“Playing God with the Weather – A Disastrous Forecast”

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                    FROM PROTECTION TO PERSECUTION:5                      EPA ENFORCEMENT GONE ROGUE6                      UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION78=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               BEFORE THE1314                SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT1516                                 OF THE1718              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM1920                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2122                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2324                             FIRST SESSION2526                               __________2728                           SEPTEMBER 16, 20252930                               __________3132                           Serial No. 119-473334                               __________3536Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform37[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3839    Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov4041                                __________4243                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4461-735 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 20254546-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4748              COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM4950                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman5152Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Robert Garcia, California, Ranking53Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member54Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of55Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia56Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts57Michael Cloud, Texas                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois58Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Ro Khanna, California59Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Kweisi Mfume, Maryland60Pete Sessions, Texas                 Shontel Brown, Ohio61Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico62Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Maxwell Frost, Florida63Pat Fallon, Texas                    Summer Lee, Pennsylvania64Byron Donalds, Florida               Greg Casar, Texas65Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Jasmine Crockett, Texas66William Timmons, South Carolina      Emily Randall, Washington67Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia68Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Yassamin Ansari, Arizona69Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Wesley Bell, Missouri70Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Lateefah Simon, California71Nick Langworthy, New York            Dave Min, California72Eric Burlison, Missouri              Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts73Eli Crane, Arizona                   Rashida Tlaib, Michigan74Brian Jack, Georgia                  Vacancy75John McGuire, Virginia76Brandon Gill, Texas7778                                 ------7980                       Mark Marin, Staff Director81                   James Rust, Deputy Staff Director82                     Mitch Benzine, General Counsel83                     Alan Brubaker, Senior Advisor84                          Alex Rankin, Counsel85      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk8687                      Contact Number: 202-225-50748889                Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director90                      Contact Number: 202-225-505191                                 ------9293                Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement9495                   Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Chairman9697Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Summer Lee, Pennsylvania, Ranking98Andy Biggs, Arizona                      Member99Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Wesley Bell, Missouri100Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Lateefah Simon, California101Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Ayanna Pressley, Massachussetts102Brian Jack, Georgia                  Vacancy103104                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S105106                              ----------107108                           OPENING STATEMENTS109110                                                                   Page111112Hon. Clay Higgins, U.S. Representative, Chairman.................     1113114Hon. Summer Lee, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member.............     3115116                               WITNESSES117118Mr. Kory Willis, Owner & Founder, PPEI Custom Tuning119Oral Statement...................................................     4120121Mr. Justin Savage, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP122Oral Statement...................................................     7123124Mr. Eric Schaeffer (Minority Witness), Founder and Executive125  Director (former), Environmental Integrity Project126Oral Statement...................................................     8127128Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.129  House of Representatives Document Repository at:130  docs.house.gov.131132                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS133134  * Letter, Coalition Letter of 81 Outside Organizations to EPA135  on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program;136  submitted by Rep. Grothman.137138  * Text of H.R. 1415--``No IRIS Act of 2025''; submitted by Rep.139  Grothman.140141  * Letter, September 23, 2025, from Eric Schaeffer; submitted by142  Rep. Lee.143144  * Letter, April 11, 2025, to DOJ-EPA re Regulatory Enforcement145  Weaponization; submitted by Rep. Higgins.146147  * Text of H.R. 3346; submitted by Rep. Higgins.148149  * Article, ``Diesel Tuners Can't Wait for Trump's EPA to Leave150  Them Alone''; submitted by Rep. Higgins.151152  * Willis Plea Agreement, ``US v. Power Performance Enterprises153  DOJ''; submitted by Rep. Lee.154155  * Article, WBUR, ``Fear and Low Morale at New England EPA156  Office''; submitted by Rep. Pressley.157158  * List of Targeted Grants; submitted by Rep. Simon.159160The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.161162                    FROM PROTECTION TO PERSECUTION:163                       EPA ENFORCEMENT GONE ROGUE164                     UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION165166                              ----------167168                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2025169170                     U.S. House of Representatives171172              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform173174                Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement175176                                                   Washington, D.C.177178    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in179room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clay Higgins180[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.181    Present: Representatives Higgins, Biggs, Perry, Lee, Simon,182and Pressley.183    Also present: Representative Grothman.184    Mr. Higgins. The Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement185will come to order.186    We welcome everyone.187    We are waiting on a couple of Members to arrive. However,188we are going to begin, respectful of our witnesses, one of whom189has a hard stop. I know we have votes scheduled at about 1:30.190So, we are going to move forward.191    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening192statement.193194OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CLAY HIGGINS REPRESENTATIVE FROM195                           LOUISIANA196197    Mr. Higgins. Today, the Subcommittee is going to hear about198the aggressive enforcement tactics employed by the199Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of200Justice to intimidate small businesses into consent agreements201and other enforcement actions.202    Today's hearing focuses on one specific issue, the overly203aggressive enforcement tactics, many of which are better suited204for hardened criminal enforcement, used by the Biden205Administration to intimidate hardworking small business owners206and set an example through regulatory terror against everyday207American entrepreneurs.208    The Clean Air Act clearly provides the EPA with criminal209enforcement authority. Like it or not, Congress granted the EPA210that authority. What is in question is whether the agency,211which has seen its enforcement program shift from prosecuting212industrial polluters to persecuting small businesses, the213question is whether or not they have fairly and consistently214applied its use of criminal authority or if enforcement actions215under any administration were hypercharged in pursuit of left-216wing political objectives under the so-called banner of217environmental justice.218    In the 1990s, Congress expanded EPA's criminal authority.219However, shortly after enactment, the EPA conceded it has220limited criminal authorities. In an internal 1993 EPA memo, EPA221enforcement personnel concluded that Congress intended criminal222responsibility of an owner or operator to be strictly limited223to, quote, ``senior management or corporate officers,'' or the224Clean Air Act (CAA) violation was a knowing and willful225magnitude of intent.226    That memo went on to state, quote, ``Automobile