▶ 0:11:21The Subcommittee on Investigations Oversight will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to clear recess of the subcommittee at any time. Welcome to the today entitled Justice for Whom? Examining the Justice 40 initiatives oversight and implement implementation. I recognize the chairman of the full committee at this time, Dr. Babin, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Thank you, uh Chairman McCormick.
▶ 0:11:50Uh appreciate the witnesses being here and thank you for having this uh this Um today we convene to discuss a matter of significant concern, the excessive regulatory burden, lack of transparency, and clear ineffectiveness of the previous administration's Justice 40 Launched by an executive order during President Biden's first week in office, Justice 40 was billed as a {quote} whole-of-government effort, {unquote}, to ensure
▶ 0:12:20that 40% of all federal investments in climate, energy, and environmental programs would benefit disadvantaged communities. That stated goal may sound admirable, but good intentions do not excuse bad governance.
▶ 0:12:37The Justice 40 is a textbook case of how vague mandates, flawed models, and unaccountable agencies can combine to create confusion, waste taxpayer dollars, and ultimately fail the very communities that it aims to Justice 40 was vast in scope, covering more than 500 programs across 19 federal agencies.
▶ 0:13:01And yet it operated with no clear statutory authorization, no centralized oversight structure, and definitional ambiguity. What exactly constitutes a benefit? What qualifies as a disadvantaged community? The previous administration never really answered these fundamental questions.
▶ 0:13:21Instead, it created a regulatory labyrinth of conflicting interpretations, opaque spending decisions, and inconsistent data Applicants, especially small businesses and organizations in the communities that Justice 40 targeted, were forced to wade through bureaucratic red tape, hire costly consultants just to compete for the funding.
▶ 0:13:46What once were merit-based, streamlined grants became politically charged paperwork marathons. And despite all of this complexity, there's little evidence that the program actually helped the communities that it was meant to serve.
▶ 0:14:01A recent GAO report found that many agencies were unable to track whether benefits were reaching the intended The prior administration's so-called environmental justice scorecard, meant to show Justice 40's progress, is riddled with inconsistencies. For example, one agency with 65 relevant programs reported 12,000 funding opportunities.
▶ 0:14:26Yet, no independent body has been tasked with auditing Justice 40 Let's be clear. Programs that purport to serve the vulnerable must be held to the very highest standards, not exempted from But Justice 40 took the opposite approach, abandoning merit-based decisions in favor of vaguely defined beneficiary groups and prioritizing political ideology over localized needs.
▶ 0:14:53Our goal today is not to dismiss the needs of struggling Americans, quite the opposite. We are here to review whether Justice 40 fulfilled its stated mission or simply created the illusion of progress while bypassing transparency in federal grant regulations.
▶ 0:15:11The American people deserve policies that work, not programs packed with buzzwords that sound good in press releases, but fall apart pro- in uh I want to thank our witnesses for being here today this morning, and I look forward to the discussion ahead, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I now recognize the ranking member uh from Ohio for her opening statement.
▶ 0:15:38Good morning, and thank you, Chairman McCormick, and to our witnesses for appearing today. Uh this is a moment of profound upheaval for science in the United States of America. The entire post-World War II architecture that has powered America's global leadership in scientific research for 80 years is now under siege by the Trump administration.
▶ 0:15:58Robust government support for basic science, close federal partnerships with research universities, rigorous multi- or rigorous merit-based review processes to fund the most deserving research ideas, and so much more are all in jeopardy. If any topic demands oversight by the Science Committee, surely it is this. The ongoing ideological assault by President Trump and DOE on the very foundations of American science and But that is not a reality my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have any interest in acknowledging.
▶ 0:16:29Perhaps because they cannot defend it, and they are more comfortable looking backwards than grappling with the disturbing facts of the present and the implications for its future. So instead, we are here today to discuss the Justice40 An effort that was ended on day one of the Trump administration. At its core, Justice40 was an effort to finally ensure that the benefits of federal spending would be distributed fairly and efficiently across the United States.
▶ 0:16:55We've been hearing a lot about government inefficiency recently, and I think that that criticism is fair, and something it's worthy of discussion. But one of the important lessons that I received when I was a a young state legislator, I think I'm still a young legislator, but a young state legislator, was that government funding was often distributed like peanut butter. get a glob and you'd spread it evenly across because that was fair. But was it really efficient?
▶ 0:17:25I saw this in my experience as a public health professional and as a state legislator. And one of the things that I was most proud of in my work is around advancing efforts to protect mom and babies in reducing our infant mortality rate, which is still tragically too But we know that many of these things are associated with social determinants. Unclean air and water, lack of access to jobs, lead pipes, high particulates in the air with Elita at asthma.
▶ 0:17:53And all of these things impacted infant mortality. And so although United States continue to show overall improvements in infant black women in particular and their children bore a disproportionate impact of this burden of infant deaths. Even in low-risk mothers with what we call protective factors born to black women are more than twice than likely to die before their first birthday than children born to white women.
▶ 0:18:21And knowing all of this, does it make sense to spread out our resources efficiently across all groups knowing that it impacts one more than the other? Would you use a breast cancer campaign and evenly spend your resources towards men and for women even though women are disproportionately impacted by breast And so when we're talking about and putting resources where they are needed the most, that is what the impetus
▶ 0:18:51and the spirit of Justice 40 was. Ensuring that we were using our resources to combat issues that were in part that were important in targeting our resources where they would have the largest impact. Justice 40 took that approach. It made investments into climate energy and infrastructure.
▶ 0:19:09And the initiative aimed to incorporate environmental justice into these programs and spread the benefits of those investments to the communities that need it the most, being efficient, encouraging government efficiency. It was ambitious. It was all hands-on deck to develop new tools, new processes, and certainly there were mistakes made along the way.
▶ 0:19:32But the goal was to make sure that no matter where someone was located or who lived there, they had a fair shot at access to federal funding. The values of the basic values of fairness, equality, and respect that lie at the heart of environmental justice. And despite the end of those are values that will endure. They should endure regardless of whatever current political moment exists.
▶ 0:19:58And it is no exaggeration to say that the Trump administration is waging a scorched-earth campaign to purge every trace of environmental justice from our government without considering the faces and the human impact that it is going to What's even What's more, eliminating these types of initiatives before they can be properly and fully implemented doesn't make them less efficient. It just defeats the purpose of endeavoring to affect change on something that's really important and then creating a self-fulfilling prophecy saying it does not work.
▶ 0:20:28This is a tragedy. And it leaves those of those those of us who support these values with an obligation to advocate even more and even harder for historically disadvantaged communities to make sure they get their fair shake. As I close my comments, I would just like to say thank to Dr. Michael Gelobter to this hearing, the executive director of the Yale Center for Environmental Justice, the national leader. I know we're a little bit out of order, but I'm introducing you in, but that's just what the notes said and we're following along.
