for being here today. I 
appreciate it.
    Are you aware that the majority of projects that are 
carried out across the country today are not required to go 
through a NEPA analysis?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I 
am aware that projects that do not have a Federal intersection 
would not require National Environmental Policy Act review.
    Mr. Graves. Sure. So, the majority of projects----
    Ms. Mallory. I don't know if that is the majority. I just 
know that if the Federal Government doesn't have a role, the 
Federal Government doesn't have a NEPA process.
    Mr. Graves. It is not even close. The far majority of 
projects carried out across the country today don't have to go 
through NEPA analysis because of not meeting threshold, such as 
Federal resources.
    Of course, permitting and other triggers are there as well. 
Yet, we don't see widespread devastation of our environment in 
the United States because we have an environmental conscious. 
We have local ordinances, state laws in place that protect the 
environment and are calibrated to the types of projects that 
are being carried out.
    Now, what we have seen, under the National Environmental 
Policy Act, over the decades and decades of implementation is 
we have seen this gross expansion of really procedure. Because, 
as you know, the law hasn't changed. To the point to where, as 
the Chairman I believe noted, our road projects today take 
somewhere around 7 years to go through a NEPA analysis.
    And having spent a lot of time working on infrastructure 
projects in my life, I know it doesn't take anything close to 
that to build those same projects.
    The Chairman and I worked on legislation called the BUILDER 
Act, that was introduced last Congress, introduced again this 
Congress, and that was the basis for the NEPA reforms that were 
included in the FRA, the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
    Were you aware that the BUILDER Act was the basis for that 
negotiation and that law change?
    Ms. Mallory. Yes.
    Mr. Graves. OK. And the Chairman and I, to give a shout out 
to Ashley on the Chairman's staff and Emily in the Speaker's 
staff that were integral to this negotiation, but do you 
appreciate that under that change in law, that there was a 
significant raising of the threshold to which NEPA applies to 
projects and then secondly, a narrowing of the scope of what 
NEPA actually is supposed to be evaluating?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I 
think as we looked at the changes that were made in the Act, I 
think our sense is that it is very much in line with the work 
that we were already doing in the NEPA Program.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you. If I could interrupt you real quick. 
So, let me be very clear because I want to challenge that 
statement. That is very, very concerning for me to hear you say 
that, because think about what you just said. You just said 
that a statute that was written 40 years ago, because you said 
you were already doing this, so I assume you meant already 
doing it before we amended the law.
    So, a statute that was written 40 years ago, you are saying 
that the law changes we just made effectively didn't have an 
impact because you were already going to do it under the 
existing law.
    We amended the organic statute. We amended it to raise the 
threshold under which NEPA projects apply, meaning that fewer 
projects NEPA will apply to and then secondly, we significantly 
narrowed the scope. And just to clarify, when we narrowed the 
scope, we also recalibrated the timeline by putting a 1-year 
cap and a 75-page limit on EA's and a 2-year cap and 150-page 
limit on environmental impact statements.
    That was calibrated with the narrowing of scope that we did 
under the law. So, I am very concerned to hear you say that you 
were already doing this, because that sounds like almost you 
were going to ignore the changes in law that we just made that 
were pretty substantial.
    Ms. Mallory. First of all, Congressman, let me just assure 
you. We are not ignoring the changes in the law. We are working 
now to integrate them into the regulations that exist.
    What I meant by saying that we were already in-line with 
what we were doing. If you look at the 2020 regulations, some 
of the things that were picked up in the statute itself were 
part of the regulations, so it already existed.
    In terms of direction, it already was part of the program 
and we took steps and are taking steps to make sure that, to 
the extent that there were any differences in the 2020 regs and 
what the statutory language said, that that is reflected.
    Mr. Graves. OK. So, I would ask you a direct question. 
Whenever we narrowed the scope to reasonably foreseeable 
environmental effects, do you view that as a narrowing, as 
compared to the organic statute?
    Ms. Mallory. I do not. We have been doing reasonably 
foreseeable since the beginning of NEPA. That has been a 
standard approach to NEPA.
    Mr. Graves. So, under Sierra Club v. Marsh, the Supreme 
Court stepped in and explicitly said that under NEPA that they 
should only consider impacts or effects that are likely. Let's 
see, it says, ``likely need to be discussed, as in other legal 
context. The terms likely and foreseeable decide the type of 
environmental impact are properly interpreted meaning that the 
impact is sufficiently likely to occur that a person of 
ordinary prudence would take into account in reaching a 
decision.''
    That is a significant narrowing of the scope and I see I am 
out of time, so I am going to come back, but I just want to be 
crystal clear that having drafted it, having negotiated it, and 
hearing your response is very, very concerning and I will tell 
you entirely contrary to congressional intent.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Kamlager-
Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to 
thank Chair Mallory for showing up today. I have a couple of 
items that I would like to enter into the hearing record.
    One document is titled ``Examples of Benefits from the NEPA 
Process for ARRA Funded Activities,'' and I ask unanimous 
consent to enter this into the hearing record.
    And the second is a GAO report to Congressional Requestors 
titled ``National Environmental Policy Act, Little Information 
Exists on NEPA Analysis.''
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter these into 
the record, and I have copies of them here with me.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

 Examples of Benefits from the NEPA Process for ARRA Funded Activities
                                May 2011

    In addition to reporting results, this report explores benefits 
resulting from the NEPA process for ARRA funded activities. Managers 
who use the NEPA process to holistically consider environmental issues 
and requirements find that the NEPA process helps them with program and 
project delivery in addition to improving environmental performance.

    Managers are in a better position to determine how best to 
implement their programs and projects by considering alternatives for 
meeting program needs, policy objectives, and environmental 
requirements. They use the NEPA process to compare the relative 
benefits and trade-offs associated with the alternative ways in which 
they can implement the projects and activities. The NEPA process was 
designed to allow Federal agencies to do more than ``check the box'' 
showing that they had complied with the law. The CEQ regulations set 
out the principle enshrined in NEPA over 40 years ago:

        . . . it is not better documents but better decisions that 
        count. NEPA's purpose is not to generate paperwork--even 
        excellent paperwork--but to foster excellent action. The NEPA 
        process is intended to help public officials make decisions 
        that are based on understanding of environmental consequences, 
        and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 
        environment. (40 C.F.R. Sec. 1500.1).

    The following examples show how managers improved project 
performance, operationally and environmentally, and reached better 
outcomes. They provide an illustrative sampling of agency environmental 
reviews that have resulted in taxpayer dollars and energy saved, 
resources better protected, and the fostering of community agreements. 
Several agencies reported that a well run NEPA process improved working 
relationships with regulatory agencies and thereby contributed to 
better cooperation, which facilitated project delivery and 
implementation. These benefits were gained while expeditiously 
completing NEPA reviews for the ARRA funded projects.
a. Department of Agriculture:

    While completing the Environmental Assessment for the NRCS's 
Calaveras Creek Watershed Rehabilitation Project to repair structural 
components of a dam in Texas, a prehistoric bedrock mortar cultural 
feature was identified. If the site had not been properly surveyed and 
analyzed during the NEPA process, the cultural feature may not have 
been discovered and documented. The feature is unique in that no other 
bedrock mortars are known in this area of Texas. Design measures are 
planned to avoid adverse effects to the feature by covering it with 
appropriate protective fill material.
    The NRCS's Gering Valley Watershed Operations Project in Nebraska 
is a watershed operations project which is installing a drain system 
for an existing dam. The original dam was built before NEPA became law; 
therefore, not all of the environmental resource concerns were 
identified. Based on the analysis completed for NEPA, NRCS opted not to 
select the original planned alternative that had design features that 
would have affected natural prairie resources in the project area and 
potentially impacted the visual aesthetics for the adjacent Scott's 
Bluff National Monument viewshed. Instead, another alternative analyzed 
in the EA that avoids those specific natural prairie resources and 
addresses the landscape/viewshed concerns will be selected. Thus, this 
project has benefited from the NEPA process by identifying the need to 
protect native prairie areas as well as protecting scenic beauty and 
visual aesthetics for the Scott's Bluff National Monument.
    During the NEPA review of the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy 
ARRA-Floodplain Easement project in Henderson County, North Carolina, 
NRCS consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
resulted in a collaborative partnership with FWS and other funders to 
restore, enhance and protect recovery habitat for federally listed 
endangered Bunched Arrowhead (Saggitaria fasciculata), a small plant 
that inhabits early succession saturated wetlands. A restoration design 
is being produced to provide appropriate hydrologic regimes and light 
levels to restore and expand habitat for the rare plant. An existing 
colony of Bunched Arrowhead has been temporarily removed from the site 
for conservation while the floodplain and wetland are restored. When 
restoration is completed, the Bunched Arrowhead will be re-introduced 
to the site.
    The Forest Service Butler II/Slide Post-Fire Fuels Reduction 
Project in the San Bernardino Forest, California, is a vegetation 
management project designed to protect adjacent communities from the 
risk of future high-intensity wildfire and provide a safe environment 
for work crews. Two organizations objected to the project as designed. 
During the EA process, the forest met with the groups and found 
resolution. Both groups were also brought into the implementation 
monitoring to ensure their concerns were addressed.
    The Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Forest Service 
for the Lakeview-Reeder Roads project in Idaho, analyzed road 
maintenance reconstruction and new road construction in an area where 
the endangered boreal toad species exists. The project was intended to 
improve fish passage and reduce sedimentation in the area. Through 
public review of the draft EIS, a public comment identified a 
discrepancy regarding a buffer zone for the protection of the boreal 
toad. The road was redesigned to provide an adequate buffer to protect 
the species.
    The Forest Service Babione Vegetation Management Project in Bighorn 
National Forest, Wyoming, was designed to conduct various vegetation 
treatments to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health. Through 
the public involvement process the agency worked with adjacent 
landowners to address concerns that on-the-ground activities could lead 
to increased trespass on their private land. In order to alleviate this 
concern and still meet the project's purpose several design elements 
were incorporated to address the landowners concerns.
    The analysis of access and travel management in the Tongass 
National Forest, Sitka Ranger District assisted the Forest Service in 
determining how the road system on the Sitka Ranger District will be 
managed. The NEPA process revealed that many local residents favored 
leaving all or nearly all roads open, while a number of residents 
favored closing roads to protect water quality, fish habitat, and old-
growth forest reserves. In considering the competing positions, the 
responsible official determined that hard choices had to be made. The 
Ranger closed roads where use would have unacceptable impacts on 
resources and left open roads where use would have no or limited 
impacts. The ranger district will pursue partnerships to facilitate 
improved access, including adopt-a-road agreements to maintain roads.
    The Forest Service funded a Roan Mountain, North Carolina 
Facilities Maintenance project to repave existing trails, a parking 
area, and an access road. During the scoping process individuals 
requested the use of porous pavement be considered to reduce rain 
runoff. The use of porous pavement requires a 47 inch minimum clearance 
from the bottom of the paved surface to bedrock an in response to the 
scoping comments studies found the bedrock at the site is 6-12 inches 
below the surface. The NEPA process allowed the public to better 
understand why an alternative action that appeared to be 
environmentally friendly was not pursued.
    The Forest Service funded Vegetation Management Project on Crooked 
River, Idaho was designed to conduct various vegetation treatments to 
reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health. The Agency identified 
the State of Idaho's Department of Fish and Game as a cooperating 
agency. The state brought forward new information on flammulated owl 
habitat, which modified the acres treated and protected the habitat.
    The Rural Development Rural Community Facilities Program included 
the proposed construction of the Eastern Shore Rural Health Medical 
Center in Olney, Virginia. This project involved construction of a new 
medical building, parking, and infrastructure, which required the 
installation of on-site groundwater sources and septic system. This 
site is located within the Columbia and Yorktown-Eastover Multiaquifer 
System which is a Sole Source Aquifer supplying more than 50 percent of 
the water needs for the communities within the service area boundaries. 
As a result of the NEPA process, the EPA reviewed the proposal in the 
planning stages and suggested modifications to the proposal to address 
the potential adverse risk to ground water from contamination. Also, 
due to the concerns of the public and agencies involved in permitting 
this project, to protect this sole source aquifer, the local Soil and 
Water Conservation District is using the facility grounds and 
surrounding area to plant native vegetation for a native and healing 
planted garden. Planting of native vegetation in this way will help to 
treat runoff from the proposed facility and contribute to protection of 
adjacent wetland and waterways, which recharge the aquifer.
    The Rural Development Community Facilities Program also funded the 
adaptive reuse of the Milton Public Library in Milton, Pennsylvania, an 
existing structure eligible for listing on the National Register of 
Historic Places and located within an historic district. The reuse of 
this significant structure involved the purchase, relocation, and 
renovation (including construction of an addition) on an existing two-
story single family residence, the Rose Hill House, within the Milton 
Historic District. The dwelling was originally constructed in the late 
1800s, was destroyed by fire in the mid-1900s and then subsequently 
rehabilitated, along with the carriage house also located on the 
property. Through the NEPA process and consultation with the State 
Historic Preservation Officer and interested parties, Rural Development 
was able to make a `no adverse affect' determination for the adaptive 
reuse plan for this National Register of Historic Places eligible 
structure.
    The Rural Development Community Facilities Program funded a 
proposal to renovate dorms and construct apartments for student housing 
at Bridgewater College, in Bridgewater, Virginia. The college is 
located next to the Town of Bridgewater's historic district. The 
college, founded in 1880, has a number of historic buildings on campus, 
many dating to the late 1800s. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act, the college's architect, in close 
consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, 
provided a design that would appropriately blend the new construction 
and renovations with the existing historic character of the area. The 
new apartment buildings are Victorian in appearance and are consistent 
with the adjoining historic district. The renovations of the dorms 
blend in with the existing buildings on the campus. As a result of the 
application of NEPA and the related Section 106 consultation process, 
the college was able to provide modern student housing with a historic 
character that is an asset to the college and the historic flavor of 
the Town of Bridgewater.
    Rural Development funded the installation of a 12 million gallon 
per day water intake and pump station, along with a transmission line 
to the Middle Holstein South Fork Water Treatment Plant in Washington 
County, VA. In addition, the Water Treatment Plant will be upgraded to 
handle the additional flow. Through implementation of the NEPA process 
in the planning stages, this project identified mitigation actions to 
protect the archaeological remains of two prehistoric Native American 
camps and minimize floodplain impacts. In addition, mitigation was 
included to protect the scenic beauty and visual aesthetics of the 
Virginia Creeper Trail, a ``rails-to-trails'' project in the National 
Recreation Trail inventory.
    Rural Development's Rural Water & Waste Disposal Program funded a 
water distribution project, the Millwood-Bloomingvale Water System 
Improvement Project, that will provide for the installation of 
approximately 140 miles of pipeline in Williamsburg County, South 
Carolina. This will provide water service to residences currently 
served by individual private, unregulated wells. Through implementation 
of the NEPA process in the planning stages, this project identified 
potential species and habitat impacts on the American chaffseed 
(Schwalbea americana) and red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), 
species protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The 
mitigation resulted in adjusting the pipeline route as well as the 
location of construction equipment. In addition, mitigation was 
developed to protect the scenic beauty and visual aesthetics of the 
Black River, a river segment included in the nationwide Rivers 
Inventory.
b. Department of Commerce:

    The Department of Commerce NOAA Operations, Research and Facilities 
actions include effective standard and special award conditions placed 
on the use of ARRA funds. Those conditions will ensure adequate 
protection for federally administered areas of coastal or marine 
habitat, and/or biological resources such as anadromous fisheries, 
federally listed endangered or threatened species and marine mammals. 
These conditions also ensure protection for historic structures and 
cultural resources that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the 
National Register of Historic Places.
    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration's 
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) employed an iterative 
process with applicants to make them aware of the environmental review 
implications of the proposed projects for which they sought grants. In 
one case, the fiber optic cable project required trenching and 
excavating of wetlands. Through the environmental review process, the 
applicant became aware of the critical issues associated with wetlands 
and is working to avoid some impacts and fully mitigate those caused by 
their project.
    In another Broadband Technology Opportunities Program project, the 
NoaNet was developed to serve the State of Washington by allowing the 
state to upgrade and expand broadband infrastructure to combat the 
social and economic issues facing local and rural communities and to 
enhance broadband connectivity to six Indian tribes in the State. The 
NEPA process was the key procedural step in identifying and protecting 
critical habitat and protected lands in the State of Washington, while 
still allowing the grantee to use ARRA funds to add fiber backbone 
capacity to existing networks and specifically target and develop 
broadband infrastructure in areas that were underserved.
    As a result of the NEPA process, the Economic Development 
Administration protected a 26.5 acre forested wetland to the southwest 
of the Flagship Enterprise Center, a 80,000 square-foot multi-tenant 
business/industrial facility on an 8.4 acre site. The wetlands are 
important habitat because of the permanent aquatic habitat that might 
be used by migratory waterfowl. Conditions on the $2.7 million in 
Recovery Act funding for the construction project will protect the 
wetland by (1) precluding impacts on the hydrology of the wetland 
through any changes of slope or drainage features; (2) preventing 
runoff from storm events from being directed to the wetland; and (3) 
providing retention facilities to contain storm water within the 
current footprint of the project site.
    The programmatic environmental assessment process allowed the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology to evaluate the 
environmental effects of several construction projects in Gaithersburg, 
Maryland at the same time. By analyzing all ARRA projects and a few 
additional non-ARRA projects at once, a holistic approach to the campus 
was taken and environmental impact boundaries were outlined in the 
Finding of No Significant Impact for all present and future projects. 
Projects must fall within the boundaries or they will require 
additional environmental analysis.
c. Department of Defense:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' NEPA process for the Lorain 
Harbor, Ohio dredging allowed a reiteration and reconsideration of 
dredged material management alternatives and provided the opportunity 
for public interest review. Analysis conducted in conjunction with the 
NEPA action verified that a greater volume of dredged material was 
suitable for unconfined open-lake placement thereby obviating the need 
to provide additional confined disposal capacity than was previously 
planned through the Lorain Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan 
(DMMP).
    The NEPA process for the Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE) Winter Harbor, Virginia Federal Navigation Project 
alerted the District to the potential impacts of depositing channel 
sediments upon an eroding beach shoreline inhabited by the federally 
endangered Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle. The District, during 
development of the Environmental Assessment and consultation with the 
FWS, developed conservation and mitigation measures designed to protect 
the beetle. These measures resulted in maintenance dredging that 
avoided work during seasons that would impact the beetle, created 
additional habitat, and completed the maintenance dredging to 
facilitate navigation.
    The Tres Rios project connects Rio Salado and Rio Oeste 
environmental projects in Phoenix, Arizona, and continues the 
restoration of the Salt River west to the Agua Fria River. Tres Rios 
provides a net environmental benefit by maintaining the effluent 
thereby enhancing the riparian area in addition to protecting 600 
structures from flooding this project maintains habitat for many 
species of birds, reptiles and mammals to live, nest and raise young. 
The NEPA process alerted the agency of the potential impact of placing 
dredged material in sensitive areas that would have impacted the 
wildlife and resulted in realigning the dredged material placement 
areas to maintain the habitat areas.
    While reviewing the proposal to create a 200-acre Bolivar 
Beneficial Use Marsh in Galveston Bay, Texas, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers worked with other agencies to form the Beneficial Use Group 
to devise a plan to eliminate open bay placement of dredged material 
and to use dredged material to create environmental features that 
provide a net benefit to the Bay ecosystem. Historically, deep-draft 
channel construction and maintenance material had been deposited into 
unconfined, open bay placement areas in Galveston Bay, which resulted 
in adverse impacts to bay bottom habitat now designated as essential 
fish habitat. Further, the loss of intertidal marsh has been identified 
as one of the critical problems of the Galveston Bay estuary by the 
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program. As a result of the 
environmental review for projects including the Bolivar Beneficial Use 
Marsh, the Group prepared a plan to create intertidal marsh and nesting 
islands for colonial water birds. The project also provides benefits to 
important recreationally and commercially valuable fish species.
    Over the years, frequent flooding impacted large numbers of Des 
Moines, Iowa residential, commercial, and industrial properties. In 
cooperation with Des Moines, The Rock Island District (District) 
conducted a flood reduction feasibility study with an integrated 
environmental assessment. The project's study team evaluated many 
alternatives involving levee operation and maintenance, improvements, 
and new alignments that would reduce operation and maintenance costs 
and improve safety during flood events. Due to the importance and value 
to the City of Des Moines, the District expedited their report 
preparation with emphasis on adaptive management. The NEPA process 
established mitigation requirements and agency coordination pivot 
points based on the desired final plans. The close project coordination 
between the District and City of Des Moines resulted with the 
feasibility report/EA including wetland mitigation based on a series of 
levee alignment scenarios within the preferred alternative. All the 
scenarios resulted in no significant impacts.
    The District COE proposed a project to construct emergency 
streambank and erosion protection for a major city thoroughfare in Iowa 
City, IA, along the Iowa River. The original plan and environmental 
assessment included bank protection encroaching approximately 15 feet 
into the river. During the NEPA process, the Iowa Department of Natural 
Resources (IDNR) indicated there was a possibility the project may 
impact two state threatened mussel species. The District completed the 
mussel survey, which found 11 native mussel species, including the 
state endangered Pistolgrip. Based on the mussel survey findings, the 
District and IDNR worked together to relocate all the recovered mussels 
to a nearby mussel sanctuary and the District reduced the project 
footprint in the river to avoid impacts on the mussels.
    The Department of Defense reports that the NEPA reviews for the 
Energy Conservation Investment Program benefited the Department. This 
program is designated for ARRA projects that reduce energy and water 
usage and include proposed construction of high efficiency energy 
systems. The NEPA process required a separate look at the project 
planning stage to identify impacts and alternatives in support of 
sustainability and energy conservation that have led to a reduction of 
energy and water needs and costs.
    The formation of a Beneficial Use Group (BUG) during the NEPA 
process for the Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, TX District's 
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels (HGNC) Project led to a plan to 
eliminate open bay placement of dredged material and to use dredged 
material to create environmental features that provide a net benefit to 
the Galveston Bay ecosystem. As a result of the NEPA process, the BUG 
came up with a plan to create intertidal marsh and restore and create 
colonial water bird nesting islands with HGNC dredge material. This 
project will result in a net benefit to the Galveston Bay ecosystem by 
creating 88 acres of intertidal marsh for mitigation of impacts, that 
will provide benefits to important recreationally and commercially 
valuable fish species.
d. Department of Energy:
    DOE used the NEPA process for the loan guarantee for construction 
and operation of a flywheel-based frequency regulation facility at an 
undeveloped seven acre site in Stephentown, New York. This 
Environmental Assessment provided a forum to document and explain the 
benefits of the project to the public and decision makers, 
specifically, the greenhouse gas savings that could be achieved by 
using the proposed flywheel-based frequency regulation technology as 
opposed to the fossil fuels-based frequency regulation technology.
    An Environmental Assessment was used to consider a loan guarantee 
for construction and startup of the proposed Neal Hot Springs 
Geothermal Facility in Vale, Oregon. The NEPA process helped DOE to 
identify and address potential low level induced seismicity associated 
with enhanced geothermal systems where injection is used to improve 
reservoir permeability and sustainability. The identification of these 
issues occurred early in the process, which allowed for efficient 
inclusion of practicable environmental control measures to ensure that 
the project was not a potential source of seismic activity.
    An Environmental Assessment was also used by DOE to integrate 
project planning and environmental concerns for demolition of Building 
330, which housed the former Chicago Pile-5 research reactor at Argonne 
National Laboratory in Illinois. The scoping phase of the process 
brought operational and environmental expertise together and 
facilitated development of demolition and transportation approaches to 
better protect workers and the public.
    DOE used the Environmental Assessment process to take a more 
comprehensive look into future planning at the Savannah River Site in 
South Carolina. The Environmental Assessment analyzed the waste streams 
of both low-level and mixed low-level radioactive wastes, for the past, 
current, and anticipated scope of work, and all potential government 
and commercial waste facility destinations. This resulted in solutions 
that were much more cost and time efficient, and limited the expected 
transportation impacts over the long term in the surrounding 
communities. This comprehensive approach was achieved due to input 
received during agency and public scoping.
    The Bonneville Power Administration used the Environmental Impact 
Statement process for the construction and operation of a new 500-
kilovolt transmission line along the Columbia River in Oregon and 
Washington. The NEPA process helped refine the transmission line route 
to avoid conflicts with local community and private property land use. 
The route refinement would not have been apparent without public 
participation in the NEPA review. The process facilitated public 
understanding of the project and identified appropriate mitigation 
measures relative to cultural sites, sensitive plants, wildlife, 
wetlands, and land use.
    A DOE Environmental Assessment analyzed the then-proposed molecular 
foundry, a nanoscience research facility at the Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. The DOE Environmental 
Assessment influenced the design, construction, and operation decisions 
and identified mitigation measures to avoid impacts to the Alameda 
whipsnake, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species 
Act. As a result of the NEPA process, DOE sited the facility outside of 
critical habitat, restricted construction activities to daylight hours, 
disposed of soils in a manner to reduce the potential for encountering 
and injuring whipsnakes, and implemented landscape design and 
maintenance during and after construction so as to reduce potential 
impacts to the whipsnakes.
    NEPA analysis was conducted for construction of a vehicle battery 
and hybrid components manufacturing facility, sited in Midland, 
Michigan. The NEPA process increased the project team's awareness of 
issues related to preexisting dioxin-contaminated soil, including the 
potential for impacts in the vicinity of the project site. The 
applicant incorporated measures to minimize the risk of exposure to 
dioxin-contaminated soils during construction, including notifying the 
affected facilities (including a day care) of the construction 
activities and potential exposures, more rigorous management and 
monitoring of fugitive dust when direct fugitive dust emissions would 
impact nearby facilities, providing for temporary relocation during 
days of exposure, scheduling around day care operation, and providing 
temporary enhanced air filtration during construction.
    DOE proposed to issue a grant for the development and production of 
electric drive vehicle systems in Detroit, Michigan. The project 
initially involved construction of more than 2 million square feet of 
manufacturing space on multiple undeveloped sites. Environmental 
implications identified during the NEPA scoping process led to an 
iterative process between the applicant and DOE staff to reshape the 
proposal into one that involved retooling and retrofitting existing 
manufacturing facilities, with only minor new construction on a 
previously disturbed site. Potential environmental impacts were greatly 
reduced through this process.
    In accelerating clean-up work at the Transuranic Waste Processing 
Center located within the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, TN, DOE 
implemented mitigation measures for a small wetland that was identified 
during the NEPA review. Early consideration of environmental 
information during the review of proposals for the project helped DOE 
avoid costly analysis of alternatives that may not have been viable. 
The NEPA process facilitated communication with other agencies 
regarding the alternatives and their associated impacts. It also 
provided an educational tool for the public, showing that various 
alternatives were considered and that DOE was moving forward with the 
alternative that would least impact the environment in the short-term 
and improve the environment in the long-term.
    DOE funded the construction of a light source facility at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, NY. The light source will 
deliver x-rays with unprecedented intensity and brightness for research 
to find solutions to important energy challenges. During the EA scoping 
process, DOE learned that a state mining permit would be required to 
acquire sand from outside the immediate project area, which would delay 
the start of construction. Input to the design process identified a 
sufficient volume of sand from the immediate project area, and the 
delay was avoided. The NEPA process also identified the potential for 
project storm water discharge to affect recharge basins considered 
designated habitat for the tiger salamander, a state threatened 
species. This triggered changes to the project design to adjust 
discharge location points and maintain flows to ensure the area 
continues to be suitable salamander habitat.
    An environmental assessment was produced for a proposed Advanced 
Vehicle Battery and Hybrid Components Manufacturing project in Sanborn, 
New York. The program, listed under Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, is a grant program to accelerate the development and production 
of electric drive vehicle systems to substantially reduce petroleum 
consumption in the United States. In response to comment during the 
NEPA process, the project will use landscaping techniques, including 
replacement vegetation native to the area and free of invasive plant 
species, to reduce the need for water to maintain landscapes and to 
benefit native plant communities and wildlife.
    Idaho National Laboratory, located in southeast Idaho, is 
accelerating disposition of remote-handled transuranic (radioactive) 
waste. Information received from external technical experts during the 
comment period on the draft environmental assessment facilitated the 
selection of a transportation route that minimized the risk of 
potential impacts to cultural and biological resources.
e. Department of Health and Human Services:

    In considering an important Brownfield redevelopment project in 
South Providence, Rhode Island, the NEPA process for the Providence 
Community Health Center helped to uncover the existence of potential 
residual contaminants from lithography chemicals and underground tanks 
at the historic site. Working with EPA Region I and the Rhode Island 
Department of Environmental Quality, HHS ensured that the necessary 
measures were incorporated as part of redevelopment of the site to 
protect human health and minimize the potential for future liability. 
Upon receiving the appropriate findings that remediation standards have 
been met to ensure that the future health of workers and patients is 
protected, HRSA moved forward with funding the project.
f. Department of Homeland Security:

    The Environmental Assessment for the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter 
Sycamore housing project in Cordova, Alaska, identified potential 
wetlands impacts which resulted in considering additional alternatives 
for site locations and housing configurations. An Environmental 
Assessment published in 2002 identified a requirement for additional 
site hydrology studies of wetlands within the building location. The 
environmental field studies discovered extensive on-site wetlands, the 
impact to which could not be totally avoided. The supplemental 
Environmental Assessment process provided the opportunity to consider 
additional alternatives for configuration of the housing as well as an 
opportunity for public input on those alternatives. The supplemental 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact provided 
recommendations that preserve and maintain much of these wetlands and 
minimize down slope storm water runoff.
    The NEPA process allowed the Coast Guard proposed alteration of the 
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge between Iowa and Illinois 
to determine and address the potential impacts the bridge construction 
would have on the Spectaclecase mussels located on the existing bridge 
piers. The mussels are a species of conservation concern in Iowa and 
endangered in Illinois. As part of the NEPA process, a Biological 
Assessment concluded the mussels would be relocated prior to 
construction in order to avoid an adverse effect on the mussels and 
construction processes were modified to mitigate impacts to these 
species.
    In a similar example, the NEPA process allowed the Coast Guard to 
determine the potential impacts of the alteration of the Galveston 
Causeway Bridge in Texas on species of concern and construction 
processes were modified to mitigate impacts to affected meiofauna and 
microfauna species.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is using the NEPA 
process for ARRA grants to engage grantees early in the process so that 
environmental issues can be addressed to avoid or minimize potential 
impacts to the environment. FEMA's grant awards are intended to help 
strengthen the resiliency of communities in their overall homeland 
security preparedness, and the grant award documents are written to 
help ensure that grant funded projects are accomplished with little to 
no impact to the environment. Grant award terms and conditions prevent 
the release of grant funding until FEMA has determined that a project 
is eligible for a categorical exclusion, a finding of no significant 
impact or the grantee has agreed to implement mitigation activities. 
Grantees are taking into account ways to minimize impacts to sensitive 
resources, including historic structures, endangered species, wetlands, 
and floodplains. This encourages grantees to identify ways to minimize 
the impacts of the projects that they are proposing, but it also helps 
to raise the grantees' awareness and improve their planning for future 
grant-funded projects so that they can proactively begin data gathering 
and will know what resources to avoid as they move forward. In 
addition, as more projects progress through the NEPA process, 
mitigation measures will be identified and implemented in order to 
protect valuable resources. This process is most evident in the types 
of projects implemented by the ARRA Fire Fighter Assistance and Fire 
Station Construction Grants, where the award making decisions consider 
potential impacts to sensitive resources.
g. Department of Housing and Urban Development:

    The Housing and Urban Development NEPA process for the Palestine 
Commons Senior Living Facility project, which involves the construction 
of 69-units of elderly housing in a three-story structure in Kansas 
City, Missouri, helped ensure that soil and groundwater contamination 
will be remediated to state cleanup levels and that all units will be 
constructed to the Energy Star performance standard. This will likely 
be one of the largest multi-family buildings in the Kansas City 
metropolitan area to meet Energy Star requirements.
    The Housing and Urban Development NEPA process for the Snohomish 
Multi-family Rental Housing project involved Neighborhood Stabilization 
Program funds and Public Housing Recovery Act Capitol Funds to 
construct multi-family housing in Marysville, Washington. Snohomish 
County Housing Authority, as project sponsor, is responsible for 
preparing the environmental analysis. The site is directly adjacent to 
Interstate 5, the main interstate highway on the West Coast. As part of 
the environmental review, HUD environmental officers worked extensively 
with Snohomish County to calculate the noise levels and to determine 
appropriate mitigation measures for the housing and an on-site tot lot. 
Mitigation for the housing will incorporate the best sound-attenuation 
construction technologies for windows, walls, and ceilings. Mitigating 
noise for the tot lot was achieved by altering the site plan and re-
arranging building footprints to block sound transmission in the tot 
lot area. The NEPA process allowed alternative mitigations to be 
considered and encouraged creatively applying HUD standards in the 
planning phase of the project in order to minimize noise impacts to 
future residents.
    The Housing and Urban Development NEPA process for the Historic 
Bastrop High School building in Bastrop, Louisiana involved the ARRA 
Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) to convert the historic building 
into 76 units of housing for the elderly. The project converts a public 
nuisance into a project that supports the Bastrop Main Street downtown 
redevelopment plan. The historic building had deteriorated in recent 
years and the NEPA review identified numerous issues with the unsecured 
building, including structural instability, roof leaks, and, notably, 
lead-based paint, asbestos, and lead contaminated galvanized water 
supply pipes. Project design and rehabilitation plans were coordinated 
with the State Historic Preservation Office to preserve and restore the 
building's original red brick exterior with expansive new permanent 
windows. As a result of the project, the structure has now been secured 
and stabilized with the installation of new roofing and windows.
    HUD provided ARRA funding to the Topeka Housing Authority to 
construct 64 units of new public housing In Topeka, Kansas. The mixed-
financing Echo Ridge project will comply with the Enterprise Green 
Communities Criteria for sustainable development. Owing to HUD's NEPA 
review process, the project will also be quieter than otherwise would 
have been the case, because the need for a noise barrier was 
determined. A 1,700 foot noise barrier will be built to protect the 
project residents from roadway noise using a combination of earthen 
berm and masonry wall, which, in conjunction with landscaping, will 
soften the effects of the noise barrier itself.
h. Department of the Interior

    The 56 ARRA Hazardous Fuels Reduction projects implemented by the 
Department's Office of Wildland Fire Coordination are small but highly 
visible model projects for public outreach and participation, planning 
and implementation. Each project showcases within local communities the 
efforts to reduce hazardous accumulations of vegetation and woody fuel 
that pose potential wildfire risks to these same communities as well as 
the potential benefits of utilizing woody materials that would 
otherwise be disposed of in landfills. Making use of the NEPA public 
involvement process, projects were identified either through the 
development of local, collaborative community wildfire protection 
plans, or to meet the objectives of land and resource management plans 
which prioritize the protection of communities from the risk of 
wildfire as well.
    The Lime Kiln Salvage Road project north of Lewistown, Montana, was 
successful in large part due to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
NEPA public involvement process. The public involvement process was 
instrumental in helping to design a road system to access and salvage 
blow down timber as well as recognize the recreational values of the 
area. The public emphasized the need for the area to be maintained as a 
non-motorized use area but also came to recognize the need to address 
the blow down timber and subsequent forest health issues. Several 
proposals were presented, discussed and refined during public meetings 
and ultimately led to the decision to build a road to access salvage 
logging and then close the road to motorized use. Additionally, 
portions of the road will be rehabilitated to the extent possible while 
other portions will be incorporated to expand the existing recreational 
trails in the existing Limekiln Trail System and provide future 
recreational opportunities.
    The National Park Service (NPS) prepared an EA that analyzed the 
proposals to reuse the historic Shirley House at Vicksburg National 
Military Park, Mississippi, in an Environmental Assessment. Shirley 
House is currently inaccessible to visitors and access is limited to 
only those park employees performing necessary repairs and inspections. 
Given its condition, visitors cannot enter the building or fully 
appreciate its historic significance. The park originally proposed to 
adaptively re-use the structure for offices or for a visitor contact 
station. However, as a result of the NEPA Environmental Assessment and 
comments received during public scoping, the original scope of the 
project was modified to focus more on preserving, rehabilitating, and 
restoring the historic fabric of the structure and providing a more 
historically accurate setting for visitors. The preferred alternative 
will allow the Shirley House to be opened to the public while at the 
same time protecting the integrity of the historic structure and the 
surrounding cultural landscape.
    The NEPA process for considering closure of several abandoned mines 
in four Arizona parks allowed the NPS to consider the actions of 
abandoned mine closures comprehensively and on a landscape-scale. The 
environmental assessment evaluated the impacts associated with 
abandoned mine closures at Coronado and Organ Pipe Cactus National 
Monuments and Grand Canyon and Saguaro National Parks and identified 
specific mine closure activities for each feature in the four parks, 
and indicated specific mitigation measures to protect sensitive 
cultural and natural resources. Combining the NEPA public involvement 
processes (public scoping and review) in conjunction with enhanced 
agency consultation efforts for abandoned mine closures at the parks 
provided the public with a more thorough understanding of the overall 
project activities and helped to streamline the review and comment by 
interested and affected parties.
    Providing a forum and opportunity for public involvement is a 
primary objective of the NEPA process. The FWS Alaska Region conducted 
an environmental assessment (EA) for a project aimed at restoring 
habitats for nesting seabirds on isolated oceanic islands (entitled 
Invasive Species Eradication for Habitat Restoration on Tangik, Poa and 
Sud Islands, Alaska). The public's participation in this NEPA action 
was positive and highly supportive. When the EA was circulated for 
public comment, the majority of the responses received were in favor of 
the project. In one case, a member of the public suggested that the FWS 
not use lead shot to terminate invasive rabbits and marmots because of 
the potential threat of ingestion by birds that might prey on or 
scavenge carcasses that cannot be retrieved. Based on this input, the 
FWS clarified the project description to make clear that only steel 
shot or non-toxic lead alternatives will be used, thereby protecting 
bird species from the adverse impacts associated with ingesting lead 
shot.
    The Environmental Assessment for the Bureau of Reclamation's 
Sunnyside Conduit project in Washington was developed with input from 
stakeholders to ensure all aspects of the project were addressed. The 
public scoping process provided feedback that identified a key storm 
water issue which needed to be analyzed. A public review of the 
assessment was conducted to allow another opportunity for the public 
and stakeholders to comment on the incorporation of the storm water 
item, as well as other components of the NEPA review. As a result of 
NEPA process, the project will benefit fish and conserve water by 
leaving more water in the natural system.
    In the course of conducting the necessary research associated with 
the underground tank removal project at the Steilacoom Warehouse and 
Storage Facility in Washington, the USGS established a strong working 
relationship with the State of Washington Department of Ecology, 
Department of Archeology and Historical Preservation, the Steilacoom 
Tribe, the Nisqually Tribe, and the Puyallup Tribe. These new 
relationships allowed USGS to complete the NEPA review for the project 
and begin implementation expeditiously and efficiently.
    A National Park Service project will replace a learning center, 
intern housing and employee housing that were destroyed by a wildfire 
in the Santa Monica National Recreation Area, CA. The project will also 
remove hazards that resulted from the wildfire and make the area safe 
for visitors. The NEPA process allowed for public and regulatory agency 
input on the project, as well as input from regional and park experts. 
As a result of the review, the project will be more protective of park 
resources. Because of the NEPA review, the final project included 30 
mitigation measures designed to protect the dark night sky, viewsheds, 
vegetation, water quality, archeology, and natural resources.
    A National Park Service project will repair damaged culverts and 
headwalls along the Park Loop Road in Acadia National Park (ME). One of 
the culverts to be repaired under this project spans Hunters Brook, a 
high-quality trout fishery and sensitive resource of concern. In this 
location, paving stones were used to armor the stream bank in the past. 
Due to stream movement and erosion over the years, the paving stones 
have fallen into the stream channel, causing additional stream bank 
erosion and sedimentation into the trout stream. The NEPA scoping 
process for this project resulted in the development of an alternative 
that will restore the health of Hunters Brook while preserving the 
historic character of the road that passes over the brook. The road and 
associated culvert and headwalls are part of the Park Loop Road system, 
which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This 
solution was developed through consultation with a number of agencies, 
including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Maine Department of 
Environmental Protection, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and 
Wildlife, and the Maine Historic Preservation Officer. If not for the 
NEPA and permitting processes, it would likely have been a ``band-aid'' 
repair and not the long-term solution that was needed to restore the 
health of the stream.
i. Department of Labor:

    A wind turbine for Treasure Lake Job Corps in Oklahoma was to be 
located in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge which is a habitat for 
Eagles and other soaring birds. Another wind turbine at Boxelder Job 
Corps, South Dakota was to be located in the Black Hills National 
Forest, which is also a habitat for soaring birds. Environmental 
Assessments were prepared for those projects. Based on the results of 
the Environmental Assessments, Job Corps management decided on 
September 1, 2009, that placement of the turbines would not be 
appropriate at these locations because the risk of threatening 
migratory birds in the areas outweighed the advantages of these 
renewable energy projects. DOL was able to redirect those funds to two 
renewable energy projects, the North Texas and Hawaii/Maui Job Corps 
Centers Wind Turbine projects, that did not have the potential for 
significant impacts.
j. Department of State:

    The Department of State benefited from the Environmental Assessment 
prepared for improvements to the Arroyo Colorado Floodway in Hidalgo 
and Cameron Counties in Texas. The International Boundary and Water 
Commission, U.S. Section, proposed raising the levees to allow for 
adequate protection of a 100 year flood event and to meet the standards 
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The NEPA process allowed 
the US Section to involve the surrounding community and stakeholders in 
an evaluation of potential impacts that may occur to cultural resources 
in the project area and developed protective measures to preserve the 
resources.
k. Department of Transportation:

    The Federal Highway Administration has processed or is currently 
processing ARRA-funded projects in many States that demonstrate the 
benefits provided by the NEPA analysis and documentation. The 
involvement of stakeholders and collaboration with resource agencies 
have resulted in projects which incorporate features such as context 
sensitive solutions and non-motorized facilities into the improvements 
to highway facilities. For example, on the Yuma Pivot Point Plaza 
project in Arizona, the NEPA process led to the recognition of the 
importance of protecting the Swing Span project, a historic feature of 
the transcontinental railroad system, as well as connecting the Plaza 
with the adjacent Gateway Park. In the case of the U.S. 33 Nelsonville 
Bypass in Ohio, the NEPA process led to mitigation measures during and 
after construction, including tree and grass planting for erosion 
control and native plant restoration, provisions for large and small 
animal crossings, special fencing to prevent animal encroachments into 
the right-of-way, and special lighting to direct the flight of bats 
over the roadway.
    In the case of the Newtown Pike Extension project in Kentucky, as a 
result of the early coordination of the NEPA and National Historic 
Preservation Act processes, FHWA introduced measures to record the 
history of National Register of Historic Places eligible structures, 
collect local oral histories, and use the results from phase 3 
archaeological studies for public education efforts.
    The Federal Aviation Administration prepared an Environmental 
Impact Statement for the construction of a replacement airport at St. 
George, Utah. The replacement airport at St. George is designed for 
larger aircraft, contributing to fewer overall operations and a 
decrease in jet fuel demand and emissions. Through alternatives 
development in the NEPA process, the EIS allowed for the evaluation of 
alternatives with environmental benefits for airport noise, air quality 
and energy efficiency. As a result, under the proposed action, no 
dwellings fall within the 65 decibel Day-Night Sound Level (DNL) noise 
contour. In addition, the proposed facilities were designed to be more 
energy efficient.
    The Federal Railroad Administration's NEPA review of ARRA projects 
has resulted in the early identification and documentation of valuable 
historic resources. For example, environmental analysis considering the 
Replacement of the Safe Harbor Transmission Lines in Lancaster County, 
Pennsylvania has determined that the transmission poles involved are 
historic resources. A cultural resources assessment for the same 
project indicated the possible presence of tribal cultural resources 
within the area of potential effects. FRA efforts resulted in the 
crafting of a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the use of historic 
resources signed by all parties.
l. Department of Veterans Affairs:

    NEPA reviews conducted by the National Cemetery Administration 
provide a framework for VA to evaluate proposed energy projects and 
compare them to other alternatives, thereby optimizing their locations. 
For example, the Environmental Assessment for the Wind Turbine at 
Bourne, Massachusetts allowed VA to evaluate a range of potential wind 
turbine capacities and conclude the optimal turbine capacity for the 
Massachusetts Military Reservation, taking into account and reducing 
potential noise and visual impacts.
    The EA for a biomass boiler project at White River Junction Medical 
Center in Vermont, by using a holistic NEPA review, allowed VA to 
evaluate the installation of additional equipment in combination with 
the biomass boiler, and to consider different potential storage areas 
for wood chips.
    In another example, the Environmental Assessment for the ground 
mounted solar photovoltaic system at San Joaquin Valley National 
Cemetery in California considered and eliminated other locations due to 
proximity to burial sites, proximity to existing electrical systems, 
and roof composition. An Environmental Assessment for another 
photovoltaic array project at the Dublin, Georgia VA Medical Center was 
helpful in studying issues of aesthetics, hydrology, and noise.
m. Environmental Protection Agency:

    The Environmental Protection Agency addressed the Diesel Emission 
Retrofit (DERA) Program through a programmatic (rather than individual) 
NEPA review process. As a result of that decision, and the expeditious 
completion of a comprehensive Environmental Assessment (which was 
circulated for a 30-day national review), EPA was able to issue a 
Finding of No Significant Impact for the entire DERA Program. This 
allowed EPA to expedite the award of over $290 million in Recovery Act 
funds.
n. General Services Administration:

    The Environmental Assessment process and associated consultation 
with the Puerto Rico SHPO on the Federal Bureau of Investigation Field 
Office Consolidation project that proposed a new parking garage 
adjacent to the existing Hato Rey Federal Building identified a new 
building eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 
Places. The Hato Rey Federal Building was identified as a structure 
eligible for listing on the National Register, although it had not yet 
reached the age of 50 years. The NEPA review for the proposed parking 
garage ensured that the design and of the parking garage did not 
negatively impact the viewshed of the Hato Rey Federal Building.
    During development of the Edith Green/Wendell Wyatt Federal 
Building in Portland, Oregon, the Environmental Assessment and 
feasibility study investigated various alternative energy efficient 
technologies such as the installation of a ground source heat pump for 
the building. The NEPA process has also ensured that the public is 
involved with the entire process, by holding scoping meetings to 
disseminate information regarding the test well for the ground source 
heat pump and the determination of whether or not it can meet 
specifications to work in the building.
o. National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

    NASA reported that its NEPA program ensures that the agency is 
proactive in meeting its Federal stewardship responsibilities while 
ensuring mission success and lowering costs. For example, within the 
Recovery Act Cross Agency Support (CAS) Program involving hurricane 
repairs at Johnson Space Center, in Texas, a reduction in energy, 
operations, and maintenance costs was identified as one of four 
overarching success criteria and sustainability practices were 
incorporated into the CAS projects. As a result, Johnson Space Center 
(JSC) is expected to gain between 20 to 30 percent in energy efficiency 
on each building where Recovery Act funded roof repairs are being 
undertaken.
p. National Science Foundation:

    As a result of the NEPA process employed by the National Science 
Foundation (NSF) for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), 
NSF became aware of concerns about the ATST's potential impacts on 
cultural resources. In response to those concerns, NSF agreed to 
implement many forms of mitigation, including the formation of the ATST 
Native Hawaiian Working Group, a novel approach designed to help ensure 
continued consultation throughout the construction and operation phases 
of the ATST. This mitigation measure became part of both the NEPA and 
the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 mitigation measures. 
In addition, the NEPA process led to a mitigation measure designed to 
address the intersection between Native Hawaiian traditional cultural 
practices and science by funding an educational initiative with Maui 
Community College.