dealer or227repair shop tampering with automotive air emission systems228still cannot be prosecuted criminally under the CAA since the229mobile source regulations impose various compliance230certification responsibilities only on automobile manufacturers231and not on the dealers.''232    Over time, the EPA's enforcement focus has clearly shifted.233Instead of pursuing massive industrial polluters who employ234highly paid legal defense teams, EPA, under the Biden235Administration, chose to focus on mom-and-pop shops. And those236shops had limited means to argue their case against the legal237might of the Department of Justice, backed by the EPA.238    Often, EPA's enforcement actions involved raids on shops by239teams of armed EPA agents who intimidated small businesses with240threats of criminal prosecution. If achieved, these241prosecutions would deprive targeted individuals of their right242to vote, their Second Amendment rights, not to mention the243destruction of their businesses.244    As a former law enforcement professional, I question why245the EPA even has the authority to have armed agents raiding246Americans' homes and workplaces for alleged violations that are247often highly technical regulatory violations, alleged248regulatory violations, with no suggestion of any threat of harm249or violence to law enforcement.250    It is a legitimate question Americans should ask: Why are251these raids even happening in a regulatory environment? There252are plenty of other law enforcement resources at the state and253local level that, when truly appropriate, if the EPA felt that254they needed that kind of help, they can employ to help execute255a warrant.256    But what is clear is that the use of armed EPA agents is257not motivated by public safety. Rather, such heavy-handed258tactics are clearly aimed at intimidation. They have a259regulatory focus and purpose backed by a political agenda, and260they drive that message home very clearly when they hit a home261or a business at zero dark 30 and terrorize the business owners262and the families.263    For this reason, the Subcommittee has conducted a thorough264review of all regulatory agencies', quote/unquote, ``badge and265gun authority'' to determine if rogue administrative agencies266need their authorities curtailed under any administration--the267Obama administration, the Biden Administration, President268Trump's Administration.269    Regulatory authority is regulatory authority, but270terrorizing Americans is a bridge too far. I fear the EPA's271aggressive use of its criminal authority proves the adage,272quote, ``Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts273absolutely.''274    Madam Ranking Member, I would like unanimous consent to275enter a letter, dated April 11, directed--from me directed to276Hon. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the Department of277Justice, and Hon. Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the EPA.278    Without objection.279    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Lee, for the280purpose of making an opening statement.281282 OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SUMMER LEE REPRESENTATIVE283                       FROM PENNSYLVANIA284285    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.286    Enforcing our environmental laws is critical to protecting287public health and ensuring that every person in this country288has access to clean air, safe water, and healthy land. When EPA289enforces the law, children can breathe without inhalers or290drink water without lead and play outside without fear of291developing rare cancers.292    I recognize that navigating the EPA regulations is not293always straightforward, especially for small businesses, but294complexity does not make these protections any less necessary.295    Defeat devices are banned because they cause real harm,296more asthma, more respiratory disease, more premature death.297The solution to confusion is not to weaken protections but to298ensure the EPA has the staff and the resources to give299businesses the guidance they need, protecting both public300health and businesses from liability.301    But, under the Trump Administration, the EPA has abandoned302its responsibilities. Workers have been laid off. Funding has303been withheld. More than 160 corporate enforcement cases have304been dropped. And, instead of focusing on the largest305polluters, enforcement has too often relied on criminal306penalties against small players.307    At the same time, Trump has dismantled EPA's environmental308justice offices: Nearly 200 staff laid off or pushed out. In309March, EPA stopped considering environmental justice altogether310in enforcement decisions. A former EPA staffer warned that,311without those staff on the job, the air we breathe and the312water that we drink are at a greater risk from toxic pollution313that causes cancer, asthma, and lung disease.314    EPA has stopped accepting new civil rights complaints or315issuing findings of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil316Rights Act. Thirteen complaints are now in limbo, including one317over poultry waste polluting Black and indigenous communities318in North Carolina. Families living next to refineries and319highways are being told their health does not matter.320    So let us be clear: The only persecution we should be321talking about is what Black and Brown and poor families have322endured for generations, families forced to raise their kids in323the shadows of smokestacks, children that are twice as likely324to die from asthma, communities where cancer rates soar beyond325the national averages and a government that continues to turn326its back on them.327    The Trump Administration's actions are alarming and328abhorrent, but I would be remiss not to note the absurdity of329this hearing. If this Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement330were serious, we would be examining the most lawless331administration in modern history, one that is illegally332withholding congressionally appropriated funds, dismantling333Federal agencies, firing watchdogs, deploying troops into334American citizens, and withholding documents about one of the335worst child sex traffickers in history. Just outside of these336walls, Washington, D.C., is still under Federal occupation.337    But, instead, we are here having a hearing focused on the338past, talking about, quote, ``weaponized environmental339enforcement'' while the current, right now, Administration340dismantles all of our environmental protections to the341detriment of our air, our land, our water, our health and, yes,342our people.343    I yield back.344    Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields back.345    We have a Member waiving onto the Subcommittee.346    Without objection, Representative Grothman of Wisconsin is347waived onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the348witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.349    I am pleased to welcome our witnesses for today. Mr. Kory350Willis is the owner of Power Performance Enterprises,351Incorporated, or PPEI. Based in Louisiana, PPEI is a leader in352automotive performance tuning.353    Mr. Justin Savage is a global co-leader of Sidley Austin's354environmental health and safety practice and co-leads the355firm's automotive and mobility sector team.356    Mr. Eric Schaeffer is the former Executive Director of the357Environmental Integrity Project.358    We look forward to hearing what you have to say on today's359important topic. Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses360will please stand and raise their right hands.361    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are362about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but363the truth, so help you God?364    Mr. Schaeffer. I do.365    Mr. Savage. I do.366    Mr. Willis. I do.367    Mr. Higgins. Let the record show that the witnesses all368answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you may be seated.369    We appreciate you being here today, and we look forward to370your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read371your written statement and it will appear in full in the372hearing record.373    Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. As a374reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of375you when you need to speak so that it is on and the Members can376hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you377will turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow.378When the red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired and I379ask that you wrap up.380    I now recognize Mr. Kory Willis for his opening statement.381382           STATEMENT OF KORY WILLIS, OWNER & FOUNDER383384                       PPEI CUSTOM TUNING385386    Mr. Willis. Chairman Higgins, Ranking Member Lee, and387Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to388testify today. It is a privilege and an honor to be here, and389it is by the grace of God that I am able to be here today.390    My name is Kory Willis, and I own Power Performance391Enterprises, Incorporated, better known as PPEI. I love God, my392country, and my family.393    I want to share what I have experienced during the past394decade since the government started prosecuting me and my395company, culminating in a civil consent decree in 2022.396    I walked at 11 months, and I was placed on my first four-397wheeler one month later. I quickly learned the fastest way to398get from point A to point B was not walking; it was machines--399leading me to eventually start PPEI when