▶ 0:20:59But again, thank you for your willingness to be here, and we look forward to hearing your expertise, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you, Ranking Member Sykes. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. Uh thank you all for being here this morning. We're holding this hearing to take a hard look at the Justice40 This was an early priority in the Biden administration that quite frankly has not delivered on its promises.
▶ 0:21:27The stated goal was to ensure that 40% of the benefits from the federal investments in areas like clean energy, housing, and water infrastructure would reach disadvantaged communities. Sounds great on paper, but as we dig deeper, the reality tells a very different story.
▶ 0:21:47This initiative was rolled out with a vague goal-setting standard, unclear definitions, and no real roadmap for Agencies were told to implement it without any consistent guidance, leaving bureaucrats to interpret the rules for A stark example of this can be found in the Inflation Reduction Act. A recent report from Goldman Sachs estimated that green subsidies will cost as much as 1.2 trillion dollars.
▶ 0:22:16This placed hundreds of billions within the dysfunctional reach of the Justice40 This left communities wondering what, if anything, was coming their way. That's not justice, and it's certainly not effective Let's be clear. No one is arguing against helping struggling communities.
▶ 0:22:39But if we're going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars in their name, we owe it to the American people to ask, "Did it actually help?" According to the Government Accountability Of- Office, the GAO, many of the very communities this program was supposed to serve found the application process for funding so complicated, so costly, and bureaucratic that they gave up altogether. Think about that.
▶ 0:23:07A program meant to deliver relief instead of becoming became a hurdle for that community. What's more, there's no clear system to even define what counts as a benefit. Let alone track whether 40% of those benefits actually landed where they were supposed to. You cannot manage what you cannot measure.
▶ 0:23:31GAO made several common-sense recommendations, like streamline applications, defining performance metrics, and enforcing basic accountability measurements. These aren't radical ideas. In fact, most are already required under existing federal grant rules. Today, we'll hear from three witnesses, two of which will help us figure out what actually works, and just as importantly, what doesn't.
▶ 0:24:00At the end of the day, our job isn't to rubber-stamp talking points, it's to ask tough questions, follow the facts, and deliver results for the American people, especially those who've been underserved and overlooked for far too long. So, let's get to it. I will now recognize the ranking member of the full committee for a statement. Uh thank you, Chairman McCormick and Ranking Member Sykes, and I want to thank the witnesses for testifying today.
▶ 0:24:30Though I must say, I find the timing of today's topic a bit perplexing. On January 20th of this year, President Trump's term began. That same day, he announced the rescission of President Biden's executive order that established the Justice 40 Initiative. Here we sit over 5 months later. Justice 40 is a thing of the past.
▶ 0:24:54Uh for the 4 years it was active, my Science Committee colleagues on the other side of the aisle uh didn't raise, so far as I'm aware, any credible accusations of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement of the Justice40 initiative, though their political disagreement with its priorities uh was predictable. While the last 5 months have elapsed with zero Justice40 activities, they have seen unprecedented upheaval of our scientific enterprise.
▶ 0:25:22It's not inherently unusual or inappropriate to hold oversight hearings on shuttered programs, but I think it's strange to simultaneously ignore what is happening in real time. Since the shuttering of the Justice40 initiative, billions of dollars of federal grants have been frozen.
▶ 0:25:40Civil servants have been fired or coerced out of the federal scientific workforce, eviscerating agencies' abilities to make science-based decisions and leaving all Americans more vulnerable to threats like extreme weather and public health risks. Laboratories are being shuttered, including a cutting-edge air pollution lab run by EPA in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
▶ 0:26:03NASA eliminated its office of chief scientist, and the National Science Foundation is being evicted, so the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development can have a private dining room, a personal gym and elevator with reserved parking for his five cars. The Department of Energy canceled two dozen Office of Clean Energy Demonstration awards, including three in Chairman Babin's district.
▶ 0:26:26The Secretary of Health and Human Services swapped out expert advisories on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for a ragtag group of anti-vax influencers and frankly cranks. And every single one of our science agencies faces draconian cuts in the president's proposed budget, a budget that only China could love.
▶ 0:26:48I'm under no illusion that we we fall on the same side of each of these issues and a myriad of other changes that have been implemented by the Trump administration uh since January 20th. But, with each passing hearing, it gets more, frankly, weird to ignore them. And this hearing is a clear example of that.
▶ 0:27:07The last Investigations and Oversight Committee hearing was canceled when the subject of that hearing, the billion-dollar disaster report, actually an excellent example of how President Trump has eviscerated federal science was eliminated. And yet, this hearing was announced with full awareness that the Justice 40 initiative has been dead for months. My Republican colleagues' objective on this issue was realized on the very first day of this of this administration. Why don't we start focusing on the actual state of American science?
▶ 0:27:37We don't all have to agree, but it's wrong to continue to pretend it's not happening. If my Republican colleagues support this administration's actions, they could hold hearings who explain that position. If they disagree with what's been happening to federal science, I invite them to step up to the plate and stand up for the laws that Congress has passed that the president has ignored. Now, I want to thank our witnesses for testifying today.
▶ 0:28:03It's not your responsibility that we're talking about a program that no longer exists instead of the uh random uh and radical evisceration of the science enterprise of the United States of America. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren. Let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness today is Dr.
▶ 0:28:26Ashley Nunes, senior research associate at Harvard Law School and associate in the Department of Economics at Harvard University. Our next witness is Dr. Donna Jackson, senior policy analyst at the Committee for a constructive tomorrow. Our final witness is Dr. Michael Gellopter. Am I saying that correctly, Uh executive director at Yale Center for Environmental Justice. I now recognize Dr.
▶ 0:28:56Nunez for 5 minutes to present his testimony. Chairman McCormick, ranking member Sykes, and honorable members of the thank you for the opportunity to testify My name is Ashley Nunez. I'm a research associate at Harvard Law School and an associate in the Department of Economics at Harvard College. My work examines the economic effectiveness of public policies. This interest is motivated by a simple economic reality.
▶ 0:29:27There's no such thing as a free lunch. Every policy has a cost, even if the policy may appear cost-free. Today, I will speak to these issues as they relate to Justice40.
▶ 0:29:42This initiative was a critical part of the Biden administration's so-called advancement of environmental and economic justice and reflected the president's belief that his actions would secure an equitable economic future for all That inequities exist across America is Over 36 million people live in poverty across the United States. But these inequities are hardly unique to the United States.
▶ 0:30:12Similar challenges confront numerous other developed economies. What is unique to the US is the arbitrary and sometimes concerning way in which the Biden administration sought to redirect federal assistance programs to disadvantaged communities.
▶ 0:30:30While the administration provided a framework for targeting federal resources, the program structure, criteria for qualification, and lack of agency-specific guidance raises important questions about the program's The program pays lip service to or neglects entirely important nuances inherent to addressing complex problems, which subsequently impacts Justice 40's ability to guide cost-effective
▶ 0:31:01public I will provide one such example. One prominent focus of the Biden administration was vehicle emissions. This focus reflects long-standing concerns over the use of internal combustion engines. President Biden and his allies sought through regulatory fiat to accelerate electric vehicle adoption by banning the sale of internal combustion engines.