                                 ______
                                 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                 

The full report is available at:

            https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-370.pdf

                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Great. I do have to say I think that, 
and words like unprecedented were used, but you know sometimes 
unprecedented is a good thing. It means you are showing 
courage.
    And I know that other comments were made about sort of you 
enforcing unscientific agendas being prioritized by this 
Administration. So, I just want to know, do you believe in 
science?
    Ms. Mallory. Yes, Congresswoman, I believe in science. I 
think that is fundamentally what we are trying to enforce.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes. And I also think that it is OK to 
have legions of advocates who consider themselves eco-justice 
advocates, because I think our environment actually deserves 
advocates fighting on its behalf.
    There are some other things that were also stated in the 
Committee that I am going to have to come back to, but I am 
modulating my innards to make sure that I say things that are 
allowed to be kept into the record.
    So, Chair Mallory, can you just please highlight some of 
the specific investments that have been made so far and how 
they are making a positive impact?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. One of 
things I mentioned earlier that this Administration is very 
focused on ensuring that the environmental protection ecosystem 
that has been created in this country is one that benefits all 
Americans, all communities.
    Some of the key investments, both from the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, include 
addressing legacy pollution; making sure that there is 
additional money to clean up superfund sites; dealing with lead 
in pipes, which is an area in which the President has committed 
to removing all lead service pipes across the country, because 
we know how toxic that is; addressing school buses, that 
electric school buses are now something that we have invested 
in.
    I was just in a community last week in which they were so 
excited because they are getting 28 new electric school buses 
and they talk not only about the pollution benefits, but also 
what that meant, in terms of employment in the area, because it 
was a school that is focused on jobs and also on making sure 
that they are able to reduce their costs associated with 
maintenance.
    We also know that we are doing work on air monitoring. 
There are 132 air monitoring grants that have been issued 
across the country that allow for communities to be able to 
test what is in their air and whether or not be able to start 
the process of addressing what needs to happen in order to make 
their health better.
    So, a whole range of things that have gone toward legacy 
pollution, but are also going toward the energy economy of the 
future. Making sure that we have the kind of improvements in 
communities all across the country, in terms of climate change 
and reducing pollution.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I wish I had time to ask you 
another question, but I don't. I just want to say, I applaud 
the work that you are doing. I think we do need to be talking 
about health and the environment of people living in 
communities across the country and also the health of our 
environment.
    And also recognize that there have been historical 
inequities and injustices across this country where certain 
communities have higher levels of toxicity and there are 
greater pollutants, and in other communities, there are not.
    And we have to just say it. We have to continue to say it 
and we have to speak to it and we also have to pass legislation 
and talk about policy to create equities in those spaces where 
there are grave disparities.
    And I hope no one thinks otherwise. Thank you, Mr. Chair, 
and I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is wonderful 
to be here. Under this Administration, we have seen a drastic 
transition in the CEQ's role. The agency has become heavily 
politicized, transforming its role from overseeing NEPA 
compliance issues to waging war against domestic energy 
production.
    As the sole Representative of the state of Wyoming, a state 
whose economy lives and dies on energy production and 
agriculture, I represent the voices of the millions of people 
who suffer economically at the hands of Washington bureaucrats 
who seek to expand their regulatory role through radical social 
agendas.
    We have seen you, Chairwoman Mallory, prioritize so-called 
environmental justice rather than focusing on environmental 
resilience, as the agency supports policies that encouraged 
increased neglect rather than management.
    Ironically, we are seeing injustice directed toward 
vulnerable communities in the name of environmentalism. We are 
seeing vulnerable citizens struggle to pay their bills due to 
high energy costs, all while the current Administration 
perpetuates leasing moratoriums on Federal lands, stifles 
American energy production, and increases our dependence on 
imports.
    We are seeing Federal agencies continue to release proposed 
rules that lock us out of lands, hurting not only our energy 
producers, but our agricultural practices and creating greater 
uncertainty for the small family farm, while also furthering a 
housing shortage.
    The common theme of this Administration's energy policy has 
been an attack on low-income communities, the very people you 
claim to be protecting. So, my question is, do you believe that 
it is environmental justice to adopt and enforce policies that 
increase the cost of housing, food, and energy?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. I 
believe that the work that we are doing is focused on a 
transition to a clean energy economy that will benefit all 
communities.
    Ms. Hageman. So, in other words, environmental justice has 
nothing to do with making sure that folks are able to access 
affordable housing, food, and energy. Is that what your 
testimony is?
    Ms. Mallory. Environmental justice has everything to do to 
make sure that all communities have the benefits of clean air, 
clean water, and safe environments.
    Ms. Hageman. Chairman Mallory, but you do adopt policies 
that increase the cost of food, housing, and energy. Wouldn't 
you agree that such policies disproportionately impact low-
income communities?
    Ms. Mallory. Congresswoman, I agree that low-income 
communities are disproportionately impacted by all of the 
problems in our society, which is why we are trying to focus on 
those communities.
    Ms. Hageman. Including policies that increase the cost of 
food, housing, and energy, correct?
    Ms. Mallory. Congresswoman, I think that all policies we 
are working toward are making sure that the costs are reduced. 
That is what the President's economic agenda----
    Ms. Hageman. But that isn't what you are doing. That isn't 
your agenda. Your agenda actually increases the cost of 
housing, food, and energy. We know that for a fact.
    Ms. Mallory. I think for a fact we know that the costs are 
coming down. That we are working toward that and they are 
coming down.
    Ms. Hageman. So, you are admitting the fact that they are 
increasing the cost of those----
    Ms. Mallory. I am not admitting anything.
    Ms. Hageman. But they are decreasing perhaps?
    Ms. Mallory. Congresswoman. No. I am not admitting 
anything. Thank you.
    Ms. Hageman. All right. Because this Administration has 
focused on environmental justice, whatever that means, rather 
than on lowering energy costs and strengthening the reliability 
of our energy grid, I will soon introduce the Energy Poverty 
Prevention and Accountability Act, which will highlight 
communities who are disproportionately impacted by policies 
that stifle affordable and reliable energy production.
    This bill will require the GAO, OMB, and CBO to analyze the 
economic impacts of legislation and executive actions, such as 
moratoriums, proposed rules, and delays thus allowing for 
greater transparency and accountability for the policies that 
raise energy costs.
    Chairwoman Mallory, if the GAO report shows that the 
policies coming from your agency disproportionately increase 
energy prices, thereby spreading energy poverty among 
vulnerable communities, will you rescind those policies?
    Ms. Mallory. Congresswoman, I am sure that the policies you 
are talking about are not coming from my agency, but we will 
certainly read anything from GAO and consider it.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. And you have highlighted the President's 
30-by-30 Initiative with great pride in your testimony. I can 
tell you, coming from a state where 48 percent of the surface 
of our state is owned by the Feds, none of us are really 
celebrating the 30-by-30 Initiative because we know what it is 
intended to do to Wyoming.
    Do you believe that taking someone's ability to generate 
revenue on their own property is good public policy?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congresswoman, that is not what 
America the Beautiful does. American the Beautiful is about 
dealing with land that is primarily owned by the Federal 
Government and working, in voluntary ways, with communities 
that want to be part of our system.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you read the report where it talks about 
imposing policies on state and private land?
    Ms. Mallory. I have read the report and I know how it 
functions.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, 
Chair Mallory. It is wonderful to have you with us here today. 
And it is wonderful to have the opportunity to talk about the 
role of CEQ.
    I think a lot of Americans aren't aware that the White 
House has an environmental arm, and as we all know, the vast 
majority of Americans want clean water, clean air, and a 
climate resilient future.
    So, we are especially grateful for the work that you do, 
helping to advise the President on environmental matters, 
helping to lead initiatives across the government on all the 
many environmental issues that our nation faces, and, of 
course, to implement the National Environmental Policy Act.
    And I think it is important to note, since we have been 
talking a little bit about the history of NEPA here today, that 
when NEPA was passed by this body in 1969, it was passed on a 
bipartisan basis and signed into law by a Republican president, 
President Nixon. And, in fact, NEPA has been the foundational 
environmental policy on which our nation has built its 
environmental laws for the last 50 years.
    And Americans can thank NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the 
Clean Air Act for the fact that we don't have rivers on fire 
anymore and that our children are not being poisoned by 
refineries and things like that on the scale that they were 
over 50 years ago.
    So, very grateful for your work. We have had a little bit 
of discussion here today about environmental justice. I am 
always surprised by the coded language I hear. Because really 
environmental justice is about ensuring that every single 
American, no matter what your ethnicity, what your residency, 
what your history is in a community, that your fundamental 
human right to drink clean water, to breathe clean air, to have 
a survivable and livable future is protected.
    And I have to say that never, in the history of this 
country, have we seen an Administration, except for perhaps the 
Obama administration, more dedicated to environmental justice 
and that promise to extend the rights of a clean environment to 
every single human in this country and across the planet, to be 
a global leader in doing that.
    So, I wonder, Ms. Mallory, if you could speak to some of 
the policy initiatives. I know you talk a lot about it in your 
written testimony, but we haven't gotten to hear more about it 
today, about the Executive Order, the tools CEQ is helping to 
develop the Justice40 Initiative, and the ways in which this 
got baked into the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the IRA to 
help our communities access resources.
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much for the question. And you 
did frame exactly the way that we are thinking about 
environmental justice, and what it does, and why it is 
important.
    It is important because, although we have had this 
environmental infrastructure for the entire 50 plus years, we 
know that not all communities have benefited from that.
    So, we are trying to, in an intentional way, make sure that 
communities do have these benefits. The various Executive 
Orders that the President has put in place are designed to make 
sure that we are hearing from communities.
    We created the White House Environmental Advisory Council 
so that there are external experts who are giving us 
information on how we can improve our programs. We have also, 
in the Executive Order that the President just issued, made it 
clear that we want to look at some of the gaps in science that 
show the impacts, the cumulative impacts in particular, that 
are affecting certain communities and how we can be adjusting 
what we do to reduce that harm.
    The Executive Order also says that if the Federal 
Government is responsible for a toxic release in a community, 
that they tell everyone. We have a history of not telling 
everyone. That we somehow tell the wealthier members of a 
community, but we don't tell the low-income members of the 
community.
    So, we want to make sure that the Federal Government does 
our part in ensuring that that is not true. It creates an 
environmental justice office, which we believe is really 
important for managing and helping to implement environmental 
justice across the Federal Government.
    And that office will have the responsibility for helping to 
create the strategic plans that the agencies will do as they 
look at their own footprint and how they can improve the 
environmental justice for communities.
    So, a range of things there, but the fundamental basis is 
all communities deserve to be protected in this country. They 
all deserve clean air. They all deserve clean water. And they 
deserve to know that their government is doing the job to 
protect them.
    Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely. And I represent New Mexico's 1st 
Congressional District. I know the Ranking Member represents a 
district in Southern Arizona, and my dear friend here to my 
left, represents all of Alaska, actually, and I think it is 
fair to say that all of us have communities that have suffered 
the disproportionate impacts of industrial and resource 
development without proper notification, consent, and support 
for cleanup, as well as the impacts of development without 
their benefits from those activities.
    But I think the other aspect of this is the consistent 
under-investment, especially in our rural and tribal 
communities. So, the initiatives that the Administration is 
leading to make sure that 40 percent of our Federal resources 
on the environment get to those communities that have been 
historically underinvested in is particularly essential to the 
future of our communities.
    We thank you for your leadership on that, as I have said. I 
have never seen an administration, except for the Obama 
administration, take these issues so seriously and it really 
matters for many, many millions of Americans. So, thank you.
    The Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Guam, Mr. Moylan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Mallory, I 
represent the island of Guam. It is way out there in the 
Pacific. It is a long way from the United States. In fact, it 
takes us 20 hours just to get there.
    So, you can imagine the cost of the resources we must pay 
for our residents and for our military buildup, what it costs 
to live on our island of Guam.
    Just recently, we had the Super Typhoon Mawar come through, 
and now we are rebuilding our island community and we are 
rebuilding our military there too. So, Chair Mallory, our 
environmental policies can have an outsized impact on my island 
community.
    On one hand, I introduced H.R. 1191 to begin dealing with 
the harm done to my island and our nation's veterans by Agent 
Orange. Now, on the other hand, burdensome requirements for 
environmental impact statements can hinder military readiness 
and artificially hinder the business community, as well as 
trying to rebuild our island from this Super Typhoon Mawar.
    This can suffocate our economy and put my constituents at 
risk in time of war. Does your office take a holistic view of 
community needs, or do you only look at the community needs 
from the narrow viewpoint of environmental protection at the 
expense of other interests?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I 
really appreciate it. I had the chance, just recently, when I 
was in Hawaii to meet with Representatives from all the 
territories and heard kind of first hand some of the unique 
ways in which the territories actually experience some of these 
processes.
    I can say, the way that the National Environmental Policy 
Act is structured, it calls on decision makers to look at the 
integration of environmental and social issues and how that 
can, in fact, impact communities. So, I think this is part of 
the overall process.
    Mr. Moylan. OK. Thank you. But, again, our cost of living 
on the island is very high. To build our military, to build our 
island, the cost of tools, resources, what we need is extremely 
high. These decisions made by this agency have significantly 
increased the cost of our housing, our food, and our energy as 
well.
    It is a great concern for me, but I really would affirm my 
belief that a holistic view of community needs should be 
considered, which includes environmental protection, but does 
not impair military readiness, which is crucial right now. 
INDOPACOM is crucial or has the impact on our small or mid-size 
businesses. So, can you commit to working with me to address 
these issues facing Guam while working from this viewpoint?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that. What I can 
say to you is that all of the work that the Administration has 
been doing, some by the Administration itself and some on a 
bipartisan basis, is designed to make sure that our 
environmental review process is as effective and efficient as 
possible.
    I think, as I said, I have heard that there are even more 
unique issues that the territories face and that Guam, in 
particular, may be an example, and I am happy to hear more 
about that and to talk to you about what opportunities exist.
    Mr. Moylan. I am really willing to sit down and work with 
you closely. Likewise, our sister territory, American Samoa, we 
have some important issues, especially now with our national 
defense situation, with IndoPacific happening, we don't want to 
let our nation down.
    And I think these impacts have to be addressed, American 
Samoa, myself, CNMI, as well, because without making some 
necessary changes, I don't want to be in that position to 
report that back to my community.
    We have a responsibility to do, and while this 
Administration is in place, I want to make sure we have this 
communication going.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Alaska, Ms. Peltola for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Chair 
Mallory. I represent the entire state of Alaska and we also 
live and die by petroleum extraction, fishing, and tourism. 
Most of our income for the state comes from oil royalties, but 
as rate payers and consumers, we are also paying some of the 
highest prices for electricity, gas, and stove oil in the 
nation.
    I was surprised, I guess not surprised, I noticed again 
yesterday there was a report that came out talking about the 
state with the highest prices for gas, and it said California 
is no longer the highest price, it is Washington State. I beg 
to differ because I come from a state where some our 
communities are paying as much as $15 or more for gasoline and 
almost $10 a gallon for stove oil.
    Electricity is very high. I am very pro-electricity. During 
the time when I was growing up, there were many times in most 
summers when we didn't have electricity, so I really understand 
what a luxury electricity is. But in my community, the average 
electric bill per month is about $260 per month. And one of the 
highest kilowatt per hour communities we have is a neighboring 
village to my community, and they are paying $396.16 as an 
average for electricity.
    Akutan, out on the Aleutian Island, their average is $405 a 
month for electricity. These are exorbitantly high prices in 
communities with very high unemployment rates. So, we have to 
really kind of be in a space of trying to balance oil 
production and electric energy consumption with recognizing the 
impact that it has on the world.
    And I will say, there have been statements about the Willow 
Project, that it is a carbon bomb and I suggest that most 
Members of Congress live in districts that are a carbon bomb. 
Much, much greater than the district I represent.
    I take a lot of umbrage with being singled out for having 
these projects that are really, so much of the product of those 
projects is going to fuel these highly populated house 
districts where their energy consumption is very, very high.
    So, I just recognize that it is going to take us a long 
time, much longer than I think most people recognize, to 
transition off of petroleum and using more renewable projects 
to get our energy, and I feel that most people don't know that 
it takes just as long and it is just as cumbersome to go 
through the NEPA process if you are permitting a renewable 
project versus the same amount of time for a petroleum project.
    And I know that in the budget negotiation we just came out 