I was 19 years old.400    PPEI started out as a company that specialized in high-401performance tuning of vehicles for racing, and interest in our402products grew as it became evident that diesel vehicles with403the original manufacturer emissions control devices were404failing.405    Regular guys like me had to choose between fixing their406cars or enjoying a vacation or dinner out. My tunes solved407their problems and, in fact, made their cars drive more408efficiently. It also took off for others who wanted to see409their everyday cars go faster.410    The journey with the EPA started on my 25th birthday,411November 3, 2015, almost ten years ago, when I received a412request for information from the EPA. We forwarded it to the413attorneys to handle for me, thinking it was a formality and414essentially not a big deal. I had no idea that EPA was making a415change in their enforcement priorities to include our industry416practice.417    In the years following that information request, my family418and I spent several million dollars in legal fees, legal and419accounting fees, and hundreds of, even thousands of hours of420staff time responding to the EPA's demands and trying to421understand EPA's position on the sales of our company's tunes.422    We tried to differentiate certain aspects of our business,423including related to military and emergency vehicles and off-424road or competition use, all of which are supposed to be not425subject to the strict Federal emission standards.426    The propaganda machine has led many to believe that427combustion engines are far more harmful than they really are.428We scrambled to try to come to agreeable terms regarding what429we could and could not sell and the appropriate penalty.430    This was a massive undertaking by our legal team and staff.431For example, one of our document productions was 44,000 pages.432At one point, during the civil consent decree negotiations, EPA433demanded tens of millions of dollars to resolve the matter. I434had nowhere near the numbers that they proposed, and for this,435we fought for years.436    In the spring of 2019, EPA and DOJ civil enforcement437attorney advised that, in short, we could either stop selling438any products or go to court. Going to court was not a viable439option, due to the cost and the stress it would have on my440entire family.441    In August 2020, family and friends' homes were all442devastated by Hurricane Laura and then pounded again by Delta443in October. My offices were demolished. We were struggling for444survival. We were fighting insurance companies to cover445damages. We were trying to figure out where we were going to446work, and our employees were displaced.447    The EPA was demanding my time while I was rescuing people448and cutting trees off the roofs of peoples' homes, literally449orchestrating 18-wheeler loads of water and other essentials at450my ripped-apart office, and we were doing this for search-and-451rescue teams also. Many of the members of these teams even452stayed at my house while I had holes in the roof.453    Our record-setting Diesel Drag Program fell apart, due to454the hurricanes and continuing demands related to the EPA455investigation and prosecution.456    People matter more than business. So, while my attorneys457were scrambling to respond to requests from the EPA for458information, I generally just tuned out the legal storm that459was building around me to focus on recovery from the hurricanes460that had devastated us.461    I never gave up on my business or my employees. I kept them462on the payroll during COVID while myself and other senior463employees donated our paychecks back to the company. I worked464with them to build our business back and all of our465livelihoods.466    And I am speaking out now because I do not want to see this467type of confusing and overbroad agency enforcement impact other468people the way it has impacted us.469    On May 2022, the consent decree was finalized. We simply470did not have the money to fight the endless resources of the471Federal Government, and the DOJ's overly burdensome requests472would have continued to plague my family and business.473    While there was so much in the consent decree that I prefer474to be different, it was not in my best interest to keep475fighting since negotiations had been going on for about seven476years. I believed then that the consent decree offered to PPEI477and me were our best option.478    I was hopeful that, despite the restrictions imposed, we479could keep PPEI afloat, allowing me to continue to keep paying480me and my staff and continue doing what I love. But the consent481decree immediately impacted PPEI, putting it at a disadvantage.482PPEI was losing money and forced to lay off employees.483    For us to get our products to market, the consent decree484required us to obtain executive orders issued by the California485Air Resources Board, or CARB. We would have to obtain a486certificate within two years or stop selling our products.487    Previously, California had regulations that we could work488with, but it is no longer that way. It will take me decades to489recover from the nightmare we have all gone through.490    I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak today.491    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Willis.492    I now recognize Mr. Savage for his opening statement.493    Mr. Savage. Good afternoon, Chairman Higgins, Ranking494Member Lee.495    Mr. Higgins. Turn your mic on.496497              STATEMENT OF JUSTIN SAVAGE, PARTNER498499                       SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP500501    Mr. Savage. There you go. Good afternoon, Chairman Higgins,502Ranking Member Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you503for the opportunity to testify today in my personal capacity.504The views I share are my own.505    My name is Justin Savage, I am a partner the law firm of506Sidley Austin, where I co-lead our Environmental Team and I co-507chair our Global Auto Group. I practiced law for 29 years,508including nearly a decade at the U.S. Department of Justice,509where I represented EPA, enforcing our Nation's environmental510laws.511    Before turning to my testimony, I wanted to mention that I512am proud to appear before your Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman,513because my daughter, Kaitlin, was born in Lake Charles, and my514wife, Amy, and I, who is here today, graduated from McNeese515State University there.516    I am here today to focus on the surge of criminal517environmental enforcement against small automotive industry518players for check engine light violations, also called on-board519diagnostics or OBD tampering, the lack of statutory authority520for these prosecutions, and the impact of this weaponization on521small businesses and individuals.522    As President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin have said,523economic prosperity and environmental stewardship are524compatible. To accomplish that mission, we are blessed with525many dedicated leaders and public servants at EPA and DOJ.526    The problem we have, is that environmental enforcement can527stray from its core mission, becoming a game of gotcha where528due process, fair notice, and proportional punishments are529thrown out the window.530    As a defense lawyer, I have seen these excesses where EPA531pursues small businesses that sell products and repairs for532diesel pickup trucks. These are folks with previously clean533records, many of whom have never dealt with EPA.534    Instead of reaching out to these small businesses to bring535them into compliance, if necessary, there has sometimes been a536resort to heavy-handed tactics, including sending in armed537agents. This happened to Jon Long, who is here today in the538hearing room. John defended our Nation as a member of the539United States Navy for 20 years. In addition to serving in the540Navy as a diesel mechanic, John had a small side business he541ran out of his home garage to repair pickup trucks.542    Jon's first contact with EPA occurred when ten armed agents543pounded on the door of his family home at dawn, wielding a544battering ram. That dawn raid on Jon's home escalated into six545felony charges under the Clean Air Act for allegedly tampering546with on-board diagnostics, or OBD systems.547    Putting that into plain English for you all, the government548charged Jon for allegedly helping six pickup truck owners turn549off their check engine lights. For decades, EPA considered this550conduct to be a civil infraction, not a Federal crime.551    EPA issued a guidance document in April 1993 during the552Clinton Aadministration stating that the Clean Air Act did not553authorize this kind of criminal liability, but EPA554reinterpreted that statute to make it a crime to turn off a555check engine light after Mr. Jon's conduct.556    We also have with us today two other victims of these kinds557of prosecutions: Josh Davis and Aaron Rudolf. Just like Jon,558they had clean records and no prior interactions with EPA. Both559grew thriving auto businesses that employed dozens in Illinois,560Florida, and North Carolina. And they give back to their561communities, with Josh serving as a Republican elected of the562Woodford County Board of Commissioners, and Aaron most recently563supporting rescue operations during Hurricane Helene.564    Yet, EPA aggressively pursued Josh and Aaron for Clean Air565Act compliance concerns over aftermarket products. Under the566Biden Administration, we saw a ninefold increase in these kinds567of baseless criminal prosecutions, often against