▶ 0:31:26However, electrification is problematic for low-income households because these households either cannot afford electric and or they live in highly dense urban housing, which limits access to dedicated recharging infrastructure. The latter point is particularly important as consistent with the framework of Justice 40, billions were allocated for building electric vehicle charging infrastructure in low- and moderate-income communities.
▶ 0:31:58The charging and fueling infrastructure discretionary grant program, for example, was marketed as a way to ensure equitable and widespread EV adoption. But it is frankly impractical and costly to ensure that every household in low-income communities has dedicated charging facilities. The consequence is low-income households queuing up to recharge their vehicles along highways compared to wealthier households who do so from the comfort of their homes.
▶ 0:32:27I ask members of this committee, what is equitable about rich households charging their cars from the comfort of their homes while poor households do so while standing in the rain. I will conclude by making three main First, the persistence of inequities does warrant scrutiny from lawmakers.
▶ 0:32:47The past few decades have seen declines in economic mobility as wage stagnation coupled with rising prices invariably deliver for many hardworking Americans far less in exchange for far more. It is in all of our interest that we help these families help themselves. Our nation is invariably better, richer, and fuller when all Americans, regardless of race, color, and creed succeed.
▶ 0:33:15Second, the Justice 40 initiative provides little opportunity for such The lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a benefit, the lack of objective assessment regarding whether these benefits are realized, and the lack of consideration regarding the cost constraints faced by the federal government invariably guarantee that Justice 40 would deliver few tangible benefits for the people who need it Third and finally, we can do better.
▶ 0:33:45We can pursue policies that deliver tangible wins for the American people. Justice 40 is a poor example of such policy, but that does not mean better policies and should not and cannot be pursued. Key to the effectiveness of these policies is greater transparency and oversight from Congress. Thank you. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Jackson for 5 minutes to present her testimony.
▶ 0:34:13Chairman McCormick, Ranking Member Sykes, and members of this subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Donna Jackson, and I am a senior policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute Constructive Tomorrow. My own background is in accounting and finance, and I will bring some of that experience to bear in my testimony today.
▶ 0:34:35But my main qualification is that I lived more than half my life in disadvantaged communities, the kind that would meet the Biden administration's Justice 40 criteria. This includes my year as a my years as a single mother of five, and I can say without hesitation that the environmental justice agenda is as out of touch as it gets with the real needs of the people in these communities.
▶ 0:35:02To put it bluntly, families struggling with failing schools, crime, drugs, high prices don't want a government spending billions on solar panels, EV charging stations, and bike paths.
▶ 0:35:15Now, we can certainly discuss the massive misallocation of resources, but the problem is not just the money wasted, but also the chilling effects being designated as an environmental justice community has on the kind of private investment needed to turn these communities around. Overall, the environmental justice agenda serves as a form of redlining that discourages community development and upward mobility for its residents.
▶ 0:35:45One of President Trump's top agenda items is revitalizing the American manufacturers manufacturing sector, and I certainly hope he succeeds. Low-income and minority Americans would benefit the most from a manufacturing turnaround, but not if these kinds of facilities are kept away from these communities. My family experience demonstrates the benefits of manufacturing jobs.
▶ 0:36:13Several my generations, including my grandfather, completely transformed their lives moving from the South to Detroit and other northern industrial cities where they went to work for companies like Ford, Chrysler, US Steel. These were good paying gateway jobs that allowed people with limited formal education, but a willingness to work hard, a pathway to the middle class and self-sufficiency.
▶ 0:36:39And those manufacturing jobs permanently broke the cycle of poverty for their kids and their grandkids. And if you got a better welfare program that has that track record, I'd like to hear about it. I saw such a transformation myself when I lived in Tennessee after the big Nissan plant opened in Smyrna. The local economy was completely turned around by this investment.
▶ 0:37:04It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that my relatives were victims of Ford and Chrysler and US Steel, and that the low-income and minority residents of Smyrna would have been better off if the Nissan plant had been blocked by environmental activists. But this is exactly the ideology that Justice 40 agenda which seeks to force industry and its high-wage blue-collar jobs from these communities that needed the most.
▶ 0:37:33The same is true of housing. Home Home ownership is absolutely critical to the family's stability, upward mobility, self-sufficiency, building intergenerational wealth. And low-income and minority households have a long way to go to close the ownership gap. But sadly, the environmental movement speeds spends a great deal of its time suing home builders and blocking more housing.
▶ 0:38:01And the previous administration's near obsession with climate-friendly housing further raised prices by piling on mountains of costly regulations on The same is true for personal transportation. Affordable cars are absolutely essential for upward mobility.
▶ 0:38:18The reality of those living in environmental justice communities is that the best jobs are usually outside of their neighborhoods and owning a car opens up all kinds of opportunities, especially in the gig market. And it lets you drive to suburban supermarkets and other places that you have more access to a better prices and things that you need.
▶ 0:38:43Romanticize all you want about public transportation, but the reality is that it can't only take you to a fraction of the employment opportunities available if you have a car that you can afford. It cannot help you shuffle kids around like I had to do, take them to doctor's appointments, after-school activities. But if you want to tell this former single mom that I could have done it relying on public transportation, go ahead and try.
▶ 0:39:13In addition, we need to stop pretending that the EV agenda is good for poor families and have a little respect for the fact that most of the people in these communities don't want them. Overall, the real answer lies in policies that encourage private sector investment in these communities and that strengthen families by making them more sufficient. That's why the environmental justice agenda is a costly step in the wrong direction and I welcome the Trump's administration's effort to diminish it. Thank you so much.
▶ 0:39:43Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Now, I recognize Dr. Golobter for 5 minutes to present his testimony. Good morning and thank you to Chair McCormick and Ranking Member Sykes for having me here today. My name is Michael Golobter and I'm grateful for the opportunity to testify to this subcommittee about the I've been working in the fields of climate change, environment, energy, and environmental and climate justice since the mid-1980s.
▶ 0:40:05Early in my career, I had the privilege of serving the House Energy and Commerce Committee as a Congressional Black Caucus Fellow and I've subsequently worked on these same topics in governments, academia, advocacy, and in industry, including the tech sector. I currently serve as the executive director of a teaching and research center that spans Yale's law and environmental schools and works among other things on ways to build broad prosperity as our country modernizes its energy infrastructure and shifts to more sustainable energy resources.
▶ 0:40:31I'm speaking today about the Justice 40 initiative in my personal capacity to as a researcher and a citizen. While I hold an academic appointment at Yale University, my remarks reflect my own views and the prevailing scientific literature, not the views of Yale. Our country's in need of legislation and investment to meet diverse infrastructure needs including roads and bridges, the power sector, the internet, water infrastructure, transit and transportation including airports and commercial ports.