of for the debt ceiling, there were advances made in 
streamlining the NEPA process and recognizing we need to beef 
up our transmission systems, and that is great. It is a step in 
the right direction, but it is baby steps.
    And I was wondering if you could talk broadly about how can 
we be more real, and realistic, and honest about that 
transition and the evolution we are going to have to be 
involved in to get there, to more renewables and permitting 
those in a more timely way?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 
As I have mentioned today, I think that the Administration, 
from Day 1, has been very focused on making sure that our 
permitting system functions in an effective and efficient way. 
That is a combination of making sure that we are meeting the 
environmental requirements, but also doing it in ways that are 
smart.
    And one of the biggest helps that we received in this front 
is the billion dollars that came in the Inflation Reduction Act 
for resources.
    One of the things that people underestimate is what you 
need in order to actually have the staff capacity and the 
resources in order to do the permitting that is necessary. And 
that has been a very big and important role.
    What we also did, in addition to the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act, to those changes, we have also had a Permitting Action 
Plan in place for over a year that is designed to really 
effectively help with the coordination across the Federal 
Government, to make sure that all of the agencies are lining up 
their processes in ways that kind of facilitate those things 
occurring in the most timely and efficient way while occurring.
    We have also been working to create the sector specific 
approaches to looking at what are some of the hurdles that 
people are needing in the process and how do we address those. 
Because just saying that it is going to be faster without 
actually looking effectively at what are the things that you 
really need to adjust to make that work is not going to be 
enough.
    So, we have already been in that work. Some of the work 
that we are doing right now in CEQ is making sure that we have 
a kind of a training approach with our agency so that they are 
able to have the right people with the right skillset in order 
to address these.
    And then one of the things in the Fiscal Responsibility Act 
which aligns with work that we are already doing is a 
recognition that we can take better advantage of technology so 
that the mechanics of the process can be done in a more 
coordinated way.
    So, I think we, from a lot of different directions, have 
been very focused on how we make this work as effectively as 
possible.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairwoman Mallory, you stated in testimony that the agency 
response for implementing NEPA, CEQ also works to ensure that 
environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal 
projects are effective and efficient.
    The frustration of me and many of my Committee members with 
NEPA will show you that it is anything but efficient. And 
whether we are talking, as my colleague was saying a moment 
ago, gas and oil projects or renewable projects and it would 
seem like when the renewable projects go in everybody should be 
celebrating over that. And they run into the same hurdles.
    So, what is the Agency's definition of efficient these 
days?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman. And as I keep saying, 
we are working on putting these mechanisms in place and we know 
that there have already been changes and improvements in the 
timelines on projects since this Administration has been in 
effect, because we are focused on, at the very highest level of 
the agency, making sure that we are engaged on this.
    Several projects that have been identified to me that range 
from solar projects to coastal resilience projects all are 
showing progress on our completion of environmental impact 
statements at record time frames that we think are attributable 
to the fact that there is earlier engagement, there is earlier 
coordination with the agencies, there is a regular mechanism 
for the agencies, all of those that are involved, to work 
together.
    So, we are seeing progress, but we are still working.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Let me jump to the next question, please. In 
the FAST Act, which became law in 2015, we had what was called 
NEPA Substitution, which allows projects that require 
assessments to forgo overlapping requirements, the type of 
coordination I think you are talking about.
    In this case between state and Federal assessments that 
provide states environmental standards that are stronger than 
or equivalent to the Federal NEPA standards, such as 
California, which has stronger standards in about everything.
    This fix though was never realized as additional work was 
needed to implement it somehow. This is again 2015, about 8 
years ago.
    As we already allow for NEPA delegations, there is not an 
easy and obvious next step in improving efficiency that you are 
seeking there? Removing redundancy? If we have a stronger level 
at the state and they are doing the work, why wouldn't we have 
this ability to speed up on the overlapping requirements and 
assessments?
    Ms. Mallory. The NEPA already allows and we definitely take 
advantage of the situations in which there is material or 
information that has been created at a state level that it 
becomes part of the process.
    That is something that exists and has existed and that we 
are looking for opportunities to improve.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Appreciate it. Categorical exclusions seem 
to me a stronger and more important tool in order to get things 
accomplished, especially with forestry and fire danger from our 
overcrowded forests.
    They have been able to give agencies an ability to speed 
things up to manage more effectively. So, what we find is that 
the many land managed agencies are relying upon categorical 
exclusions to get necessary work done.
    So, if we have the existence of the CEs trying to work 
around the usual slowness of NEPA that we are constantly having 
to fix here, doesn't that point out that the CEs are doing the 
work and that the system is not working as intended under NEPA 
if we have to go to these so-called exclusions instead of what 
would be the main line of the law?
    Ms. Mallory. Categorical exclusions have been part of NEPA 
really from the beginning of the program and they are focused 
on areas in which there is not going to be a significant 
impact.
    And we are using that tool. In fact, the FRA actually 
increases our flexibility in using categorical exclusions. We, 
in the agency, are looking at different ways in which we can 
take advantage of categorical exclusions where it is 
appropriate.
    And that is something that we do think is something that is 
helping. And right now, in terms of the number of projects that 
are actually decided under categorical exclusions, it is 95 
percent.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. In my remaining time, I need to ask 
one more question on when you see projects, such as the Klamath 
project, tearing out dams up in the Basin there, even though 
the whole Klamath project was set up to put agriculture in 
place. The Federal Government asked people to settle there and 
such.
    Yet, at this point with that, they are saying the economic 
impacts, basically they are not even taking into account how 
that is harming the counties there, how it is harming the local 
industry with that.
    At what point are economic impacts ever going to be brought 
back into play on decisions like this?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, I am not quite clear on what the 
decision is that you are talking about, but economic impacts 
are among the things that are part of the process.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Has there ever been an activity that was 
stopped by your agency because of NEPA, because of economic 
impact, that did not go forward?
    Ms. Mallory. First of all, that is not the role that CEQ 
plays. We don't stop projects. I am not following exactly what 
you are trying to get at.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Stopping an environmental action because of 
its high cost economically. The economics of an environmental 
action, has that ever actually paused by any aspect of your 
organization to say, oh, the economic costs are too high for 
the benefit derived?
    Ms. Mallory. I see. Economic considerations are part of the 
NEPA process that agencies run.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 
I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you. I yield my time to Mr. Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. I thank the gentlelady for the time. Madame 
Chair, one of the discussions that was addressed to a great 
extent in the Executive Order on Environmental Justice for All, 
impacts some of the work you do and is a subject that is very 
much contested.
    It is a subject of cumulative impact and cumulative effect. 
How do you see that issue going forward, as we deal with these 
issues and as frontline communities and others deal with this 
issue of that cumulative impact? It is not just an isolated 
permitted industry; it is others that are also part of that?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much, Congressman, for the 
question. Cumulative impacts have been a central part of NEPA 
since the first regulations were put in place. We look at the 
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
    And what cumulative impacts means is that you acknowledge 
that when you are looking at a project, that if there are 
already other air impacts occurring in the same area that you 
can't act as if they don't exist. That is what cumulative 
impacts means because the way that it is going to be received 
by the community is they are going to have the impact of the 
new project, but they are already experiencing the health 
disparities or health problems from what is already there.
    And that is very much a part of the NEPA process and has 
been, and I think will be heightened through the Executive 
Order.
    Mr. Grijalva. Yes. And let me follow previous questions to 
you and conversation having to do with kind of the Catch-22 for 
poor people and for frontline communities. The Catch-22 being 
in order for you to have more investment and more resources 
into your community and you won't have to pay more for 
gasoline, and you won't have to pay more for gas, there is a 
trade-off. The trade-off is that you have to adjust to more bad 
air and the disparities that come with that.
    And that is historic. That is factual. And that has 
happened consistently and that is the legacy that, I think, 
with the Executive Order and the work that the CEQ is doing now 
with all the agencies, is to address that.
    But let me talk about economic impacts, because that is 
what the question alluded to in that Catch-22 choice provided 
to 40 million Americans in this country.
    Economic impacts. The transition that we are talking about 
2030, 2050, the need to move away from where we are at, in 
terms of what we consume as our primary energy and fuel. Away 
from fossil fuels and a transition to clean and renewable.
    That transition can happen a variety of ways and let's talk 
about economic impact. If we continue not to deal with this 
issue and not approach it pragmatically and with a plan, and 
that we continue to do what we are doing right now with the 
Majority in this House, is to once again prop up fossil fuel 
industry, as that is the solution to our economy and everything 
else.
    Or the transition can be abrupt and very, very brutal 
because it will be upon us and then we won't have a choice. 
Talk about economic impact in those two scenarios. The 
pragmatism of transitioning, versus the abruptness that we will 
deal with if we don't do anything about addressing the crisis 
as we go along?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you for that question, Congressman. I 
think if you just watch the news and the weather every day. 
Every day we are seeing increases in extreme weather events 
occurring all over the country. Yesterday, it was tornados in 
Texas, days before it was similar problems.
    So, we know we have a problem that we need to address, 
which is why the Administration and the President is very much 
focused on ensuring that we are creating this clean energy 
economy that is necessary.
    We do have to transition to it. It is not going to happen 
overnight. It is important that we put those things in place, 
but the beginning of your question was about how we know that 
poor people, low-income people, people who are living right on 
the edges of some of the areas that are most impacted by 
climate change do suffer more and they suffer more often.
    So, they are definitely part of our focus, but it is a much 
broader need for us to address the climate change impacts that 
are occurring.
    Mr. Grijalva. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady's 
time has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Florida, Ms. Luna, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Luna. The Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ was 
created to oversee agency compliance with NEPA. Like most 
government offices, the CEQ has expanded its mission beyond the 
scope of what it was originally intended to do by working to 
implement radical social change and ecojustice and I quote, 
``initiatives.''
    This has been seen time and time again since Biden first 
took office by issuing many Executive Orders, which President 
Biden's rule by fiat approach has charged CEQ with ensuring 
that the radical social change and ecojustice initiatives being 
pushed by far-left environmentalists become a reality 
regardless of the negative impact that these decisions will 
have on Americans across the country.
    Like all Americans, I believe in protecting our 
environment, however, environmental protection does not 
necessarily have to come at the cost of livelihoods of American 
families through countless Executive Orders that have done 
literally nothing to help those people and actually nothing to 
protect our environment.
    The Justice40 Initiative was created by Executive Order 
14008 to direct 40 percent of certain Federal investments to 
disadvantaged communities, which are not even properly defined.
    In fact, all Federal agencies must identify programs that 
fall under the Justice40 Initiative and implement reforms to 
those programs.
    Ms. Mallory, would you be able to define what a 
disadvantaged community is for me?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. 
The way that we define it is using our climate and economic 
justice screening tool, which is a mapping tool that actually 
looks at various criteria related to the burdens that a 
community has experienced and the socioeconomic level.
    When you look at the map, it will show you the communities 
that we think are disadvantaged and most in need of impact.
    Ms. Luna. What are typically those communities? What do 
they typically look like on average?
    Ms. Mallory. Those communities are actually spread all 
across the country. They are in urban areas, they are in rural 
areas, they are in every state. That is the way that the map is 
set up.
    Ms. Luna. OK. How can CEQ then, which chairs its 
initiative, direct Federal agencies to implement these changes 
when you guys don't actually properly define what constitutes a 
disadvantaged community?
    Ms. Mallory. As I said, the map defines what a 
disadvantaged community is and what the agencies do is then 
look at their own programs that are under the Justice40 
Initiative and see how they can impact them.
    Ms. Luna. So, it is open to interpretation? Based on the 
data?
    Ms. Mallory. The map is not open to interpretation. It is a 
map.
    Ms. Luna. No, I am saying the agency, when they implement 
policy, it is open to their interpretation based on the data 
that they are given, correct? Under Justice40?
    Ms. Mallory. The agencies are using the specific programs 
that are identified under Justice40 to apply it to those 
circumstances.
    Ms. Luna. With the map?
    Ms. Mallory. With the map.
    Ms. Luna. With the term that is not defined.
    Ms. Mallory. The map is the definition.
    Ms. Luna. Got it. My next question would be: We saw 
recently that President Biden wants to build an 8,000-mile 
train that stretches across the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and 
my question for you is how are you going to preserve our oceans 
and protect endangered species when he wants to build this?
    Ms. Mallory. I am not really familiar with what you are 
talking about, Congresswoman. A train?
    Ms. Luna. Oh, you didn't hear that? Did anyone hear that? 
The Biden 8,000-mile rail that stretches across the Pacific and 
Indian Oceans?
    Mr. Tiffany. I think he announced it this week.
    Ms. Luna. Yes, he announced it this week. I just wanted to 
see what your perspective would be on protecting marine life 
with that.
    Ms. Mallory. I can't comment on that. I'm sorry, I don't 
have any details.
    Ms. Luna. OK. Do you know what resources it would take for 
this to actually be built?
    Ms. Mallory. I don't know anything about this project.
    Ms. Luna. OK. All right. Thank you very much.
    Chairman, I yield my time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Leger Fernandez 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Chair Mallory, for joining 
us today.
    I am from New Mexico, representing New Mexico, but also 
concerned with Latinos and communities who have been harmed by 
environmental injustice, so I am very grateful that the 
Administration actually set up very specific criteria to look 
at.
    So, it is not subjective, in the sense like we are pulling 
it from air, but we are setting up very specific criteria that 
include what are the health outcomes for those communities that 
are impacted by pollution, by the result of whether it be in 
New Mexico, coal mining, coal fire power plants, or uranium 
mining, exploding nuclear bombs in our state, which causes 
cancer.
    We have very high levels of asthma because of the methane 
leaks. There is very concrete and observable harm that comes 
from some of these activities that you are now looking at. And 
I know New Mexico, sadly, has a lot of spots on your map.
    But what I am also pleased about is that this is not just 
about what has gone wrong in the past, what are some of our 
historical injustices, but it is like what can we do about it? 
This is about looking for the solution, looking for the answer, 
and being optimistic about we can solve this if we pay 
attention to it. And that is what I am excited about. Because 
we are creating good jobs. We are creating investments.
    And I want to talk about that a bit, but first I want to 
talk about the issue of referencing overall benefits going to 
these communities, rather than direct investments.
    Because we know that direct investments actually trigger 
the benefits. So, how do you define and quantify benefits and 
how can we make sure that really does result in real results?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much for that, Congresswoman. We 
are very much focused on how to get to a place where we have 
the kind of data that will help us assess what those overall 
benefits are.
    Ultimately, what we are trying to, what we want to be 
measuring is does the air get better? Is the water quality 
better? Are those factors or burdens that are impacting the 
people's individual health, are those improving?
    So, we have to have way to actually collect the data that 
will allow us to do that in the future. As a starting point, we 
are looking more at what are the ways in which the investments, 
both the direct and indirect, are helping a community that is 
on our map, whether that is by the creation of training 
programs or by the adding of the electric vehicles. Those are 
the kinds of things that we are sort of looking at, at this 
point.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes, and I would really like lean in 
on how investments, because it doesn't happen without the 
investment.
    Ms. Mallory. Right.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. The same way your work and the work of 
NEPA doesn't happen without the investments we have made to 
make sure that there are the professionals on the ground who 
can do these reviews more quickly. And I think we need to 
realize that that has always been a problem and that finally, 
with the Inflation Reduction Act and with the others that 
Congress passed, the President signed into law, are finally 
giving you the tools, which is people power, to get this done.
    I also would like to enter into the record an article 
titled ``The Inflation Reduction Act Is Building a Clean Energy 
Economy and Good-Paying Jobs,'' as well as the American Clean 
Power, Clean Energy Investing in America, April 2022, which 
document a lot of the success we have had in generating private 
sector investment, which actually then leads to jobs.
    The Chairman. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

The Inflation Reduction Act Is Building a Clean Energy Economy and 
Good-Paying Jobs

americanprogress.org, by Steve Bonitatibus

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-inflation-reduction-act-
is-building-a-clean-energy-economy-and-good-paying-jobs/
#::text=The%20investments%20driven 
%20by%20the,cut%20household%20energy%20costs%2C%20and

                                 *****

Thank you, Chair Johnson, Vice Chair Joyce, Ranking Member Tonko, and 
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 
today to provide testimony on the Inflation Reduction Act's historic 
investments in American households and jobs aimed at accelerating the 
U.S. transition to a clean energy economy.