small568businesses.569    When you are faced with the threat of a Federal criminal570prosecution, many have no choice but to take a plea rather than571risk their freedom. I was proud to defend Jon, Josh, and Aaron.572Those criminal cases should have never been brought. EPA should573not be allowed to move the legal goalpost and charge people574with novel crimes, particularly small businesses.575    Let me conclude with this: There are ample civil576enforcement authorities to address Clean Air Act compliance577concerns so we all have that clean air that we want to breathe578and protect our families.579    The problem is the compliance path. As a condition of Clean580Air Act civil settlements, EPA has frequently required581businesses, as Kory mentioned, to obtain approval from the582California Air Resources Board, which can be burdensome and583costly. Instead, EPA should consider public-private584partnerships, including voluntary certification processes for585compliance. And the rules should be clear up front.586    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.587    Mr. Higgins. We thank you, Mr. Savage.588    I now recognize Mr. Schaeffer for his opening statement.589    Let me just add before you start, sir, before you start the590clock, they are going to call votes here shortly. We are going591to play that by ear.592    Mr. Schaeffer, you are recognized.593594         STATEMENT OF ERIC SCHAEFFER (MINORITY WITNESS)595596            FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FORMER)597598                ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT599600    Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member601Lee and Members of the Committee for inviting me here.602    I led the Environmental Integrity Project for 22 years603before I retired last year. But, before that, I was director of604the Office of Civil Enforcement at EPA from 1997 to 2002.605    If you spend a few minutes online, you will see a lot of606businesses advertising products that promise to delete or607disable emission controls or to disable the monitors that608determine whether or not they are working.609    I provided an exhibit with some of those where you can see610some of those ads. Just to cite from one, it promises to611``unleash your truck's full potential with our complete full612delete bundle. This all in one kit removes your entire emission613system.''614    So, these products are sold with the promise that they are615going to remove or disable your emission controls on diesel616trucks. That is a problem, because that kind of tampering is617prohibited by the Clean Air Act, but it is also very dangerous.618    EPA has estimated that trucks that have removed their619pollution control devices released about 570,000 tons of620nitrogen oxides into the air between 2009 and 2019. Those621nitrogen oxides drive smog. You also get more diesel622particulates, which are particularly hazardous and linked to623cancer and heart disease.624    So, getting these illegal and dangerous products off the625market should not be a partisan issue. I cannot speak to the626specific cases that have been discussed today, but I do want to627make the point that the launching of this enforcement628initiative to crack down on the sale of these aftermarket629devices started under the Trump Administration in President630Trump's first term.631    There are some online rumors that suggest that enforcement632may stop altogether. I certainly hope those rumors are633unfounded.634    So, the Clean Air Act long ago required EPA to limit635tailpipe emissions. That is to control--to keep them--to keep636us from being smothered by smog and soot, which would otherwise637happen if these vehicles did not have to comply with emission638control limits.639    Those same requirements said that you had to install640monitors to make sure that those pollution controls, those on-641board systems, catalytic converters, particulate filters, were642actually working.643    You have an on-board diagnostic system that lights up when644your emission controls are faulty, and it will not turn off645until the repairs have been made. So, that is the alert that646tells you your system--your pollution control is not working647and you need to take the truck in.648    So, whether we agree the standards are too stringent or not649stringent enough, it surely makes no sense to require650manufacturers to install pollution control systems and monitors651to make sure they work but then allow companies to strip them652out as soon as diesel trucks leave the dealer's lot. But that653is happening. That is a real problem.654    It is a Federal crime to tamper with monitoring devices.655That is a position that, again, the Trump Administration took656in its first term. To its credit, it put out lots of guidance,657put out a lot of guidance when it launched the enforcement658initiative, explaining that and insisting that there were659criminal, potential criminal penalties. The same guidance660documents offered incentives for companies to come in and661voluntarily self-disclose.662    Federal Courts have actually rejected the argument that the663Clean Air Act does not apply to these aftermarket defeat664devices. Quoting--and that includes the monitoring systems that665ensure they work. Quoting from one recent decision--three666district courts have all gone the same way--the judge said,667``Nothing in the text of the Clean Air Act suggests the668statutes only apply to devices that monitor emissions. On the669contrary, the statute covers any monitoring device or method670that the Clean Air Act requires.'' That judge and others are671citing the law, not EPA policies or interpretations.672    So, as I said, you get dangerous levels of emissions when673these emission control systems are stripped out of trucks.674People who live near highways or in neighborhoods that are675crowded up against ports or constructionsites get hit with a676heavy load of these diesel particulates. They are most exposed.677They do not have the resources to move or fight back. I know it678is not fashionable to say this, but those folks are trapped in679a classics textbook case of environmental injustice.680    So, I just want to close by saying that I understand that681the emission controls required by law require maintenance, and682that can be inconvenient. But, while a few diesel truck owners683believe they may have the right to remove pollution controls684and turn off monitors, most of them are complying with the law,685and diesel trucks have gotten a lot cleaner.686    But, speaking of rights, what about the rest of us? If you687are stuck behind a diesel truck or a bunch of diesel trucks in688a traffic jam and being showered with soot, live in an689apartment next to a highway or in a city choked by smog, don't690you have the right to breathe clean air? We used to think so.691    Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions.692    Mr. Higgins. I thank the witnesses for their opening693statements. We will note for the record that the Chair was694quite generous with Mr. Schaeffer's statement, over 6 minutes.695    Consult with the Ranking Member?696    [Discussion off the record.]697    Mr. Higgins. Okay. I recognize myself for questioning for 5698minutes, and then very likely we are going to break for votes.699And I am not sure how long that will take, but we will be back700as quickly as possible.701    Mr. Willis, we are going to be careful that, you know, we702are not trying to ask you questions that you are not able to703answer, and it is my understanding that you are under some704level of restrictions on how you can talk about your case.705    And, if any of us up here ask you a question that you are706not comfortable with, I do believe you have counsel present. Is707that correct?708    Mr. Willis. That is correct.709    Mr. Higgins. Okay. So, if your counsel needs to hand you a710message or something, then we are going to allow that. And, if711you do not feel comfortable answering a question, perhaps you712can defer to Mr. Savage or Mr. Schaeffer if you feel they can713respond to one of the Members' questions.714    So, prior to--you said your first notice, your first715interaction with the EPA was a notice that you received in7162015. Prior to that, had you ever had interaction with the EPA?717Had they come by your shop and told you, indicated to you that718maybe you are violating any regulations?719    Mr. Willis. No, sir. We received the request for720information (RFI) on November 3, 2015.721    Mr. Higgins. Okay. And the request for information was722regarding your sales, and that was your first indication that723maybe the EPA was looking at you. Is that correct?724    Mr. Willis. Yes, sir.725    Mr. Higgins. Okay. And have you ever--in your business, I726ask this respectfully, did you ever have any like tax issues727with the IRS or had the Federal Government ever indicated to728you that you were doing business in a shady manner? Describe729your operations for us. Were they professional, documented? Did730you pay taxes, et cetera?731    Mr. Willis. Yes, sir. We have paid our taxes and clean732books. No issues.733    Mr. Higgins. That is my understanding. Just trying to734clarify for the American people that Mr. Willis had a squared-735away business. As far as he knew, he was following every law,736state law. Later on, I did my best to help, and we were heavily737involved. We could not find anything that he had done wrong. It738seemed like it was a targeted investigation and persecution.739    Now, I did not really want to believe that about my740government, but it seemed that way. And