▶ 0:40:54The Justice 40 initiative sought to ensure that significant benefits of federal investment in new infrastructure flow to communities that without such an initiative could actually end up worse off than before the investments were How could this scale of investment end up as a wealth setback for rural and low-income and low and middle-income The main way this happens comes from the way we pay for investment in infrastructure.
▶ 0:41:16Investment funded through traditional revenue sources like income and sales taxes disproportionately benefit high-income households whose wealth depends much less on their wages than lower-income Um so the vast majority of Americans end up paying a disproportionately higher share of the cost of infrastructure than high-income Americans. A couple of examples. When solar panels are installed on an apartment building, renters may in fact see slightly lower electricity bills, but the building owner owns the asset, the building, and the panels and reaps the appropriation of the to the property's value.
▶ 0:41:45The investment tax credit, the tax savings from depreciation, and the revenue from selling excess power back to the grid. And this hampers deployment. Some estimate that low-income communities see up to 47% less deployment of solar compared to more to higher-income When roads are improved or expanded, excuse me, individuals see the benefit of reduced driving time and safety, but these usually smaller than the appreciation experienced by real estate owners adjacent to those roads and the returns in the form of greater road capacity for commerce to commercial
▶ 0:42:16transportation Now, good policy can ensure that this spending not only rebuilds our country, but does so in a way that benefits the widest possible swath of Americans. Here's a handful of approaches that are known to efficiently build infrastructure while increasing wealth for more low- and middle-income First, create free markets for the tax advantages of infrastructure investments. Policies that increase the fungibility of tax credits can prevent the creation of tax benefits that cut low- and middle-income families out.
▶ 0:42:42Recent implementations of clean energy tax credits or the IRA are a good start in this direction. Collect revenue for infrastructure by tapping interest and capital gains that will grow as a result of infrastructure investment rather than from everyday wages. Collect um create opportunities for increased ownership of infrastructure assets. Community land or energy trusts drive more ownership into low- and middle-income income communities, enabling them to reap the benefits of the investment benefits of infrastructure spending.
▶ 0:43:09Facilitate tax increment finance for local, regional, and state governments so that as property values grow from infrastructure investment, local revenue is generated to pay for that investment and lighten the financial burden on on on um families and communities. Ensure the widest possible participation in innovation, contracting, employment, and maintenance for critical infrastructure. Infrastructure spending is only a short-term employment booster, but small businesses and workers can get higher wages and more opportunities that help them climb the income ladder.
▶ 0:43:36And finally, design infrastructure investment to also improve health, education, and resilience. Even if we don't manage to share the wealth benefits of all of our infrastructure spending, a lot of such spending can reduce pollution, increase educational opportunities, and make communities resilient to natural disasters. And these benefits can go a long way towards raising all boats through infrastructure The subcommittee's playing a vital role in its oversight of of who benefits from our infrastructure spending.
▶ 0:43:59Congress can work with the Office of Management and Budget and key federal agencies to monitor how the trillions committed to infrastructure over the coming years are building wealth for all Americans. It can help to ensure stability and predictability of this spending, which can help prevent infrastructure wildcatting by wealthier infrastructures that can wealthier investors that can box out smaller players in a chaotic infrastructure market. It can champion creative ways for small businesses, communities, and local and state governments to own and finance big infrastructure projects.
▶ 0:44:27And perhaps most critically, Congress can send a message to working Americans that their tax dollars can generate And the we can all be part of building a great future. Thanks again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Globtur. The chair now recognize Mr. Webster for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this meeting and uh timely as it is. And um let's see. Dr. Nunez and Ms.
▶ 0:44:56Jackson, did the Biden administration's Justice program make it better for Americans or Um please explain your answer. Thank you for the question, Representative.
▶ 0:45:12Um I think we can all agree that more needs to be done to help low-income That being said, uh if we look at low-income communities, one of the things we know is that these communities often have access to poor water quality, higher levels of nitrates, for example, that have been linked to birth defects and cancer. The solution in an instance like this is not to ensure that low-income communities have access to water that is 40% cleaner than water that is available to richer communities.
▶ 0:45:42The solution to inequities isn't to ensure that we force electric vehicle adoption among, you know, on low-income communities when the opportunity cost associated with doing so is exorbitantly I think if you look at how Justice 40 is structured, it appears to me as though it is designed to deliver a political win for the administration, but it does very little to deliver tangible, measurable improvements in outcomes for low-income communities.
▶ 0:46:16The problem with the Justice 40 initiative is that it takes away resources from other areas, and it forces the priorities of the administration on the community that they didn't actually ask for.
▶ 0:46:30You're telling me that in a community where you have 0% of the high school graduates in whole urban cities that cannot read, write, and do math at a proficient level, that we should be instead focus on putting solar panels on the schools? No.
▶ 0:46:51What happens is you have all this spending, and then what happens is the priorities of that community gets distorted, and then the what the community really needs and to focus on is bypassed by those uh that amount of investment that all of sudden became becomes the main uh focus of those areas.
▶ 0:47:16Um you have high crime, you have low-performing schools, but if we're focused on solar panels and EV charging stations, which by the way, uh most people that are low-income cannot even own an asset that expensive. They can't afford it, number one. Number two, if they participate in another government program such as a welfare program, they get kicked off for owning a vehicle that expensive.
▶ 0:47:44So, they can't even They're not even allowed to own a vehicle that way. We should allow the community decide to decide its priorities, and that's not what's happening. When you put that much money and control into the hands of NGOs that will steer the priorities of that community in a in another direction apart from what they really want.
▶ 0:48:14Okay, and then could you just answer this question and under the Biden administration State Departments of Transportation including the state of Florida where I'm from experienced an increase of politization infrastructure investments when Justice 40 was implemented.
▶ 0:48:31Rather than focusing on road projects to reduce congestion, the previous administration prioritized advancement of their social agenda by in impeding states right impeding states rights and neither of which support the movement of people or the supply chain.
▶ 0:48:53Could you explain how Justice 40 may impeded your personal and community transportation needs? You know, um one of the things I tell people about low-income communities is most of the time the people end up buying what I call get-abouts.
▶ 0:49:17They only really have about $2,500 for a vehicle versus the cost of a electric vehicle that's $65,000, $48,000. And what you've done is you see because they push all of this money into electric vehicles, it actually increased the cost of gas-powered vehicles. And so what you've done is you're pushing people out of the private car ownership market.
▶ 0:49:44And that has a negative impact on people that really need a car to get around, to get the best resources and jobs. You know, there was a study done by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve that said you can you can actually decrease wealth gap between blacks and whites if minorities have access to any piece of vehicle.
▶ 0:50:11So, every vehicle that you have that's affordable can be turned into Be turned into wealth that people need to be able to save to have a house. The other thing is every time you put these kind of boondoggles out there, then what it just increases the cost of everything that we have. So, it's a regressive tax on the poor because it makes everything more expensive. The gentleman's time has expired.