Last August, Congress built on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act and the CHIPS and Science Act to enact the Inflation Reduction Act, 
which represents the largest investment in climate action in U.S. 
history. This legislation is projected to cut U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions to 40 percent below peak levels by 2030, putting the United 
States on a path toward its Paris Agreement commitment of reaching 50-
52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. These are critical milestones in 
the effort to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius this century.

The groundbreaking legislation is already at work today, growing the 
economy by investing in the middle class: It connects good-paying jobs 
and apprenticeship programs to clean energy incentives; it builds 
supply chains and domestic manufacturing that will equip America to 
compete in the global clean energy economy for decades to come; it 
cleans up air pollution that is concentrated in low-income communities; 
and it cuts household energy costs in every region of the country.

The Inflation Reduction Act connects good-paying jobs and 
        apprenticeship programs to clean energy incentives

The Inflation Reduction Act is not only expected to create at least 1.3 
million new jobs by 2030; it has already created more than 142,000 
clean energy jobs across the United States. These aren't just jobs of 
the future. These are high-quality, fair-wage jobs available right now. 
Importantly, the full value of the revised clean electricity tax 
credits is only available for project developers who pay prevailing 
wages and employ people in apprenticeship programs, expanding 
opportunities to family-supporting employment and ensuring that the 
clean energy economy will be built with good jobs.

The Inflation Reduction Act supports the build-out of secure supply 
        chains and domestic manufacturing

The Inflation Reduction Act is a continuation of this administration's 
commitment to onshoring manufacturing and building resilient supply 
chains. For example, the clean energy investment tax incentives depend 
on increasing proportions of domestic content. There are investment 
programs for investments in new manufacturing in energy communities 
(Sec. 13501), advanced industrial facilities (Sec. 50161), automotive 
retooling (Sec. 50143), and more. The Inflation Reduction Act's 
advanced manufacturing tax incentives provide a long-term investment 
signal for critical mineral processing and battery production, and the 
structure of the Inflation Reduction Act's tax credits for electric 
vehicles depends on domestic assembly and domestic batteries.

The Biden administration is making investments in cities and towns 
        across the country

Learn more about local projects happening in your community with the 
Biden administration Investment Tracker.
Since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, companies have 
announced $242 billion in new clean power capital investments for at 
least 191 new clean energy projects in 41 states, as documented by 
Climate Power. For example:

     Places like Tucson, Arizona; Rochester, New York; and 
            Florence County, South Carolina, have plans for 65 new 
            battery manufacturing sites.

     Savannah, Georgia, and Montgomery, Alabama, are among the 
            cities with plans for 40 new or expanded electric vehicle 
            manufacturing facilities.

     Pensacola, Florida; Hutchinson, Kansas; and Georgetown, 
            Texas, have plans for 34 expanded wind and solar 
            manufacturing.

These investments in U.S. industry are necessary for competing on the 
advanced technologies that will power the new clean energy economy, and 
they will provide decades of job opportunities for communities across 
the country. Repealing the Inflation Reduction Act would pull the rug 
out from under recent investments that are already helping the United 
States to compete with China.

Inflation Reduction Act investments help clean up air pollution that is 
        concentrated in low-income communities

Modeling from Energy Innovation shows that pollution reductions from 
the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy investments would prevent up 
to 4,500 premature deaths and 119,000 asthma attacks annually by 2030. 
This translates to $27-$42 billion in avoided health damages in 2030 
alone. Importantly, these pollution-related deaths will decline by an 
even greater percentage in low-income communities and communities of 
color, which are disproportionately burdened by environmental harm and 
pollutants.

Inflation Reduction Act investments cut household energy costs in every 
        region of the country

Repealing the Inflation Reduction Act would raise household energy 
costs. The Inflation Reduction Act offers households up to $28,500 in 
rebates and incentives to households that choose to install clean 
appliances in their homes and buy electric vehicles. For low-income 
households, these rebates can cover 100 percent of project costs, 
including installation costs.

Because running on electricity is generally more affordable and less 
volatile than fossil fuels, home electrification can save the average 
household up to $1,800 according to Rewiring America; and switching to 
an electric vehicle can save the average driver up to $2,600 according 
to Consumer Reports. Even families that don't take advantage of these 
programs will still save on their energy bills, as the investments in 
affordable clean energy and reduced fuel demand across the economy will 
lower the price of natural gas. These clean energy investments deliver 
more and more savings every year, which will be felt in every region of 
the country, ranging from 9 percent total energy cost savings in New 
England, to 12 percent in the Midwest, to up to 24 percent on the West 
Coast by the end of this decade.

Conclusion

Although the Inflation Reduction Act was passed with uniform partisan 
opposition, it brings benefits to all Americans. In fact, according to 
new reporting, two-thirds of recent utility-scale wind, solar, energy 
storage and electric vehicle manufacturing projects currently in 
advanced development are in Republican-led congressional districts. 
Republican-leaning states are estimated to receive an average of $4,221 
in Inflation Reduction Act investments per capita, compared with $2,427 
for Democratic-leaning states. The top 10 states with clean energy 
projects since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage that have been 
documented by Climate Power are Arizona, California, Georgia, Michigan, 
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas--a 
wide cross-section of the country.

The investments driven by the Inflation Reduction Act, together with 
the Infra-structure Investment and Jobs Act and the CHIPS and Science 
Act, are building a clean energy economy that will create good-paying 
middle-class jobs, make the United States competitive in the global 
economy, cut household energy costs, and save lives.