they began enforcing it741seems like, if you can speak to this, Mr. Willis, California742emission standards.743    Did you sell parts in California? What would happen if I744was in California and I wanted to order one of your tuning745kits?746    Mr. Willis. Our website back then and still today, if you747are in California, it does not allow full checkout.748    Mr. Higgins. Why not?749    Mr. Willis. We do not sell to California.750    Mr. Higgins. Why not?751    Mr. Willis. It is extremely difficult to do business in752California.753    Mr. Higgins. Do they have different emission standards?754    Mr. Willis. Yes, sir, CARB standards.755    Mr. Higgins. So, as a squared-away business owner, you756recognized that, and you just did not do business in757California, correct?758    Mr. Willis. Correct.759    Mr. Higgins. Did the EPA use California standards to760prosecute your civil case and your criminal case?761    Mr. Willis. Our plea agreement requires us to utilize762California standards.763    Mr. Higgins. But you did not do business in California, did764you?765    Mr. Willis. No, sir.766    Mr. Higgins. Do you now?767    Mr. Willis. We never shipped into California.768    Mr. Higgins. Have you ever?769    Mr. Willis. No, sir. We have never shipped into770California----771    Mr. Higgins. Okay.772    Mr. Willis [continuing]. Unless it got through.773    Mr. Higgins. Can you speak to how much economic impact this774had on you? Like, how much money did you end up paying to the775EPA? Can you speak to that?776    Mr. Willis. Yes, sir. It was in excess of $3.1 million.777    Mr. Higgins. Okay. How much--have you estimated778conservatively how much business you have lost over the last779decade, you and your family?780    Mr. Willis. Just the last five years on emissions compliant781products, probably around $12 million. And then, if we are782talking full racing products, probably over $100 million.783    Mr. Higgins. And can you speak to what you have paid784counsel, what you have had to pay attorneys over the last785decade?786    Mr. Willis. Yes, sir. In excess of $7 million.787    Mr. Higgins. So, you have an American family here that is788talking about losing $20 million, maybe a lot more, a squared-789away business that paid its taxes and, according to everything790he knew, followed the law. And the EPA never invited them in791and say, ``Hey, we believe you may be in violation in this792category.'' They went straight to prosecution.793    And, when the weight of the Federal Government comes upon794an American family, it is like lights out. It is very difficult795for a regular American family to respond. You just get ground796up into the gears of the Federal Government. That is what has797happened to Mr. Savage.798    I hope to ask you questions later if we have a second799round. Votes have been called, and we are going to go ahead and800declare the Committee in recess, subject to the call of the801Chair.802    [Recess.]803    Mr. Higgins. The Subcommittee is back in session.804    And I recognize Ms. Simon for 5 minutes for questioning.805    Ms. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.806    And thank you to our witnesses for coming today. This is an807important conversation. The issue surrounding the health of our808children and our families is, I know, important to all of us809and one of the reasons why the voters in my district sent me810here to Congress. So, I am excited about this conversation.811    This Administration has actively, in my office's opinion,812undermined the enforcement of laws and regulations that ensure813that we all have access to clear air, clean water, and land814that is safe to live in, regardless of our incomes and ZIP815Code.816    In March 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency817illegally terminated over 400 grants as part of this818Administration's anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)819crusade, and these grants were aimed at mitigating childhood820lead poisoning, air pollution, and health risks from heat and821wildfires.822    The EPA also canceled multiple grants related to childhood823asthma, clean drinking water, and healthy housing projects.824This included a $500,000 grant for the West Oakland--this is in825my district--Environmental Indicators Project through the826Inflation Reduction Act and a $75,000 grant for the same827organization for the Port of Oakland's transition to zero828emissions.829    Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent, sir, to enter into830the record OA list of targeted grants.831    Mr. Higgins. Without objection.832    Ms. Simon. In the months since, the EPA has nearly doubled833the number of canceled grants to 800, which has already been--834which had already been awarded and the funds obligated by the835previous administration.836    In July 2025, Capacity Collaborative, based in Oakland,837another program, had two grants terminated totaling $6 million838that were supporting leadership training for Indian/indigenous839communities in Hawaii and youth training in Alabama harmed by840environmental racism to self-advocate to protect their own841communities' health and environment.842    Housing and corporate racism have meant that the majority843of highways, power plants, waste storage, and industrial plants844have been built near low-income and communities of color. This845real reality has created health consequences for real folks in846communities throughout the Nation, not just in my district.847    Many studies, we all know, have shown that communities of848color have higher rates of asthma, especially childhood asthma,849because of access and excess pollution near their homes and850their schools.851    For example, according to the East Bay Community852Foundation, a recent study found that in West and downtown853Oakland, there are more than 70 percent residents, who are854people of color, one in two childhood asthma cases were due to855traffic-related air pollution. In nearby Oakland Hills, which856is a very affluent community, the rate to pollution is only one857in five.858    Mr. Schaeffer, how will cutting nearly 800 grants for859environmental justice exacerbate existing health disparities860for our communities' children?861    Mr. Schaeffer. Congresswoman, I think the evidence shows862that there is a disproportionate----863    Ms. Simon. I think your mic, sir.864    Mr. Schaeffer. I apologize. And I apologize for being a865little bit late returning.866    But I think the evidence shows that, as you said, so many867power plants, highways, and other major sources of pollution868are ginned up near low-income neighborhoods, often with869people--where people of color are the majority.870    Cutting these grants cuts a lifeline to them that would871have I think been very useful. And, again, these are872communities that do not have the means to hire high-priced873attorneys or have the income to move. They are stuck where they874are. And those grants were intended to help them.875    Ms. Simon. I appreciate your answer.876    Mr. Schaeffer, would you also agree that, without proper877staffing and funding for environmental justice, the878Environmental Justice Office at the EPA and its grant879recipients, that our communities are at greater risk of cancer880and asthma and lung disease and toxic pollution?881    Mr. Schaeffer. I would.882    Ms. Simon. Say more, please. I have 26 seconds.883    Mr. Schaeffer. I will. The Office of Environmental Justice884actually did not do a lot of enforcement. It had a little bit885of involvement, but mostly these were efforts to reach out to886communities who needed to be heard and needed to be helped. And887I think the loss of that office is a shame.888    Ms. Simon. I appreciate all of you for being here. Thank889you.890    And I will yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you.891    Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields.892    Mr. Grothman is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning.893    Mr. Grothman. Sure. I will try to get two big issues out of894the way. Mr. Savage, we will put it on your broad shoulders.895    In 2015, the EPA implemented new air quality control896requirements. As the result, in 2021, large portions of the897State of Wisconsin, particularly along Lake Michigan, were898redesignated from marginal to moderate under the 2015 standard.899    Despite the fact that the State of Wisconsin and our900Department of Natural Resources engaged in good-faith efforts901to reduce emissions, the EPA again reclassified Wisconsin's902nonattainment status in January 2025.903    The ozone we have along Milwaukee and along Lake Michigan904is due to pollution migrating from other states like Illinois905and Indiana. There is nothing we can do to lower the standard,906and we have already decreased ozone concentrations 22 percent907in the last 20 years. I grew up in that area. I never knew908there was any pollution problem 60 years ago.909    Given the data cited by the Wisconsin Department of Natural910Resources (DNR) and EPA show that most ozone pollution911originates south of Wisconsin, what is your take on causation912and downwind liabilities? Is it fair, and is the EPA out of913control with, kind of, this antibusiness feeling?914    And what type of scientific proof should EPA be required to915meet in demonstrating that ambient air is nonattainment--that,916I am sorry, ambient air in nonattainment is caused by in-state917sources versus transported pollution? And do you believe the918Agency has met the standard here, or have they erred by919overattributing ozone to Wisconsin's responsibility?920    