▶ 0:50:38I now recognize the sites for 5 Thank you so much, Dr. Globiter. It seems to me that the Justice 40 initiative was trying to address a simple problem. How does federal government make sure that the funds are going to the people in the communities who need it the most? We would call that government efficiency. We've been talking about that a lot. Communities across this country are dealing with difficult, long-standing problems like lead pipes, high energy costs, lack of affordable housing, lack of accessible transit, and so much more.
▶ 0:51:07And there are so many federal spending programs created to solve these problems, but they struggle to even get enough money to get off the ground or they're snatched as we have seen with Justice 40 before you can actually see it implemented. So, why is it important for federal government to consider which communities stand to benefit the most from programs that have been created to improve people's lives?
▶ 0:51:29Well, it's pretty it's not very hard to identify the places that get left behind when we when we spend in ways that don't focus on distributional impacts. And so, the federal government can play a role through monitoring, through evaluation, through its through the ways in which it distributes money to ensure that and are fairly simple policies to to remedy that uh that span the spectrum from workforce development.
▶ 0:51:52Um you know, the biggest booming sector in in this country is clean energy development and a great solution for employment problems in a lot of communities is that and there was a lot of a lot of focus on that within Justice 40 was workforce workforce development. Um you know, we were involved specifically um in projects in Connecticut where um that in housing that has real low um winter heating crises.
▶ 0:52:14Um and we we had applied actually under the under the Justice 40 uh to get resources to do that to work on that and we would have literally doubled the value of of uh houses owned by low-income families in Bridgeport, Connecticut uh within a just a couple years of of basically retrofitting a failing in energy system with much more renewable uh and clean Um you know, the the case of schools is a great example where solar panels can cut costs to school districts pretty radically and free up new money for education.
▶ 0:52:42So, basically, you can target without, you know, hopefully not too much bureaucracy, target ways uh that this money can flow to the places that that it can benefit the most and offset some of the regressivity of the actual way we raise money to spend uh for on infrastructure. Thank you very much. Dr. Núñez, I I must admit your affiliation caught my eye and Harvard has been a primary target for this administration in its effort to control and punish institutions of higher learning.
▶ 0:53:06Over $2 billion in research funding have been cut, so I have to ask, have you or your colleagues at the law school, the Department of Economics been impacted by grant terminations from the Trump Um Ranking Member Sites, all I would say is that I'm appearing here in a personal capacity and I can't really uh speak to specific grants that may or may not have been terminated um under the current So, personally speaking, have you been impacted by any of the freezes in uh the the job that you do?
▶ 0:53:35The grants that I currently have are not with the federal government. Fantastic. And And what do you think about the across-the-board freezes, which include fundamental research grants, are they is this an appropriate use of resources? I think that the federal government, like any government, has a limited amount of capital, and it is appropriate for legislators and the and the executive branch to determine where we get maximal return on our investments.
▶ 0:54:04And I think that is as true of, you know, for the current administration as it has been true for all preceding administrations before it. Do you think that it is appropriate for an administration to not follow the will of voters in the legislature and pull back money that has already been appropriated through an appropriate legislative Again, what I would say is that it depends on the specific project.
▶ 0:54:26You know, some projects might make more fiscal sense than others, and I think it is appropriate for an administration and for our elected members of Congress to continually reevaluate whether or not we are getting maximal return on our So, you do believe that it is appropriate to illegally impound and keep funds away that have made it through a legislative process if you so choose so.
▶ 0:54:51Well, I'm not here to speak on the legality of, you know, the current actions of the administration or this Congress. I'm speaking, you know, primarily from an economic perspective. My position is that for any grant that has money associated with it, for any research topic that has or is being investigated, I think it is appropriate to continually assess whether or not, you know, the allocation of those funds make sense. I mean, I will give you a concrete example of this.
▶ 0:55:19You know, for the longest period of time, there were large I'm sorry to have to cut you off cuz I only have 20 more seconds, and I can see that you don't actually want to answer my questions and you're and you're wiggling out of it, which I understand. Um, but I do recognize that there are things two things can be true at once, and and there seems to be this refusal to acknowledge, um, you know, Ms. Jackson, I don't have time to ask you a question, but you talked about your family, um, moving from the south to the north for jobs. My family did as well. They found work in the rubber facilities in Akron.
▶ 0:55:49Um, but while I know that changed the trajectory of my family, I also know that in my hometown, there are cancer clusters because of an industry that, while provided fantastic manufacturing opportunities, also currently exist health impacts due to the environment. So, two things can be true at the same time, and I believe that is what Justice 40 is attempting to address, even though, um, we've heard testimony that to the contrary. But, thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 0:56:19You'll be back. The gentle lady yields. And now, I recognize Mr. Herodopolous or Herodopolous for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity, and thank for the witnesses come by today very much. It's appreciated. And as a new member of Congress, what has really been eye-opening to me, and unfortunately, not in a positive way, is been the absolute lack of transparency when we actually go out and spend money.
▶ 0:56:42Uh, I come from the great state of Florida, where every dollar that we spend is online, not just for an elected official to look at, but every citizen, not only in Florida, but around the world, to see that this is how we spend our money. Here is the line item, and this is where we spent the money. And what was so concerning when I looked at this particular act, uh, was the fact that there's so much, uh, let's just say lack of transparency. It's the reason why Rick Scott in the Senate and myself have have created a bill called the Ledger Act, which simply puts all of this spending online.
▶ 0:57:12And like every business in America, you actually put the amount you spent, the date, the reason why you spent it, and who it went to, and the legal binding authority which allowed them to do such a thing. And so, my question about this Justice 40 model, uh, I'll I'll go to start with you, Dr. Nunes, if you don't mind, um, was what you just mentioned earlier comments from Congressman Webster about no measurable effects. You're not able to measure the success that this might have, and I thought Ms.
▶ 0:57:40Jackson brought up great point that here are folks who don't have certain items that can even plug in or let alone use the solar, and and they have this need, and yet they're spending on things that can only are irrelevant to their life. And that is a great frustration. So, Dr.
▶ 0:57:56Nuñez, if I can ask you the question, what what is a uh what was the biggest concern you ran into when you looked at this particular program, and especially as you mentioned that I really want you to expand more on this idea of no way to measure, let alone the accountability was never Uh thanks for the Thank you for the question. Well, I think what I would say is that I have two main concerns.
▶ 0:58:21The first is the fact that, you know, elements of this program force on the American people solutions that don't necessarily deliver the that we hear about. The other is the program structure omits important nuances that are critical to improving the economic mobility of Americans. So, for example, you know, my colleague Ms.
▶ 0:58:46Jackson correctly pointed out, and I think this is very important to emphasize, that the single largest predictor of economic mobility is access to a vehicle. It's access to an electric vehicle, it's access to a vehicle. Of course, you can improve, you know, things like public transit, but the challenge we have with public transit is that it levies a significantly higher opportunity cost.