                                 ______
                                 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                 


    Ms. Leger Fernandez. I want to raise something that is an 
environmental injustice that is old, but is still lingering and 
we must deal with.
    In New Mexico, as I mentioned, we actually exploded the 
very first atomic weapon. We have never compensated the 
individuals who received the brunt of the fallout, they are 
called downwinders and we need to do better by the downwinders 
who were part of our national security, but were victims of the 
need for the progress or the fact that we felt it necessary to 
enter into an atomic age.
    And I would encourage CEQ, I don't know if they have taken 
a hard look at that and said, what can we do for these 
downwinders in New Mexico and in other parts of the country 
where we exploded above ground nuclear weapons.
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am not familiar 
with that, but I understand that that is an issue that you are 
asking us to collaborate on.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes. Thank you. We look forward to 
that collaboration. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Bentz, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you Chair 
Mallory for being here today.
    I am going to focus on the Forest Snake River Dams in 
Washington State. We have a hearing on Monday, a field hearing 
regarding those facilities. And I am looking at the Council of 
Environmental Qualities request for information dated May 3 of 
this year.
    And it reads, partially, ``Through the stay agreement, the 
Federal Government committed to supporting development of a 
durable long-term strategy to restore salmon and other native 
fish populations to healthy and abundant levels honoring the 
Federal commitments to Tribal Nations, delivering affordable 
and clean power, and meeting the many resilience needs of 
stakeholders across the region.''
    That is a general summary of the 2-page request. Would you 
say that the CEQ wants those four dams removed?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that. I think that 
the way in which we framed that statement was to reflect that 
we understand that there are a broad range of issues and 
stakeholders who are engaged on this issue in the Pacific 
Northwest.
    And I think what we were trying to do is to create a 
mechanism to hear from all of those stakeholders on what the 
issues are, as they see them, and how we need to think about 
helping the salmon at this point.
    Mr. Bentz. My question was, do you want the four dams 
removed? I haven't heard the answer.
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, the Federal Government has not 
taken a position on that.
    Mr. Bentz. It hasn't and it does say, however, later, in 
securing the current stay of litigation, the Federal Government 
agreed to explore the lower Snake River Habitat restoration 
opportunities, ``including but not limited to a mitigation 
corridor restoration through breaching the four lower Snake 
River dams.''
    Then it says, ``which would require congressional 
authorization.'' Do you agree that it is going to require 
congressional authorization if any of those dams are to be 
removed?
    Ms. Mallory. Absolutely.
    Mr. Bentz. So, my question is posed to you in this fashion 
because Judge Simon in his previous opinions hints at perhaps 
entering orders that would moot the value of the dams through 
how they might be operated.
    Are you saying that you would object to that as, it says 
Federal Government here, but I think it means CEQ. Would you 
take a----
    Ms. Mallory. Well, CEQ is not a party to the litigation. 
So, I am sure that it means Federal Government writ large----
    Mr. Bentz. OK. I am so happy you raised that. You are not a 
party to litigation, but you are participating in the mediation 
that is designed to somehow address the litigation, but you are 
not a party, are you?
    Ms. Mallory. We are not a party to the litigation.
    Mr. Bentz. But you are leading the mediation. It says so 
right here in your request for information. So, are you saying 
that you are not part of the litigation, but you are leading 
the mediation?
    Ms. Mallory. I am saying that the Federal Government, this 
is obviously a very complex issue that involves a number of 
agencies, and we are helping to coordinate.
    Mr. Bentz. OK. You are helping to coordinate. That is an 
interesting phrase.
    Ms. Mallory. Yes.
    Mr. Bentz. So, if you tell NMFS and NOAA how it is going to 
be, they are free to say, I am sorry, person from the 
President's office, we chose to ignore you. Is that what you 
are saying?
    Ms. Mallory. Well, I think NOAA has its own Federal 
mandate. And I think the way that coordination works in the 
Federal Government, everyone comes to the table and we have a 
conversation about how a particular approach will affect the 
Administration's overall goals. That is the way it works.
    Mr. Bentz. I am just drawing your attention to the third 
column on page 1 of the notice. In March 2022, CEQ Chair Brenda 
Mallory, Secretary Deb Holland, Secretary Jennifer Granholm, 
Secretary Michael Conner, Undersecretary Dr. Richard Spinrad 
published a blog post reflecting on what the tribes shared at 
the consultation.
    You are listed as the first one on this list. I would 
suggest that must mean something?
    Ms. Mallory. Yes, and what it means is that CEQ is working 
with all of the Federal agencies on this very big and important 
topic about how do we address the loss of salmon in the Pacific 
Northwest and actually integrate that into the conversations, 
because there are so many other services that are relevant.
    Mr. Bentz. I would just say that in the second page of your 
notice, the one I read earlier, that there is no mention of the 
communities that would be harmed should the dams be removed, 
should the transportation be lost, should the farmers and all 
those that are trying to get their wheat out of the Northwest 
be damaged. There is not a hint about that kind of impact, is 
there?
    But you are mentioning as though you are concerned about 
that.
    Ms. Mallory. That is what the request is for. It is 
actually a request for information for people who are affected 
who want to weigh in on this process.
    Mr. Bentz. So, why weren't those groups then invited to 
this group meeting you had in March 2022? I mean, you certainly 
invited everybody else, but not them?
    What I am trying to get at here, there is a bias reflected 
here that suggests that those who are interested in protecting 
the economy in the Northwest should be gravely concerned, and 
that, of course, is why we are having the hearing on Monday, so 
those folks will have an opportunity to be there and I know, I 
just left the room earlier, I am sorry to have to do that, to 
go out and have a conversation with the NOAA folks that will be 
there. And I am very happy for their participation.
    I just have 18 seconds left. I would just say that I am 
discouraged by the fact that the EIS that was actually 
initiated during the Obama administration that found that those 
dams should stay in is being ignored, along with some of the 
science that I hope to hear about on Monday.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much. I am going to follow 
up on that real quick.
    In regards to coordination, doesn't coordination include 
local agencies, local governments? Doesn't that include 
counties, others like that when you coordinate? It is the 
establishment of rank equal not subordinate?
    I am hearing from the gentleman from Oregon that it was 
just Federal agencies that were included in this meeting in 
March 2022, that is not truly coordination under Federal law, 
is it?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you for that question. I think what CEQ 
does is it works with the Federal agencies and that is what we 
were doing. So, our coordination is generally with the Federal 
agencies.
    The work in the communities that occurs is much broader 
than that for sure and the agencies lead on that.
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, I believe they are in jeopardy 
here. If you read Federal law closely, coordination is the 
establishment of rank equal, not subordinate, and that includes 
local units of government.
    I would encourage my colleague from Oregon to go back, read 
this closely as it was written back in FLPMA and other founding 
documents in regards to environmental law and I would encourage 
him to go to his local units of government and demand 
coordination with Federal agencies, because they are supposed 
to do that.
    Ms. Peltola had some really good questions and she referred 
to, some people call the Willow Project a carbon bomb, do you 
think it is a carbon bomb? The Willow Project up in Alaska?
    Ms. Mallory. That is not my characterization.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Ms. Peltola also said that it is going to 
take longer to transition away from hydrocarbons. Do you agree 
with her assessment?
    Ms. Mallory. Well, I am not quite sure what she meant on 
time frames. What I would say is that this Administration 
recognizes that we are needing to transition and that will take 
some time. That is clear in the way that the Administration has 
moved forward.
    Mr. Tiffany. How long will it take?
    Ms. Mallory. I don't think that there is a specific time. 
We have obviously set goals for trying to reach net zero that 
are at 2050, and that includes a process that will allow us to 
get there with the transition necessary.
    Mr. Tiffany. You had an exchange with Mr. Graves earlier in 
regards to the congressional intent of the NEPA provisions in 
the FRA, which limits the scope of NEPA to environmental 
effects that are reasonably foreseeable.
    You disagreed with him that those provisions limited the 
scope of NEPA reviews. Are you saying you do not plan to follow 
congressional intent where the scope is being narrowed?
    Ms. Mallory. I said to Mr. Graves, and I say to you again, 
we will follow the law. I was explaining to Mr. Graves that in 
the regulations that already exist, that that notion of 
foreseeability existed, but as the law is written, we are going 
to implement it exactly as it is defined.
    Mr. Tiffany. That is terrific. Because we are going to 
follow real closely as the Natural Resources Committee, in 
regards to that.
    The Ranking Member talked a little bit about various 
issues, but you alluded to extreme weather events. Have you 
followed the hurricane data that we have had since the late 
1800s and whether the intensity of hurricanes and the number of 
hurricanes has increased in the United States?
    Ms. Mallory. Well, I know what we have been tracking is the 
fact that we had, for decades, it was typical that you would 
have these extreme events that were on the order of seven or 
eight a year. And we have now reached a point, in the last 5 
years, where we are having more like 18 different events that 
cost over $1 billion.
    So, there is an increase in the extreme weather events that 
are occurring that are costing the Federal Government over a 
billion dollars.
    Mr. Tiffany. I would encourage you and your staff to look 
at hurricane data, because it is actually more intense 
hurricanes prior to 1950 than it is currently. Many people 
suspect that is due to so many people having moved to coastal 
areas that did not previously. My wife's grandfather used to go 
to Fort Lauderdale in the early 1900s, before they even had a 
stop light in Fort Lauderdale. So, many people have moved to 
these hurricane-prone areas and that might be part of the 
reason that that is going on.
    We have heard the doomsayers in regards to climate change. 
We had a Vice President who claimed in 2007, in 10 years man 
will be threatened and will not be able to inhabit Earth. That 
passed in 2017.
    We are just celebrating the 5-year anniversary, 2 days ago, 
by the climate activist Ms. Thunberg, from Sweden, where she 
said, in 5 years the life on Earth is threatened and probably 
will end. That 5 years expired 2 days ago.
    Do you subscribe to that kind of rhetoric that the world is 
about to end because of climate change?
    Ms. Mallory. I think what we are actually focused on is the 
scientific evidence that has been put out by numerous 
scientists, including the IPCC on the way in which climate 
change is progressing and that is what we are trying to 
address.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, as we move to intermittent sources of 
power, do you agree that we should continue to destroy 
productive farmland, as is happening throughout America, 
including in my state of Wisconsin?
    Ms. Mallory. I think that there a number of different tools 
that are being used to address climate change across the 
country and it is important for us to weigh all of them.
    Mr. Tiffany. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Mallory, under 
a recently proposed rule, which your office was heavily 
involved in drafting, all major Federal contractors would have 
to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and set emission 
reduction targets that must be validated and approved by an 
international non-governmental organization known as the 
Science-Based Target Initiative or SBTI.
    In effect, you have outsourced government responsibilities 
to an outside foreign entity. SBTI has received criticism by 
some who argue that there is an inherent conflict of interest 
in both setting emission standards, while also charging 
customers a fee to validate their emissions reduction targets.
    Why did CEQ decide to select SBTI as the sole source 
provider of emission reductions targets?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. And 
that rule is part of the Administration's leading by example, 
by ensuring that our Federal Government and the----
    Mr. Collins. I asked why did they decide to select SBTI as 
the sole source provider?
    Ms. Mallory. What I am saying is how we got to this point. 
The rule is designed to help make sure that we are implementing 
the climate goals across the Federal Government as well.
    And that rule was picked to actually figure out a standard 
that could be used that would help to ensure that we are 
approaching the work and the climate work appropriately.
    Mr. Collins. I am just trying to figure out why you decided 
to go with a foreign entity?
    Ms. Mallory. I think that the rulemaking is picking on an 
entity that is actually well known and has a standard.
    Mr. Collins. So, was a competitive process used in 
selecting SBTI as the sole source provider of emission target 
validation? Was there a competitive process used?
    Ms. Mallory. This is a rulemaking process that is under 
discussion now. We are taking comments on it.
    Mr. Collins. Let me ask you this. Were other agencies or 
non-profits considered?
    Ms. Mallory. It is a rulemaking process under discussion 
now.
    Mr. Collins. Is that the only one that was considered?
    Ms. Mallory. I don't know the answer to that.
    Mr. Collins. Goodness. Since SBTI is not U.S.-based, how 
will you ensure that they are not acting on behalf of a foreign 
power to negatively affect the United States?
    Ms. Mallory. I would say, Congressman, if you have comments 
along these lines, please submit them.
    Mr. Collins. This is a question.
    Ms. Mallory. And I am saying, I don't have the answer to 
your question, but please submit the comment.
    Mr. Collins. Goodness gracious. Why didn't CEQ select a 
U.S.-based non-profit to vet the emission standard set by 
contractors?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, I have no further comments on 
this rule.
    Mr. Collins. All right. Well, let's shift gears a little 
bit then. Are you aware that a report by the New Climate 
Institute determined that several of SBTI's emission 
assessments were contentious or inaccurate?
    Ms. Mallory. I have no further comments on SBTI.
    Mr. Collins. Are you also aware that one of SBTI's founders 
has accused them of having several conflicts of interests and 
of putting their own interests above the interests of the 
public?
    Ms. Mallory. I have no further comments on SBTI.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I guess that I yield 
back the balance of my time then.
    The Chairman. Would you like to yield your time to Mr. 
Graves?
    Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. I would yield the rest to Mr. 
Graves.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Collins. I appreciate the yield 
there.
    Madame Chair, to say that I was a little bothered by your 
comments earlier would be a pretty significant understatement. 
I have already reached out to the White House about the 
negotiators that we worked with on negotiating the debt 
ceiling.
    I am really confused. So, you are sitting here telling me 
that all of the rewrite of NEPA that we did, we effectively 
were just working to come into compliance with what you were 
already doing. Is that kind of what you just----
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, that is not what I am saying. 
When you were asking a question about the standard and I was 
simply trying to explain that it was directionally picking up 
on a number of the things that we have as part of the practice 
that NEPA has been implementing for some time.
    You used the specific language, reasonably foreseeable. 
Reasonably foreseeable is a standard that has been applied in 
NEPA for some time.
    So, no, this was the first time that NEPA has actually been 
changed in statute, no question. That some of the provisions 
are new to NEPA, no question. And we are going to implement it.
    Mr. Graves. Madame Chair, I specifically asked you if you 
saw that as a narrowing? We explicitly narrowed the scope of 
environmental review and put time limitations and caps on 
documentation and everything and you, effectively, said that 
you didn't see it that way.
    Ms. Mallory. I didn't see reasonably foreseeable as not 
narrowing.
    Mr. Graves. I am wondering why we are even here? Why are we 
even here if you are just going to do whatever you want to do?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, I did not say that. I have said 
three or four times today that we are going to implement that 
statute as it was directed.
    And all I am saying, that the words reasonably foreseeable 
are words that have been part of the NEPA program. They have 
been part of the NEPA program. They are now in the statute. 
That is the change. They are in the statute.
    Mr. Graves. I am out of time, but I can't wait to talk 
about this some more.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, ma'am, 
for being here. I really appreciate it.
    A little bit about me. Born and raised in Houston, Texas, 
the entire energy corridor is in my district. If Houston is 
kind of loosely known as being the energy capital of the world, 
I kind of fancy myself as being an energy Congressman of the 
world, ma'am.
    So, this is kind of my jam, this is kind of my bread and 
butter. This is something that I take very seriously because I 
think there are a lot of issues that we have seen in this 
Administration that doesn't necessarily approach this in a way 
that is the most beneficial for the American public and for the 
American people.
    I think there is a bit of an ideological difference as 
well. I think that the people on this planet are the most 
important thing that we have. As somebody that has three small 
children, I have a 4-year-old daughter, I have a 2-year-old 
daughter, and I have 6-month-old little boy, nothing on this 
Earth is more important to me and nothing is more important to 
their lifestyle and what we do moving forward.
    I spoke to an offshore oil company that operates in the 
Permian Basin and they explained to me that this month they had 
122 overdue permits. And over the past 3 years, that is 
basically their pending time, 122.
    And that is kind of problematic because we have seen a lot 
of energy, and oil, and gas crises that could have been 
mitigated, I feel like, and this cost and this price is being 
pushed down to the consumer.
    FERC also approved the Rio Bravo Liquified Natural Gas 
Pipeline permit on April 20, 2023. This also took over 3 years, 
and it happened because many members on this Committee wrote 
numerous letters and badgered concerning it, and we finally got 
it done, and when it is fully operational, it is going to 
transport 4.5 BCF per day, which I think is very good.
    The American public needs this because we are getting ready 
to get in our cars and go to Disneyland and drive all over the 
country and we need a break. The American public needs a break 
and we have to have these capabilities sooner than later.
    My question to you, ma'am, is oil and gas important to the 
future of this country and to the future energy of this 
country?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that question and 
I think, as you know, that the Administration is very focused 
on addressing the urgency of climate change, and recognizes, in 
doing that, that as we move toward what we believe to be a 
clean energy source that will reduce the carbons, that we are 
transitioning away from oil and gas.
    So, yes, it is in the future, unquestionably in the future, 
but it is part of the transition and the change.
    Mr. Hunt. Do you think climate change is a global issue?
    Ms. Mallory. Global issue, yes.
    Mr. Hunt. You think it is global? OK. So, would you agree 
that the gains that we might make in reducing our carbon 
footprint in one region of the world, let's say the United 
States, juxtaposed to maybe the increase in our carbon 
footprint in let's say China, do you think that what happens in 
China would offset our gains here in this country?
    Ms. Mallory. I think, Congressman, I think that we are very 
focused and the President, in particular, is very focused on 
making sure that we are recognizing our own leadership role to 
manage what we do as we continue our negotiations with foreign 
entities about the approach that they are taking.
    I think this country is very focused on the fact that China 
has some advantages to the United States in some of the areas 
that we work and that we are trying to position ourselves so 
that we can actually continue to have this country lead on 
areas that we think are important.
    Mr. Hunt. So, I think we are leading. Right now, the United 
States is roughly 13.8 percent of the world's carbon and we 
have been declining for every single year of the past decade, 
with the exception of one.
    But by the time we get done with this conversation, China 
is going to build another coal plant. They are increasing their 
refining capability while we are reducing ours in this country.
    I understand the idea of wanting to look at this through 
rose-colored glasses and say, oh my gosh, yes, we are going to 
lead from the front, they will follow, but it is my humble 
opinion that China, India, for damn sure Russia, they don't 
care about climate.
    Now, does that mean that we shouldn't do our job to get 
better, and cleaner, and safer? Of course, we should. I think 
it is actually kind of the American way, but as I stated 
earlier, there are literally hundreds of companies that are in 
my district, in the energy corridor, and I have visited almost 
all of them, and not a single energy oil and gas executive has 
said anything disparaging about renewable energies moving 
forward.
    In fact, I am kind of sick and tired of hearing the word 
transition, because that is a lie to the American people. There 
is not a transition happening. It is addition. It is going to 
be a mix, and oil and gas, and energy are going to be a huge 
part of it and my concern is that we, as the Federal 
Government, should not be picking winners and losers if we are 
not going to consider the global implications of everyone else 
that doesn't care about the climate as much as we do, and we 
should be putting our children, and our future, and our economy 
ahead of anything else or else we are not going to be here in 
the future.
    With that, I yield back my time. And thank you for being 
here, ma'am. Greatly appreciate it.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's times expired. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Magaziner for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you very much, Chair. And thank you, 
Chairman, for the recognition.
    I just want to say, the important work of the Council on 
Environmental Quality cannot be overstated. And the attacks on 
the Council are just another attempt, unfortunately, to put 
polluters over people.
    The Council on Environmental Quality exists to protect 
children, seniors, and everyday people by ensuring that the air 
we breath and the water we drink are safe.
    Kids can only live happy and healthy lives if we keep 
dangerous chemicals out of the water and air. And the advances 
we have made since the passage of the National Environmental 
Policy Act, NEPA, which created the Council on Environmental 
Qualify, are incredibly important.
    Since NEPA was enacted in 1970, we have reduced emissions 
of dangerous pollutants by 78 percent; 700 billion pounds of 
pollution have been diverted from American's waterways annually 
since the 1970s. Cleaner air has led to higher achievement by 
students and fewer workdays lost to illness, and those effects 
are magnified in the lower income and historically marginalized 
communities that have too often had to bear the burden of worse 
air and water quality.
    So, indeed, protecting our environment is key to the long-
term sustainable growth of our economy and helps achieve more 
equitable outcomes.
    And if this Committee doesn't prioritize protecting clean 
air and water, we are compromising the health of future 
generations and holding the American people back from achieving 
their full potential.
    So, make no mistake, the real issue in this hearing is not 
CEQ's small budget request, it is, unfortunately, an attempt by 
some of my colleagues across the aisle and their big corporate 
donors, to undermine the Council's ability to protect our air, 
our water, and our climate.
    We must confront the challenges that cause timelines of 
project approvals to grow, particularly lack of agency 
staffing, however, undermining the agencies responsible for 
protecting our environment is not the solution.
    We have to support the Clean Water Act, we have to support 
the Biden administration's America the Beautiful Act, and the 
Justice40 Initiative, and short-sighted attacks on the Council, 
by some of my colleagues across the aisle will only compromise 
our ability to appropriately protect the air and water quality 
and public health that our communities rely on, and will stall 
our transition to a clean energy economy, which is absolutely 
essential.