Mr. Savage. First of all, thank you, Congressman, for the921thoughtful question. I want to emphasize at the outset I am922speaking here in my personal capacity. I have not worked923directly on these issues in Wisconsin, but it is an issue near924and dear to my heart. I have got some relatives up there,925including one who used to live very close to the Jelly Belly926Factory. So, I know the area pretty well up near Kenosha.927    Let me just say this: I think the good news is that both928the courts and the Administration are taking a serious look at929this. On the courts, really, these efforts on Wisconsin air930quality grew out of two things, the Biden Administration, a931rule called the good neighbor rule that imposed various932requirements on states in order to address ozone.933    The U.S. Supreme Court stayed that rule. It is no longer in934effect. Then EPA, at the tail end of the Biden Administration,935tried to reclassify, as you said, Wisconsin. The U.S. Court of936Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed that on September 9,9372025.938    You know, I understand Administrator Zeldin and EPA are939looking at your issues. And then, as a legislature, let me just940share this perspective and, again, emphasizing it is my941personal perspective.942    You know, we are blessed with incredible clean air. There943has been so much work done to this point. And, if you all ever944go to other countries, it is so much better. But, personally,945there may be some need to look at how we manage air quality946planning in this country, because of the issues you have947identified where it seems like our air quality standards are a948one-way ratchet toward perfection, because the other side of949the scale is, as you pointed out, there can be a loss of jobs.950There can be--it can make it more difficult to site areas.951    And this is a perfect example in that, when you reclassify952an area as more serious under the Clean Air Act, it can trigger953more stringent permitting, it can trigger the need to get954emissions offset. And, frankly, advising companies on where to955move in the country, it makes it more difficult to site956industrial sources.957    Mr. Grothman. Right. Things are much--they are so much958cleaner than it used to be, and still they come up with higher959and higher standards that it is even impossible for Wisconsin960to meet. Now, we are talking about impossible standards in this961evil Agency.962    I want to talk a little about the Integrated Risk963Information System (IRIS) program, which is dealing with964chemicals. And we are running out of time here. So, I am going965to say this: We want chemicals produced in this country. We do966not want all our jobs in India and China.967    From your perspective, right now, in the case of ethylene968oxide, they have set a threshold 23,000 times lower than969naturally occurring in the human body--in other words, a970ridiculous standard that nobody is going to be able to meet.971    What does it tell us about the reliability of IRIS science972and what kind of economic damage can be resulted from these973flawed assessments?974    Mr. Savage. Thank you, Congressman, for the thoughtful975question. I will just say, in my personal capacity, here are a976few thoughts. I am not a scientist, but as a lawyer, I can tell977you, IRIS is not in a Federal statute. It is not statutorily978authorized by this body. Developed outside of it, there is not979a transparent process. And, as a lawyer, it is difficult to get980the courts to review.981    The problem is, then, it becomes a foundation for very982stringent regulations through risk assessments and risk983evaluations. I understand there have been many, many technical984critiques of IRIS, including by Government Accountability985Office (GAO) and National Academy of Sciences (NAS), saying the986process is broken. Thank you.987    Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. And I hope, with our new988Administrator of EPA, we stop this antibusiness extremism that989is--you know, I mean things are so much cleaner than when I was990a kid. I cannot believe any Congressman would think we have to991tighten up the standards more. But thank you for being here and992sharing your thoughts.993    Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields.994    And, under unanimous consent, I would like to enter into995the record a bill that I have introduced entitled the996``Sovereign State Environmental Quality Assurance Act,'' which997essentially abolishes the Environmental Protection Agency.998    Without objection.999    And we have a couple of Members making their way back from1000obligations on the Floor. I am going to recognize myself out of1001order for an additional question. I will extend the same1002courtesy, of course, to the Minority.1003    Ms. Simon. I am okay now, sir.1004    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam.1005    Mr. Willis--oh, Mr. Perry has returned. If Mr. Perry is1006ready, I will recognize him for questioning.1007    Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1008    Mr. Willis, I know that--I notice that you got cut short on1009your opening remarks. So, I want to give you a minute to kind1010of conclude your thoughts from your opening.1011    Mr. Willis. Thank you.1012    Mr. Perry. Turn your mic on, sir.1013    Mr. Willis. Thank you for the time, Congressman.1014    This consent decree that we are under immediately impacted1015PPEI, putting it at a disadvantage. PPEI was losing money, and1016we were forced to lay off employees.1017    For us to get our products on the market, the consent1018decree required us to obtain an executive order issued by the1019California Air Resources Board, also known as CARB. We would1020have to obtain that certificate within two years or stop1021selling our products, regardless of who was causing the delay.1022    Previously, California had regulations and policies in1023place that we could work with. That all changed around the1024signing of the consent decree. But no one in our industry could1025have predicted the impact of those changes or what it would1026have on our day-to-day business.1027    To obtain the executive order from CARB, particular testing1028had to be performed. We had to have our software tested by an1029independent lab, SEMA Garage, at great expense. For example, it1030would cost us $22,000, right now, to get the testing on the new1031Ford diesel done, only to have to wait for CARB to act.1032    Our new products were tested. And, without fail, they1033passed SEMA's comprehensive testing regime. We complied. We1034tested. We passed, and we provided the results to CARB, but1035they have not approved a single application in well over two1036years, placing our company on the brink of collapse.1037    Thank you.1038    Mr. Perry. So, let us be clear here, Mr. Willis. First of1039all, what you should be is a poster for an American success1040story starting at the age of 16, right? And then creating a1041company with, I do not know, how many employees did you have at1042your peak before all this started? How many?1043    Mr. Willis. It was in excess of 30.1044    Mr. Perry. Okay. So, you had 30 people selling millions of1045dollars of stuff and abiding by the law. What you do not know1046is that, under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, the1047EPA has been deputized, so to speak, by the American government1048to punish people under this wide-ranging purview, which is1049defined by the bureaucrats that work at the EPA.1050    Mr. Savage, I think you can attest to this. Are you1051familiar with PM2.5?1052    Mr. Savage. Yes, Congressman.1053    Mr. Perry. So, you know that Gina McCarthy testified that1054it was dangerous to human life at any level whatsoever at the1055very moment the EPA was doing a so-called study where they were1056pumping asthmatic children in a gas chamber full of particulate1057matter. Are you familiar with that?1058    Mr. Savage. I am not.1059    Mr. Perry. Well, I am. And what I am telling you is that1060the regulations that you have to abide by are made up and based1061on things called science that are not science.1062    You talk about, you know, climate change. I know we are1063going to hear about it because all of us are guilty of1064destroying the planet and humanity, but there is no global area1065surface temperature data for over half of the planet, but yet1066they used it. Where did they get the data? The data they used1067to prevail on you with all these regulations to make you a1068criminal, where did they get the data, Mr. Willis? You do not1069know. And you know what? No one else knows either, because1070there is not any. They made it up.1071    This is your Federal Government. You grew up, found your1072passion, tried to do the right thing, hired people in your1073community that realized dreams, right? They bought cars. They1074paid for mortgages. They paid for their children's education,1075based on your employment that you created out of thin air, out1076of nothing, out of hard work and an idea.1077    And the Federal Government came, and they did not say,1078``Hey, Mr. Willis, we want to work with you here. We want to1079just make sure we are doing the right thing. Maybe you do not1080realize X, Z, and Z. Can you help us understand, and can we1081work with you to keep on hiring those people, keep on employing1082those people, keep on doing the great things you are doing,1083maybe do it a little differently?'' Even though it is all based1084on fraudulent data, by the way. Everything you are being1085accused of and being persecuted for is based on