▶ 0:59:09Typically, when you look at the Justice 40 initiative, if all you care about is a single metric of performance, if you say, "Well, if I take a low-income household, I give them an electric car, I reduce emissions by X amount." What you are neglecting is the fact that in In so, you are levying a very high commuting time on this household, and there is a dollar value associated with it. You know, I sort of point you back to my opening remarks, which is that there is no free lunch.
▶ 0:59:38And I think that it is important for legislators and the executive branch to be upfront with the American people when it comes to acknowledging that there is no free lunch, and when policies are passed, there will be a cost. It's a question of being upfront about what that cost actually is. Well, and if you want to expand on that, Ms. Jackson, I'd appreciate it. Um you know, and minority communities are I talk to people in minority communities every day.
▶ 1:00:06These communities that actually meet these criteria. None of them are asking for solar panels. None of them are asking for electric vehicles. None of them are asking for EV charging stations. They want lower cost of living expenses. And every time you spend money on these kinds of initiatives, it increases the cost of everything that we have.
▶ 1:00:34Um there's no no benefit to make it to giving me an extra $2 when you've raised the cost of everything that I use more. And the other thing is you know, I'm an accountant from I I can a receipt down to the penny for any account you give me in a cash account.
▶ 1:00:58I've never seen the fact that money is dispersed to these kinds of initiatives and nobody knows where they are. Well, the good news, Ms. Jackson, if I could, the reason why we created the LEADER Act is that exact reason. A ledger, I mean, you're an accountant, you get it. And and I'm proud to say there were 50 House members have sponsored that bill because people deserve to know where these dollars are being spent, and we can get the best ROI on it. Let me just with I close with this, Mr. Chairman. You know, let's be clear, this wasn't some small pilot project tucked into an agency.
▶ 1:01:26It was a sweeping inter agency initiative deployed across many federal departments. And so, with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman yields. The chair now recognize Ms. Lofgren, the ranking member, for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witnesses for being here with us and your testimony. I think and Dr.
▶ 1:01:49Allah ask you uh whether the research supports this, but I think it's been established that disadvantaged communities, whether they're uh ethnic minorities, uh urban or rural populations, or low-income communities, tend to experience more severe consequences from climate change and pollution than do wealthy communities. Does the research support that statement? Yes, it does, Ms. Lofgren.
▶ 1:02:17Cuz that that comports with my um experience as a Californian. Um thinking about this great Central Valley of California, it's not in my district, um but they have the highest childhood asthma rate in the United States in the Central Valley.
▶ 1:02:36And a large part of the cause of that uh you know, very unfortunate health situation, is emissions from I-5 uh that runs right down the valley from LA up to actually to San San Diego up to uh the Oregon border. And it's vehicles, uh including trucks and automobiles, that are causing this very adverse health impact uh for children.
▶ 1:03:05And so, I understand the testimony and people are struggling to make ends meet. I get that. But but the state is trying to reduce emissions, not to benefit, you know, individuals who would buy a electric car, but to benefit the children of the Central Valley so they won't have asthma. Is that something that this Justice40 project would take a look at, that sort of holistic thing?
▶ 1:03:31Yeah, I mean, one of the key elements of Justice40 was emphasize 40% of the benefits of that investment, right? So, when we spent money on cleaner cleaner energy infrastructure, cleaner transportation, the the metric had it continued to be implemented would have been in the billions of dollars in improved health outcomes for young people, for asthma kids with asthma and other other environmental diseases.
▶ 1:03:55So, in fact, that that focus on the on the benefits of the investment was sort of a critical piece that would allow people implementing the program to think about targeting the investment in ways that that help address not just economic inequalities, but also disparities in health outcomes.
▶ 1:04:10And You know, another thing that I I think was related to this project, I represent a community in Monterey County, Pajaro, and it is um the Pajaro River has flooded repeatedly, and it's a poor community, hard working community, primarily farm workers, and they never got any help because the way the Army Corps calculated the cost-benefit
▶ 1:04:41was about money. Um and and finally, the prior administration weighed in on that and said, "It's not just, you know, the dollar amount of your house, it's the human suffering that also has to be factored in." And so, there it's one of the worst situations in the state, but they never got anywhere until that change from the Army Corps and took into account the human suffering, repeated human suffering, as part of the factors.
▶ 1:05:11And now, having waited for more than 50 for the project, we're underway, or we were underway until the administration cut off all funding for all Army Corps projects in the state of California, I believe based on a a political decision, although I don't know that, but I can't imagine why you would just terminate every single flood control project in a state where your approval rating is about 30%.
▶ 1:05:41Um absent that kind of motivation. So, anyhow, I mean, I understand no program is perfect, but I also understand the benefit that the people in my state got by taking a look at the broad impacts of these policies, sometimes not intentional. Um you know, I don't think the Army Corps intended to disadvantage low-income communities, but that was that was the result.
▶ 1:06:07And it wasn't until we took a different look that we had a chance to bring relief to hard-working taxpayer paying people who just weren't rich. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield The gentlelady yields. The The chair now recognizes Representative Bonamici for 5 minutes. Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
▶ 1:06:34Uh the Justice 40 initiative delivered on long-overdue investments in clean energy and air and water quality and transportation to communities most burdened by the climate crisis and discriminatory policies, but it no longer exists, as we know Donald Trump eliminated it on his first day in office. Uh my first point is that I'm struggling to understand why we are spending time questioning the legacy of a program that was shut down. I submit that a more worthy topic for this subcommittee's oversight is the Trump administration's scorched-earth purge of scientific researchers.
▶ 1:07:05That being said, I I'm about a conversation I had with a woman in in Portland, Oregon a couple years ago and another conversation I had with a low-income family. Both of them did energy updates with uh credits that were provided either by the state or through the Inflation Reduction Act. They had savings on their energy bill. Uh and that brings me to the discussion about solar panels in in schools which Ms. Jackson uh mentioned. Schools save money when they have solar panels as Dr.
▶ 1:07:35uh Galoobter uh he had said testified. Uh sometimes up to millions of dollars and they can use those resources for for other educational purposes. So, I I I'm I'm baffled by the the the the point that solar panels are are are somehow or another affecting students' education, but I'm glad to see Ms. Jackson that you care about public education and I I hope you do not agree with the Trump administration's plan to shut down the Department of Education in light of your comments. So, um Dr.
▶ 1:08:02um uh one more point I wanted to make and I I agree with uh uh Ranking Member Lofgren's comments about disparities. Uh there was a study done through Portland State University uh Multnomah County where we had a significant heat dome that caused hundreds uh of lives uh a few years ago and we're seeing more extreme heat.