    So, my question for you, Chair, is for our constituents 
back home who don't know what the Council is, who don't know 
what NEPA is, can you just explain, once again, how the work 
that you and your colleagues do helps protect our constituents 
and the quality of their air and water, in particular?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much for the question. I think as 
you alluded to, the Council was created specifically to advise 
the President and the President's advisors on environmental and 
natural resource issues.
    And, in particular, on those issues that were of most 
significance for our country. So, we actually work across the 
Federal Government on policy issues that are of importance to 
the American people.
    We are helping to try to coordinate our activities in ways 
that will ensure that what actually happens on the ground is 
done in a consistent and an appropriate way. As Chairman Carper 
likes to say, we are like the conductor, kind of helping that 
symphony to play. There are a number of different roles, but we 
want to make sure directionally, that they are going in the 
same direction.
    For example, on the environmental justice work that we had 
been focused on, we have been helping the agencies as they are 
implementing the incredible resources that we have gotten from 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction 
Act to actually see changes on the ground made to people's 
lives.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. And I just want to give one 
example. The NEPA process led to the discovery and the 
remediation of harmful chemicals at a site now occupied by the 
Providence Community Health Center.
    When we talk about NEPA on this Committee, we often talk 
about the permitting process, the review process, the paperwork 
involved, et cetera, and we want to streamline things in a 
responsible way, but this is just one of thousands and 
thousands of examples from around the country of how the NEPA 
process has not only remediated dangerous chemicals in an urban 
area, but has made it possible to open a community health 
center, which again, is serving the community and making people 
healthy.
    We could go through example after example, but I don't want 
it to be lost in this conversation that the NEPA process is 
valuable in protecting children, seniors, families from 
environmental degradation and unlocking the possibility of 
community development all across our country. With that, I will 
yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
myself for questions.
    Chair Mallory, thank you again for being here. For years, 
CEQ has operated with a budget of about $3 million. The 
President's budget request bumps that up to $4.8 million, and 
on top of that, in the IRA CEQ received $62.5 million.
    We have requested information from CEQ before and you 
failed to deliver it. So, instead of asking you to explain your 
budget numbers, I am asking you to submit a written report to 
the Committee outlining the justification for that increased 
budget request, how you are spending the $62.5 million. If you 
have added new employees, if you have expanded programs, and I 
would just ask you to comment yes or no if you will send the 
Committee that information?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much for the question. I think we 
will coordinate with you on how to accommodate that request.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Also, it is has been brought up in 
the testimony today and the questions that there has been 
mission creep on CEQ's original advisory role to the President.
    It appears that CEQ now coordinates and directs agencies on 
directions to go and also, new roles that CEQ has taken on with 
environmental justice, with carbon mitigation, things that 
definitely were not perceived in the original NEPA law.
    And it also appears that this Administration and CEQ's 
failing in many of those stated areas that they list as 
concerns. Let's talk about environmental justice.
    Is it environmental justice for U.S. policies that require 
us to transition to electric vehicles, which means we have to 
have more batteries, and we are not mining the materials here, 
we are mining them from places like the Democratic Republic of 
Congo, where, and I looked it up, the U.S. average income is 
$58,120, China is $16,153, India is $1,670, and the yearly 
average income in the Congo is $449 U.S. dollars.
    Is it environmental justice to push policy that is 
resulting in Chinese slave labor in mines in Congo? Is that 
environmental justice?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I 
think we are very focused on advancing our own ability to do 
critical mineral mining here in this country. That is part of 
the President's agenda.
    The Chairman. Well, the actions of the Administration have 
been just the opposite. Pulling leases in Northern Minnesota, 
trying to shut down mines in Arizona. But I will say that I 
read an interesting article in the AP yesterday where a young 
Native American woman stated that a mine that this 
Administration pushed to open in Nevada, she used the term 
green colonialism. Do you believe that is achieving 
environmental justice when Native Americans are calling this 
Administration's actions green colonialism?
    Ms. Mallory. I think we are trying to manage our actions in 
a very balanced way in order to achieve the President's overall 
goals.
    The Chairman. You have also talked about energy transition. 
The gentleman from Texas, I think, delved into this. This chart 
behind me shows the global consumption of energy by fuel source 
over time and, as you notice, every form of fuel consumption is 
increasing and is on an exponential increase. And I agree with 
the gentleman from Texas, there is no transition.
    You also mentioned electric school buses, and I found it 
interesting that the League of Conservation Voters touted the 
green school bus program as a victory for them.
    Did you consult with League of Conservation Voters on the 
electric school bus program?
    Ms. Mallory. I have not consulted with them.
    The Chairman. Have you consulted with any outside NGOs or 
non-profits on any of your policy issues?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, we actually hear from many 
members of the public on all of the things that we are doing.
    The Chairman. Would you be willing to send us a list of the 
NGOs and people that you have met with regarding any of these 
policies?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, I think we should have a 
conversation about what you are actually looking for. We will 
try to figure out how to accommodate it.
    The Chairman. OK. My time is almost expired, and there have 
been requests for a second round of questions, so we are going 
to move along to that. I recognize Mr. LaMalfa for his second 
round of questions.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for that 
opportunity. We appreciate the time as we live in these little 
5-minute compartments around here, sometimes it is tough to 
deal with.
    Ma'am, I wanted to follow up on the question, as we ran out 
of time last time. On the economic impacts of a decision of a 
NEPA action or CEQ, whatever it might be, take the Klamath 
Basin, for example, a strong agricultural area that the project 
was created in order to foster a new agricultural zone in top 
of California and part of Oregon.
    It was encouraged by the Federal Government in the 
development of that project many years ago. And now it is 
deemed that their existence, that those farmers and those 
families are a threat to the environment by what they do and 
the water that they use.
    So, when we talk about the economic impacts of an action 
taken under NEPA, under CEQ, and other environmental rules, 
whether it is NOAA or U.S. Fish and Wildlife, it seems that the 
economic impacts are not getting the weight that they deserve, 
as my interpretation is prescribed by the law.
    So, I want to return to that question. Do you know of an 
instance where, as you said, economic impacts are somehow taken 
into account. Has there been an activity that has gone so far 
in the economic costs versus the benefit that it actually has 
stopped the enforcement of Water for Fish or stopping of a 
hydroelectric project, or whatever it might be?
    Have you seen where the environmental action has actually 
been stopped because of that economic impact?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, I think the important function to 
remember about NEPA is that it is a mechanism to get 
information that the agencies then use to make their decision.
    And the decision is based on the programs that they are 
evaluating. So, there is no chronicling of the question to 
provide the answer for you in the way that you are framing it.
    Mr. LaMalfa. In many of our opinions here, NEPA has been 
weaponized in order to stop projects, but also take away 
existing projects, such as the dams that make hydroelectric 
power in Klamath and others that are in line, like the Snake 
River up north.
    Do you see a threshold, just to walk away from that 
specifically, do you see a threshold for CEQ or Federal action 
to whether it is to save species or what have you, would 
actually make the area unlivable for the people that live 
there? Whether it is agriculturally, as residents, as we are 
seeing with the folks that are losing their homes in the 
Klamath area that I am talking about?
    Is there a threshold that CEQ would identify economically 
or just the effect on people?
    Ms. Mallory. The way that the CEQ regulations that the 
agencies apply works is that it allows for the collection of 
information that they then evaluate in the context of their 
programs.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, you label this merely collection of 
information?
    Ms. Mallory. NEPA is about collecting the information that 
is on the topics that the agencies then evaluate.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So, in the timeline of collecting the 
information and assessing it and making it ready for 
interpretation, it seems to take a very long time and that in 
and of itself has a great economic and harmful impact on people 
that are dealing with that.
    What do you see that that timeline should actually be? 
Especially since we talked about categorical exclusions in 
order to move around the onerous work that needs to be done on 
simple things like timber harvest projects and such after a 
fire?
    Ms. Mallory. As you know, the law that was just passed 
actually creates some new, or not new, creates some timelines 
that are focused on the environmental review process. My own 
view is that it is really important that, as we are doing the 
review, that we make sure that we have the time to do it and 
that we make sure we have the staff available to meet those 
timelines.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Well, it doesn't happen now, so let me ask 
this lastly. When you are looking at these takings of whether 
it is land, the water to go with the land, and other aspects, 
it opens up the Federal Government to lawsuits and the costs to 
the taxpayers of lawsuits.
    Do you take that into account as part of an economic impact 
when you see that there will be lawsuits, such as on the 
Klamath where the water has been taken away that will 
negatively affect homes and agriculture and such, and lawsuits 
will come.
    Do you take lawsuits as part of your economic impact into 
account?
    Ms. Mallory. Just to be clear, CEQ does not do an economic 
impact. These are actions that are done by the agencies. We 
don't do an economic impact. The agencies do the impact 
analysis.
    Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Do you believe economic impact 
should be a greater role with those agencies as you see them 
happen?
    Ms. Mallory. I think the agencies are balancing their 
analysis based on what their statutes require.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, ma'am. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These hearings are 
always an interesting adventure, so I have appreciated the 
discussion and, Chair Mallory, your intelligent, calm, cool, 
and responsible answers to many of the wild and interesting 
questions that we have gotten here today.
    But I do feel compelled to do just a little bit of clean up 
on some of the misinformation that we have heard here today. I 
want to start with global climate change and the energy 
transition.
    I heard some statements here today about there is no energy 
transition happening, that if we just could get China to stop 
its emissions then the United States wouldn't have to address 
its emissions.
    First of all, Chair Mallory, does the United States have 
jurisdiction over China?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you for the question. Obviously, we 
don't have jurisdiction over China, but I think that China is 
actually an area and the fact that they are dominant in some 
areas is something that the Administration is very focused on.
    So, as we think about how we shore up our own economy, we 
are focused on putting ourselves in the position so that we can 
actually do our own critical minerals here. That is important 
to the Administration.
    Ms. Stansbury. And in terms of talking about the overall 
global climate footprint and both, in terms of emissions and in 
terms of reducing emissions, the United States per capita, is 
one of the largest emitters per capita in the entire world, is 
that not correct?
    Ms. Mallory. That is correct.
    Ms. Stansbury. So, the United States has a fundamental 
responsibility, especially on the global scale, of addressing 
our emissions across every single sector and that is, once 
again, why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, because it takes each of these 
emission sectors, sector by sector and tries to address those 
emissions.
    Now, in terms of some of the questions about whether or not 
that is environmentally just, whether or not that has 
implications for the future of our communities, 1,000 percent. 
Of course, it does. We are talking about the future of our 
planet and while I greatly respect every community that depends 
on resource extraction for their livelihoods, we will not have 
a planet that is livable if we do not address global climate 
change for any communities.
    So, the transition is occurring. It will occur. It will 
continue to occur over the next decade, over the coming 
decades, and if we are effective in implementing the policies 
that this body last Congress passed with the Inflation 
Reduction Act, with the policies that the Biden administration 
is implementing, with the global leadership that the Biden 
administration is working on in partnership with other 
sovereign nations, including China, including other countries, 
then we will avert a global climate crisis and we will have a 
survivable planet. And I think that is really, at the end of 
the day, what our goal is.
    Secondly, I want to address this issue of mission creep. 
There has been some misinformation shared this morning in many 
different sort of compartments of the conversation, but when 
the National Environmental Policy Act was passed by this body 
in 1969, Chair Mallory, wasn't it partly the intent of Congress 
to have an entity that sat at sort of the tip of the spear in 
the Federal Government, that could coordinate across agencies 
on environmental review and protection?
    Ms. Mallory. That is correct.
    Ms. Stansbury. So, Mr. Chairman, that is entirely the point 
of why Congress created the Council on Environmental Quality.
    So, some of the assertions we heard today about mission 
creep, expansion of the role are just actually, factually, 
untrue on the basis of the statute that we passed, that 
Congress passed on a bipartisan basis.
    And I also want to note that we do have a separation of 
powers and that the President, under very administration, has 
the right and authority to create an advisory body within the 
executive office that can advise that President on any matter. 
It can be statutory or it can be something that the President 
creates because it is part of carrying out their mission.
    So, some of those arguments are just untrue. And, finally, 
with the remainder of my time, I do want to just say I have 
heard a lot of unusual arguments today about NEPA, and I think 
that it is very clear, from what happened in the debt ceiling 
limit negotiations that happened, that there was a very clear 
intent to hold our country hostage and to do so over a key few 
items: (1) to try to cut Federal spending and the spending in 
our agencies; (2) to gut our environmental laws; and (3) to gut 
our social programs. And there was a very crafty and clever 
effort to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act and I 
believe that many of the comments here today were intended to 
set legal traps for the entity that administers the National 
Environmental Policy Act. And I just want to say, Chair 
Mallory, I am grateful that you are in that role. You are 
exactly the right person to be there defending NEPA and we will 
continue to fight these efforts to undermine NEPA. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair 
recognizes Ranking Member Grijalva.
    Mr. Grijalva. Well, thank you very much, Madame Chair, for 
being with us today, for your responses.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to 
enter a letter into the hearing record that touches on the 
issue of energy poverty that we heard about today?
    In April 2020, at the start of the COVID pandemic, 11 
former and current Republican members of this Committee 
publicly asked oil producing nations to cut the global oil 
supply for the express purpose of reversing, ``a drastic price 
drop effecting the bottom line of some oil and gas companies.''
    This request to lower production, to increase oil and gas 
prices for consumers came at a time when millions upon millions 
of people were losing their jobs monthly and millions could not 
afford those higher prices.
    This is, unfortunately, one of the many pushes to benefit 
gas and oil companies that my Republican colleagues have 
undertaken to drive up energy costs. And the discussion today 
is also part of that, as my colleague from New Mexico rightly 
pointed out. In those discussions to avoid the debt ceiling 
crisis, NEPA was a top item, and the consequence of that is 
that some of us supported that. I did not support that deal 
because of the direct beginning process of dismantling NEPA, 
what it stands for, and what it could potentially stand for and 
needs to do in the future.
    So, my only comment, with all due respect, Madame Chair, 
and directed as you provided feedback back to the White House, 
that there are going to be other opportunities for my 
colleague, whether it is attempting through legislation, 
through the gutting of your budget, through other things, to 
continue to go after NEPA and the role that CEQ plays for this 
country and for the White House.
    To advise the White House, at least from my perspective, 
that if a deal is not a deal and we continue now and must pass 
legislation in keeping the government open, in the budget 
discussions and decisions that will have to be made down the 
line, if we continue to see negotiations centered on 
undermining, dismantling, and effectively crippling the role 
that CEQ needs to play now and in the future in the three areas 
that you outlined today, or that the opposition to those kind 
of deals, at least on our side, will continue to increase 
because the threat is real, the efforts are ongoing, and we are 
very concerned that as negotiators for the White House, in 
direct contact with the Majority here in the House, continue to 
put NEPA on the table and to sacrifice that protection for the 
American people is something that is going to be very difficult 
to tolerate and more and more Members are going to come to that 
same conclusion.
    I have nothing else to add other than my profound thanks, 
Madame Chair, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
myself for what looks like the final round of questions.
    Thank you again, Chair Mallory, for being here today. There 
has been a lot of talk about the debt limit bill, the FRA, and 
the ``gutting of the bedrock environmental laws.'' Do you 
believe the changes to NEPA passed in the FRA were gutting NEPA 
or adversely affecting NEPA?
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you so much, Congressman, for that. I 
think that, ultimately, the way it ended up, as I was trying to 
explain to the other Congressman, is very much in line with 
some of the measures that we have been using to try to----
    The Chairman. So, you support the changes we made to NEPA?
    Ms. Mallory. I think we can work with them. We can work 
with them.
    The Chairman. Did you advise the President, during the 
negotiations, that these were acceptable changes to NEPA?
    Ms. Mallory. Congressman, I am not going to get into any 
advice that occurs in the White House.
    The Chairman. Do you have an implementation timeline on the 
NEPA changes?
    Ms. Mallory. We are working, actually, quite diligently to 
make sure that the changes get integrated into the rulemaking 
that we were working on.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I would just note that the FRA 
passed by a huge bipartisan majority in the House and the 
Senate, and President Biden signed that, and it is effective 
immediately.
    So, I would hope this would be a No. 1 priority for you and 
the other Federal agencies to implement these laws and that we 
would see the benefits happening immediately.
    Also, you have talked about scientific evidence a lot in 
your testimony and in the questioning. Yet, I find it 
discouraging that along with science goes math, so let's look 
at electric vehicles. There has been a lot of talk about EVs. 
In the justification for CEQ's actions on EVs, what would it 
lower greenhouse gas emissions to if we could make every 
passenger car and light duty vehicle in America an EV 
overnight? Do you have those numbers?
    Ms. Mallory. I don't.
    The Chairman. Do you have a general feel for it?
    Ms. Mallory. Someone does. I can circle back with you on 
any numbers like that.
    The Chairman. I would like to see those numbers, because if 
you do the math, it is actually less than 1 percent and I would 
gladly accept the challenge to that number, if you have 
different numbers.
    Also CEQ, in a report that the Forest Service and BLM 
released complying with an Executive Order from the White 
House, the agency stated that, ``The role of place attachment 
or identify, meaning, the symbolic importance of a place is a 
repository for emotions in relationships that give meaning and 
purpose to life. May also be particularly relevant in our 
understanding of how people relate to and value old growth 
forests.''
    If that sounded confusing to you, welcome to the party, 
because I can't understand what that means. I asked Chief Moore 
what it meant in a hearing and I don't think he understood what 
it means. Can you tell me, in 30 seconds, just a summary, what 
is old growth?
    Ms. Mallory. I think old growth are the oldest forests and 
oldest trees that we have in this country. And there is a range 
of timelines that people use to refer to that.
    The Chairman. Is that defined in this report?
    Ms. Mallory. I actually don't know the report you are 
talking about.
    The Chairman. No, it just said old growth, which it has no 
relevance or meaning unless you are talking about a specific 
forest type and even then, it is questionable as to what old 
growth is.
    How much input does CEQ have with our Federal land agencies 
on the actual management on the ground? Because to me, these 
are very confusing directives that come out in reports like 
this that leave Federal land managers in a quandary and we have 
seen an exponential increase in forest fires, or even we have 
lost 20 percent of our giant Sequoia trees to catastrophic 
wildfire.
    And if you look at a climate perspective, forests are, I 
have said this over and over, they are the largest scale, most 
economical, quickest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, 
far exceeding any kind of technology that has been invented 
yet.
    We seem to be implementing policies that are causing our 
forests to burn even faster than they have burned in the past. 
So, I will give you a chance to respond to what CEQ is doing, 
working with our Federal land agencies, to actually make our 
forests more healthy and resilient? Which also means not only 
clean air, but clean water, better wildlife habitat, and a lot 
of access for recreational opportunities for the American 
public.
    Ms. Mallory. Thank you for that. I guess I would just start 
off by saying that we look at all of the work that is going on, 
in terms of the climate change and addressing climate change, 
as being important.
    So, no one activity, not just the electric vehicles. It all 
has to be taken together. And on the forests, I guess what I 
would say is that the partnership that exists across the 
Federal Government between CEQ and the other agencies is 
designed to kind of help with addressing some of the overall 
issues and challenges.
    We have actual sector groups or task forces that are 
actually looking at wildfires as one of the really important 
areas where we have to have coordinated management on how we 
are addressing that.
    And also recognize it as one of the significant areas 
needing attention. The work that the agencies have been doing 
to try to actually make sure we have the support for addressing 
the wildfires that are occurring and that we have different 
categorical exclusions that are in place to help with the 
management area.
    So, I think we are recognizing it as being one of our big 
challenges. It is obviously one that is having a significant 
impact on not only on the ecosystem, but on all of the 
communities that are so close and affected by that, and I think 
that that is part of trying to make sure that we have the tools 
necessary for the agencies to address the problems.
    The Chairman. And I would just point out that recognizing 
and doing are two different things and policies like this old 
growth policy, policies on locking up more Federal lands, 
policies like the Chaco Canyon withdrawal, these are not 
helping management in any form or fashion.
    Again, I thank you for your testimony today and I thank the 
Members for their questions. The members of the Committee may 
have some additional questions, me included, for the witness 
and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members must submit questions to 
the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. on June 27. The hearing record 
will be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Committee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          [all]