fraudulent1086data, everything.1087    But they would not even do that, would they? They1088immediately went--look, they went to the California Air1089Resources Board, not because they wanted to get the answer.1090Because they want you out of business. Because they want you1091out of business.1092    How long has it taken for you to get a response from CARB?1093    Mr. Willis. It has roughly--roughly 90 days is where we are1094in between communications with CARB.1095    Mr. Perry. Okay. So, when did this whole communication1096start?1097    Mr. Willis. It started around 2022.1098    Mr. Perry. Well, it is 2025, Mr. Willis. How many 90-day1099periods can you go through and sustain and pay your bills and1100your employees and your insurance and your taxes?1101    Mr. Willis. We are at the point of laying off employees and1102whatnot.1103    Mr. Perry. I am sorry to hear it, Mr. Willis.1104    Mr. Chairman, I yield.1105    Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields.1106    The Ranking Member, Ms. Lee, is recognized for questioning.1107    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1108    As I mentioned in my opening, EPA enforcement is crucial to1109protecting our air and our land, water, and health.1110    Mr. Schaeffer, you have spent your career in environmental1111enforcement, first as a part of the Federal Government and then1112as a watchdog to make sure that the Federal Government is doing1113its job.1114    I want to start by asking you just, you know, point-blank,1115is the EPA under the Trump Administration right now doing its1116job?1117    Mr. Schaeffer. I do not think so. And I do not think that1118is----1119    Mr. Higgins. Turn your mic on.1120    Mr. Schaeffer. I do not think so. And I think part of the1121problem is the Agency is hemorrhaging staff. It is losing a lot1122of its top technical talent and shrinking by the day. So, they1123just do not have the resources to reach the problems.1124    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I think I agree. I do not think so1125either. The Trump Administration has effectively ceased1126enforcing our environmental protection laws, leaving us1127vulnerable to pollution and a variety of other environmental1128harms.1129    But I would like to talk about the reason why we are really1130here, which is Mr. Willis' case. Mr. Willis' company, PPEI, is1131a company that sells so-called tuners or defeat devices as well1132as the tunes that help vehicle owners reprogram their cars to1133skirt Clean Air Act emissions requirement.1134    A lot of these devices and tunes are used by diesel truck1135owners who want to roll coal in protest of emission1136requirements, resulting in giant plumes of black smoke coming1137from their vehicles. I do not know about you, but I absolutely1138have no desire to breathe that in.1139    Mr. Schaeffer, you explained in your testimony that the1140first Trump Administration made it a priority to enforce the1141Clean Air Act against these companies to try to prevent this.1142In your experience, when EPA identifies something as a national1143enforcement priority, what does that typically signal about the1144scope and seriousness of the problem?1145    Mr. Schaeffer. It signals the problem is very serious. EPA1146said that. Ms. Bodine was the political appointee for the1147enforcement program. She made that clear.1148    The Agency issued a series of guidance documents, memos,1149completed a study, put out an enforcement alert, sent out1150pamphlets to try to show how dangerous this pollution was and1151how widespread the tampering and deletion of emission control1152devices was, offered an opportunity for people to come in--and1153I know that may not have reached everybody, but that was in the1154public announcement--and reiterated that deleting monitoring1155devices on board these trucks was a criminal violation.1156    Ms. Lee. Are EPA enforcement priorities generally informed1157by the current President's own priorities and policies?1158    Mr. Schaeffer. I would say, no, for the most part. I do not1159know about this Administration, but normally the EPA tries to1160operate in a steady state mode when it comes to enforcement.1161    Again, this enforcement initiative was launched under1162President Trump's--in President Trump's first term and was1163continued by the Biden Administration.1164    Ms. Lee. Thank you. Despite defeat devices being an1165enforcement priority for Trump Administration, Mr. Willis and1166my Republican colleagues have alleged that the Biden1167administration weaponized enforcement against small businesses1168like Mr. Willis', causing them to go bankrupt.1169    Now, I understand that navigating Federal regulations can1170be challenging for small business owners, but we also have to1171acknowledge the scale of the public health impact we are1172dealing with when environmental laws are not followed.1173    To understand the facts of this case, I would like to seek1174unanimous consent to enter Mr. Willis' plea agreement into the1175record. I know you are not going to take five seconds to say1176yes, right?1177    Mr. Higgins. I am not certain that that--let us talk about1178that.1179    Ms. Lee. Okay. Well, I am going to come back for those 301180seconds or so.1181    [Discussion off the record.]1182    Mr. Higgins. Without objection.1183    Ms. Lee. Thank you so much.1184    According to this agreement and the Justice Department1185documents, companies in this industry have modified hundreds of1186thousands of vehicles nationwide, resulting in millions of1187pounds of excess pollution being released into our communities.1188    Mr. Schaeffer, when we are talking about millions of pounds1189of excess pollution being released into communities on that1190scale, what are the real-world health implications, and which1191communities typically bear the greatest brunt of this kind of1192environmental harm?1193    Mr. Schaeffer. So, the primary pollutant in these cases--1194pollutants, really, there are two. One is nitrogen oxide, as I1195mentioned. That is fuel for smog formation, and smog blankets1196very widespread urban metropolitan areas, Houston, Dallas, Los1197Angeles, and also the Central Valley. You have a lot of people1198with low incomes in those areas who are--just do not have the1199representation or the resources to push back.1200    Diesel particulates are another problem linked to cancer,1201linked to heart disease. This is not fake information. Lots of1202science to support EPA's concerns in that area, and it shows a1203public health problem.1204    Ms. Lee. Thank you. I appreciate your time, and I yield1205back.1206    Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields.1207    I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record a1208media report regarding Mr. Willis' company's achievements at1209recent testings with the Chrysler Corporation, and the1210excellence of the technology that he is deploying noted by the1211manufacturer.1212    Without objection.1213    We have--one of our witnesses has a hard exit, Mr. Savage,1214at 3:30. We have a Member in the hallway, I understand, to ask1215questions.1216    Okay. Mr. Savage, thank you for being with us today, and we1217are sorry you have a hard exit, but we are going to honor that1218commitment to you. We had a long delay on the Floor, but thank1219you for being here, sir.1220    Mr. Savage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1221    Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir.1222    The Chair recognizes Ms. Pressley for 5 minutes for1223questioning.1224    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Republicans are working to1225dismantle the very protections that keep our air and water1226safe. They dismiss these--oh, I am sorry.1227    Starting over, Republicans are working to dismantle the1228very protections that keep our air and water safe, protections1229they dismiss as so-called burdens. But, when government makes1230it easier for corporations to pollute, the real burdens fall on1231the people.1232    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record1233the September 2025 article from WBUR titled ``Fear and Low1234Morale at New England EPA Office as it Loses a Quarter of its1235Staff Under Trump.''1236    Mr. Higgins. Without objection.1237    Ms. Pressley. This reporting makes clear that the mass1238firings in the EPA have destabilized our workforce and left1239communities without critical safeguards and also disrupted the1240livelihoods and lives of those who have been laid off.1241    In Boston's Chinatown, which I am proud to represent in the1242Massachusetts Seventh, families live at the intersection of two1243interstate highways. It is a vibrant neighborhood, rich in1244culture and history, but one that has been paying the price of1245pollution for generations. Study after study confirms what my1246constituents already know: Chinatown routinely has the worst1247air quality in Massachusetts because of toxic air emissions.1248    Mr. Schaeffer, what are the public health consequences for1249frontline communities when environmental protections are1250weakened?1251    Mr. Schaeffer. Increased risk of cancer, heart disease,1252asthma attacks, premature mortality from these pollutants. And1253I just, again, want to say these issues have been studied and1254studied and studied. There are areas where there is room for1255debate, and there are other areas where the evidence is really1256obvious about the hazard.1257    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Yes. Less environmental1258protections means more children with asthma, more elders