▶ 1:08:21Uh there was a study done that there was at least at between a 10 and a 17° difference in heat just in the city of Portland depending on the neighborhoods and there is no surprise that there's a strong correlation with race and income uh about where the hotter neighborhoods were, where there was less tree canopy. And and and that is a disparity that is really serious. So, so I want to ask first Dr.
▶ 1:08:44Nunez, did the energy upgrades that were supported under Justice 40 like microgrids and energy retrofits, did those reduce grid vulnerability near military bases and defense corridors? I think generally if you look at many of the programs, energy efficiency, weatherization, etc. I think if you look at many of these programs, they certainly do deliver benefits, but I think that's the wrong way to look at the problem.
▶ 1:09:12The question isn't whether or not there is a, you know, a delivery of benefits, it's whether or not those benefits come at a dollar value that is acceptable to the taxpayer. Well, I appreciate it and I I have some other questions, but I'll go back to Representative Lofgren's point about you have to consider the cost of pollution and the cost of inaction as well. And I submit that yes, they they they did reduce grid vulnerability around military defenses, bases, and defense corridors. Also, Dr.
▶ 1:09:42Nunes, did the Justice 40 investments help communities reduce risk from flooding, heat, and other extreme weather events? Um, I I mean, frankly, I think it is too early to determine the extent to which Justice 40 has actually delivered um on many of the promises made by the Biden administration. That's my I the policies in Justice 40 and policies like that actually do, it's called mitigation and it's a smart investment.
▶ 1:10:09We know that prevention uh is uh a lot less costly than cleaning up and rebuilding after a FEMA emergency declaration, for example. So, so Ms. Jackson, I Ms. Jackson, I I know you talked about whether local government should have a say. Um, should local governments have a say in how federal infrastructure dollars are used in their own communities? Um, yes, but I want to add something. You know what? My family worked in manufacturing and my aunt just recognized her 91st birthday.
▶ 1:10:38I have uh uh uncle that is a hundred. They all worked in these manufacturing plants. That's great. Yeah, my grandfather worked at Ford Motor Company as well. I can say that the most of the the attributes that you attribute to poor health is as of poverty, not dirty air. There's an uh I submit that there's a lot of evidence to counter that.
▶ 1:11:03There's a community near But my question and I I'm going to need to move on, should the local government have a say in how federal infrastructure dollars are used in their own community? Yes, but they should not be And Justice 40 gave a flexibility to local leaders who know their towns best. In fact, in some Republican states, the state blocked funding that their own local leaders wanted. So, I'm going to ask from Doctors Nunez and Gilliam Dr.
▶ 1:11:26Were Were job training programs under Justice 40 available in states with high unemployment and energy transition Yes, the the job training programs were actually a priority scoring mechanism for some of the grant programs. So, the programs that had higher job training got better scores on competitive grant applications. I appreciate that and I see I'm out of time and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The chairman now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning. first of all, uh Dr.
▶ 1:11:56Nunez, uh would you say that there's a clear on what is meant by environmental Um well, I would typically defer to Dr. Galupter because I think he's more of an expert on this area. I mean, my understanding of environmental No, no. Is there Is there Is there a consensus? I Clear consensus. Based on your answer, I'd say no. I would say no.
▶ 1:12:22That's what I think most people would say there's there's a lot of arguments, but there's no clear consensus on what that justifies. I would reference a book written by Democrat physicist Mr. Koonin called Unsettled with a question mark about how we've misused science that's not peer-reviewed in order to prove a point rather than to have a discussion about what benefits our society. And this goes to what we spend our money on as well. Uh when we talk about Justice 40 and where the money goes, does Does actually benefit the people it's supposed to benefit?
▶ 1:12:52When I grew up, my mom was a secretary. She didn't have her own insurance policy for her car. She didn't have her own car. So, when I bought my first 1971 Datsun 510 with 145,000 mi on it, uh it cost $1,250. Then, I had to pay for my own policy and my own gas. Imagine if I had to buy an EV car for $17,000 more and then when the battery goes dead on it, pay another $17,000, which dwarfs any transmission that you might have to replace.
▶ 1:13:22It's unaffordable for anybody who actually needs it. If you're growing up in poverty, those things are unaffordable to us people that are bus boys and short-order cooks and doing the hard labor. We cannot afford those luxuries. We just want to know I can get to work. That's what we care about. That's what that underserved community cares about. Uh I would make the case um and I'll let you, Ms. Jackson, address this.
▶ 1:13:50Could you please describe the immediate ramifications of Justice 40? And and do the benefits, quote unquote benefits, provided by Justice 40 align with the minority communities that actually are supposed to benefit from them? Or is it more along to the lines of what I was just referencing? No, it it doesn't line up. And you know, at the environment justice is really really subjective in terms of its its uh criteria.
▶ 1:14:15I live near a uh community a townhouse that has high pollution because it has a racist overpass um under the 495. It's next to an industrial site where for cleaning for the uh city pickup. The only problem is all of the people living in that townhouse are white folks and they pay $1.5 million.
▶ 1:14:40So, it's heavy gas house uh emissions, uh heavy noise pollution, but nobody cares about them because it's white people. You know, environmental justice is is the white is the green face black facing environmentalism. And I and I might point out also that it was interesting. We just mentioned LA, we've mentioned Portland, we mentioned I-5 Corridor.
▶ 1:15:04We've mentioned that we actually have more EVs now and yet the asthma continues to go up. The particulates maybe are not the only cause of this. It's a multi-factorial when you talk about the environmental impact. Ms. Jackson, given that, do you believe the initiative skirts the constitutional protections under the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment and potentially violates Civil Rights Act of I I do. You know, I think that these community you know, being poor doesn't mean you're stupid.
▶ 1:15:33It just means that you don't have resources and you didn't have access to opportunities um and and opportunities. Poor people know what they need. And they tell you what they want. And none of them are asking for solar patterns and EV charging stations. The other thing is this.
▶ 1:15:55All of these studies that say that the health is worse um are fin you know, there's other studies that say there's no difference. You know, you can say we discount the fact that people might have worse uh habits in eating food the way they take care of their lives. You know, you can put wealthy people in the same situation and somehow they're okay.
▶ 1:16:20But if you say it's black people or minorities, all of a sudden the cause is, you know, particulate matter. And I I'll also add to that as a former student body president at Morehouse School of Medicine where we studied this stuff exclusively. It was still unsettled science, multi-factorial, very hard to parse out. And I'm sure as a real professor you you'd admit that this is not an easy topic to cover. When you talk about the impact on on housing and affordable housing, 40% of all housing costs is regulation.
▶ 1:16:52This is the impact of government and its helpful nature. And that's why I say that when we when we have these discussions, I don't want it to be one-sided. I don't want it to be without peer review. As scientists, we need to be honest about the discussion cuz if we're having climate change if we're having climate change, I want to know what we can do about it and what we can't do it about it.