with1259heart disease, and more families with preventable illnesses and1260lives cut short.1261    Parents in Boston know what it is like to watch their child1262wheeze on the way to school or to spend hours in an ER on a bad1263air quality day. Asthma alone causes 14 million missed school1264days a year nationwide, meaning our children are falling behind1265in class because of pollution in the air they breathe. And1266these burdens are not equally shared.1267    Mr. Schaeffer, what does the evidence tell us about racial1268disparities and exposure to pollution?1269    Mr. Schaeffer. I would say that, especially if you look at1270income, you do see a disparity. Pollution disproportionately1271affects low-income communities, and that is because they tend1272to be located near factories, near highway centers, near1273constructionsites, ports. And, of course, in many of those1274neighborhoods you have a majority of African-American or Latino1275or Asian-American residents.1276    Ms. Pressley. That is right. And Black children are twice1277as likely to develop asthma, because communities of color in1278Boston and across the country are disproportionately forced to1279breathe dirtier air, drink less safe water, and be subject to1280risks they did not create.1281    In Mattapan and Roxbury, two predominantly Black and Brown1282neighborhoods in my district, children are seven times more1283likely--seven--to go to the emergency room for asthma attacks1284compared to children in more affluent neighborhoods just a1285couple of miles away.1286    Now, Republicans want to strip away some of the only tools1287these communities have to hold polluters accountable when1288companies refuse to follow the law.1289    Mr. Schaeffer, how do the policies we are discussing today1290work to ensure companies account for the costs of their1291pollution?1292    Mr. Schaeffer. First of all, I want to sort of reiterate.1293We are talking about aftermarket defeat devices that are sold1294to strip out or disable emission controls in trucks. I mean,1295common sense ought to tell you that is wrong. It is wrong to do1296that. I do not know how many pamphlets or notices you need to1297read before you understand you really should not do that.1298    If you do, EPA has found nitrogen oxide emissions will be1299310 times higher than they are from a diesel truck that meets1300the standards. The particulates from diesel exhaust will be--I1301cannot remember--many times higher, at least an order of1302magnitude. The same for hydrocarbons.1303    So, you are really talking about controls of that pollution1304that meet the limits or no controls at all in a lot of these1305cases, and the impact is pretty devastating.1306    Ms. Pressley. I agree. The choice is simple: defend1307corporations who poison our air or protect the children who are1308struggling to breathe. I urge my colleagues to make the right1309choice and ensure polluters, not families, pay the price for1310their pollution. This is a matter of lives being cut short and1311futures stolen. There are up to 200,000 deaths every year from1312air pollution.1313    I yield back.1314    Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields.1315    If there are no further Members, in closing, I want to1316thank our witnesses once again for their testimony today.1317    And I yield to the Ranking Member for her closing remark.1318    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1319    Today, the Majority spent its time expressing deep concern1320about the government being too harsh on corporations that1321violate environmental law.1322    We heard, of course, somewhat sympathetic testimony about1323the burden of criminal penalties, about the need for1324proportional responses. Yet, this is the same committee that1325last week voted to vastly expand criminalization. And, in fact,1326later today, we will vote on two of those measures.1327    And I expect every member of the Majority to once again1328support these bills. The same voices lamenting government1329overreach when it comes to environmental enforcement have no1330problem expanding the incarceration system for children when it1331serves their agenda.1332    I have serious concerns about our overreliance on1333overcriminalization as a solution to social issues. I believe1334we incarcerate too many people in this country. I believe the1335criminal legal system disproportionately harms communities of1336color and people without resources. I believe we should be1337skeptical of expanding criminal penalties as a first resort.1338    But this Committee applies these principles selectively.1339When environmental enforcement protects communities from toxic1340pollution, suddenly we care about proportional punishment. When1341it is the corporations that face accountability for poisoning1342the air children breathe, suddenly criminal penalties are1343excessive. When businesses with multimillion dollar monthly1344revenues face consequences for breaking the law, suddenly we1345discover concerns about government overreach.1346    Where is the same compassion for the teenager caught with1347marijuana? Where is this concern about disproportionate1348punishment for the mother struggling with addiction? Where is1349the skepticism about criminalization when it affects people who1350do not have corporate lawyers and public relations teams? The1351answer is nowhere, because this is not really addressing1352overcriminalization in our government. It is about who deserves1353protection from government power and who does not.1354    While we debate whether corporations are being treated1355unfairly, children in overburdened communities are developing1356asthma at rates that should shock us. My community is one that1357suffers from amongst the highest in the country. While we worry1358about the burden on businesses, families are breathing air1359poisoned by devices specifically designed to bypass pollution1360controls.1361    The selective application of justice principles reveals1362everything about our priorities. Environmental crimes that harm1363entire communities get sympathy hearings. Street-level offenses1364get mandatory minimums. Corporate executives get understanding.1365Working families get prison sentences.1366    This Committee could choose to examine real Federal law1367enforcement issues, but it will not. That choice tells us who1368they believe matters and who does not. It tells us whose1369suffering counts as real injustice and whose does not. It tell1370us which crimes deserve mercy and which deserve punishment.1371    The communities breathing polluted air, like mine, deserve1372better. The children in those communities deserve a government1373that protects them, not one that protects the corporation that1374is poisoning them. They deserve the same concern this community1375shows for corporate defendants. Until every person gets the1376same consideration we have shown here today for environmental1377law breakers, our criminal legal system will remain1378fundamentally unjust.1379    I yield back.1380    Mr. Higgins. The Ranking Member yields.1381    I recognize myself for closing remarks.1382    I think it is important that we focus on the regulatory1383enforcement when it comes to what has happened to these1384Americans. Literally, the Federal Government has crushed these1385American families' lives because they were alleged to be in1386violation of some regulatory complexity.1387    Is this really the country we want to live in? We want1388tactical teams hitting American homes who are under no criminal1389investigation on alleged regulatory violations? Seriously?1390    If a grocery store or a hardware store does not follow the1391exact regulatory compliance requirements, we want the grocer1392and the hardware guy, their home hit at night? We want to grind1393them under the wheels of the Federal Government, crush their1394families. How dare they be in violation of some Federal1395regulation.1396    So, well, pollution is dangerous. They sell a lot of things1397in hardware stores that have been used for murders. They sell1398alcohol in grocery stores. Shall we have tactical teams hit1399their homes? If a gas station or a daycare center fails to1400check every box on a Federal form, shall we hit their homes1401with tactical teams? Is that the country that we want? Is this1402the country that veterans like me have served?1403    I think it is righteous for us to question this, is my1404point, without throwing out, as my mother used to say, the baby1405with the bath water. There is a place for Federal regulations,1406and there is a requirement for compliance, yes, yes. But we1407should have a Federal Government that reaches respectfully into1408the lives of the Americans we are supposed to serve and advises1409them, ``You may be out of compliance here.''1410    If your first interaction with the Federal Government1411regarding a regulatory violation, allegations of a regulatory1412violation, is a tactical team hitting your house, something is1413wrong, and we have a responsibility as a committee to look at1414that. That is what we have attempted to do today, just the1415beginning, this hearing. We have a lot more.1416    With that and without objection, I want to remind Members1417they have five legislative days within which to submit1418materials and additional written questions for the witnesses,1419which will be forwarded to the witnesses.1420    If there is no further business, without objection, the1421Subcommittee stands adjourned.1422    [Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]14231424                         [all]