▶ 1:17:09When you have an entire environment with 0.04% of it carbon dioxide, 11% which is produced by all human beings, 14% which is which is contributed by by the United States, 29% of that by all of our vehicles, all of our ships, all of our planes, all of our infrastructure for transportation, you're talking about 0.000167% of the atmosphere. Let's have a scientific conversation. That's all I'm asking. With that, I yield. Our next witness I excuse me.
▶ 1:17:39I I now uh yield to Representative Rivera's uh sorry, Ribas for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to truly thank you for holding this hearing even though it's an oversight hearing on a program that no longer exists, but for me it's an opportunity uh to talk about the importance of you know, the Justice 40 initiative of environmental justice um communities for the first time as a new member from California that
▶ 1:18:09you know, I represent an environmental justice community. I grew up in my district. I wish I didn't have to think about the definition of environmental justice and whether it exists. I don't have to think about it. I have lived it.
▶ 1:18:23And my constituents continue to uh live through pollution and the burden uh of all of this uh you know, environmental injustices uh that were made that were decisions that were made years ago by elected officials on where to place landfills, where to place polluting industries. In Los Angeles, they chose my district decades ago and we are still living through that.
▶ 1:18:53Environmental justice is not just about EVs which seems like this hearing that's what it's all about. Anti just name it that then. I mean so it's about wanting clean water, clean air to breathe clean air, basic rights that everyone should have.
▶ 1:19:15And that's what the Justice 40 was about to make sure that communities that have had this burden in terms of these polluters having had toxic leaks into our soil and our air, we experience higher rates of asthma and now our communities are forced in Los Angeles to have wildfire debris against the wishes of our community without any community input.
▶ 1:19:45You know, the opportunity that Justice 40 was giving was to give a voice to the voiceless and make meaningful change in environmental outcomes. It was to ensure that disadvantaged communities like mine can access federal funding with a modest goal of ensuring that 40% of the overall benefits of certain federal programs would flow to these communities that have borne
▶ 1:20:16the brunt of pollution, not having access to clean water, and many other things. I grew up and in a community my elementary school play playground was right near major freeways. So many of the kids that I went to elementary school had asthma. Childhood asthma is a big issue in my community and it's not because we were poor. Cuz I I grew up low-income.
▶ 1:20:43I grew up with a single mother that was working two jobs to put food on the table. I don't have to just go out there and talk to low-income communities. I represent them, but I am them. I am the product of a low-income mother that was and in addition to not having not having clean air and having to deal with these environmental injustices.
▶ 1:21:09And you know, I represent many hardworking families that still go through all these environmental injustices and they're not political operatives that work on campaigns, right? They are just regular people that are trying to put food on the table for their families. And just only talking about EVs in this hearing is ignoring a lot of what Justice 40 was intended to do.
▶ 1:21:37It's so Gullapalli, I have a few ideas of why this administration immediately eliminated Justice 40 initiatives, but what are they so afraid of? I I'm I'm afraid I don't think I can speak to the motivations of this administration Ms. Reyes.
▶ 1:21:57I think the I think the it's it is regrettable that we the program was canceled before we could see some of the impacts which would have been very widespread in terms of job creation and wealth generation for the communities and also remedying some of the the challenges that you've outlined.
▶ 1:22:12There's no question that the program was engineered to try to achieve some of those goals and had it continued hopefully we would have worked hard to fix the problems and all of us would have contributed to fixing the problems through research and and people in communities through implementation to ensure the funding the really vast infrastructure spending that was committed over the last couple of years would have the greatest possible I agree and yet again, we're not going to be able to see those benefits in communities like mine um because this administration chose to immediately end a program that would have had impacts.
▶ 1:22:43Um thank you and I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. I now yield to the ranking member for closing Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you to the witnesses for spending your time with us this morning. Uh I think that we have illuminated something that is a pretty clear.
▶ 1:23:08ability to have honest conversations about the realities of the world is just something that is not a topic of And I find myself highly disappointed with the nature of this conversation and truly not addressing efficiency in If we want to help disadvantaged populations as I heard over and over again, let's get people jobs. A report came out this morning that our economy shrank. Prices are up.
▶ 1:23:38Inflation is up. But here we are not trying to figure out how to get people jobs or education or health care. We're talking about a program that no longer exists. That is not efficient nor is it wise. And this dishonest conversation about what is happening is really striking and a complete colossal total waste of time. I am the only member here from the industrial Midwest.
▶ 1:24:06We have and understand pollution, particulates, clean air and water challenges like other areas of this country do not. And the fact that there was an unwillingness to accept that two things can't be true at once let's me know that this was a sham hearing that had nothing to do besides creating political points against the previous administration. Again, the Justice 40 program does not exist.
▶ 1:24:35So, let us get back to the work of the American people in figuring out ways to lower their costs, give them a place to live, ensure that they have clean air and water, and healthy bodies, and can raise children, and live their American dream wherever it is they choose it. But, it is not going to be by criticizing and having hearings on programs that no longer exist. Mr.
▶ 1:25:02Chair, I do hope that we can talk about and use this committee to over to oversee and investigate issues of the day to make the lives of the American people better. And I am 100% committed to this. But, this hearing was not that, and I hope that we will have opportunities.
▶ 1:25:22I remain hopeful because I am a hopeful But, people deserve the American people deserve better than this, and I yield The gentle lady gentle lady yields. I now yield to myself for closing remarks. Thank you for all being here this morning. Very healthy debate, reflection on what we do as a government, what's effective, what's not, what's accountable, what's not, what's efficient, what's not. Quite frankly, we're $37 trillion in debt.
▶ 1:25:51Uh we're spending over 30% more than we bring in every year. Uh we're going to reach a crisis moment Uh we're looking at the bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicare with automatic cuts within the next two presidencies. Uh we're looking at catastrophe in being able to just do debt servicing on the debt we already owe while we continue to build more debt. Uh so, we have to be very, very accountable to our public for where we spend our money.
▶ 1:26:18And the reason that we're reflecting on this Justice 40 program is not to say that anything was ill-intended, but that we need to do Where we spend our money has to be And as the person who understands what it means to come from a single-parent family with no money and where that money's going to benefit me, getting to my job and breaking out of poverty so I can be something bigger and better, have more success, more opportunities, regardless of what your skin color is, regardless of
▶ 1:26:48what accent you might have, regardless where you may come, that's what the American dream is. As Calvin Coolidge said 100 years ago, the business of America is business. When we have jobs, when we have opportunities, when we have more jobs than we have people, it forces the minimum wage up. Why? Because everybody's clamoring for people to work for them. That's the American way. That's what we want.
▶ 1:27:12We want to provide opportunities to climb out of to be better, to have the ability to clean up our neighborhoods because we have excess in our government rather than a deficit so badly that eventually no one will have money to spend money on anything, whether it be for the poor, the rich, or the people who provide the jobs or consume them. And that's what this hearing's been Thank you so much for your time today. Safe travels to you.
▶ 1:27:41God bless America and Semper Fidelis. With that, we conclude.