[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FROM PROTECTION TO PERSECUTION:
EPA ENFORCEMENT GONE ROGUE
UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-47
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-735 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Alan Brubaker, Senior Advisor
Alex Rankin, Counsel
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement
Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Summer Lee, Pennsylvania, Ranking
Andy Biggs, Arizona Member
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Wesley Bell, Missouri
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Lateefah Simon, California
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Ayanna Pressley, Massachussetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Clay Higgins, U.S. Representative, Chairman................. 1
Hon. Summer Lee, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member............. 3
WITNESSES
Mr. Kory Willis, Owner & Founder, PPEI Custom Tuning
Oral Statement................................................... 4
Mr. Justin Savage, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Mr. Eric Schaeffer (Minority Witness), Founder and Executive
Director (former), Environmental Integrity Project
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Letter, Coalition Letter of 81 Outside Organizations to EPA
on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program;
submitted by Rep. Grothman.
* Text of H.R. 1415--``No IRIS Act of 2025''; submitted by Rep.
Grothman.
* Letter, September 23, 2025, from Eric Schaeffer; submitted by
Rep. Lee.
* Letter, April 11, 2025, to DOJ-EPA re Regulatory Enforcement
Weaponization; submitted by Rep. Higgins.
* Text of H.R. 3346; submitted by Rep. Higgins.
* Article, ``Diesel Tuners Can't Wait for Trump's EPA to Leave
Them Alone''; submitted by Rep. Higgins.
* Willis Plea Agreement, ``US v. Power Performance Enterprises
DOJ''; submitted by Rep. Lee.
* Article, WBUR, ``Fear and Low Morale at New England EPA
Office''; submitted by Rep. Pressley.
* List of Targeted Grants; submitted by Rep. Simon.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
FROM PROTECTION TO PERSECUTION:
EPA ENFORCEMENT GONE ROGUE
UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clay Higgins
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Higgins, Biggs, Perry, Lee, Simon,
and Pressley.
Also present: Representative Grothman.
Mr. Higgins. The Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement
will come to order.
We welcome everyone.
We are waiting on a couple of Members to arrive. However,
we are going to begin, respectful of our witnesses, one of whom
has a hard stop. I know we have votes scheduled at about 1:30.
So, we are going to move forward.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CLAY HIGGINS REPRESENTATIVE FROM
LOUISIANA
Mr. Higgins. Today, the Subcommittee is going to hear about
the aggressive enforcement tactics employed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
Justice to intimidate small businesses into consent agreements
and other enforcement actions.
Today's hearing focuses on one specific issue, the overly
aggressive enforcement tactics, many of which are better suited
for hardened criminal enforcement, used by the Biden
Administration to intimidate hardworking small business owners
and set an example through regulatory terror against everyday
American entrepreneurs.
The Clean Air Act clearly provides the EPA with criminal
enforcement authority. Like it or not, Congress granted the EPA
that authority. What is in question is whether the agency,
which has seen its enforcement program shift from prosecuting
industrial polluters to persecuting small businesses, the
question is whether or not they have fairly and consistently
applied its use of criminal authority or if enforcement actions
under any administration were hypercharged in pursuit of left-
wing political objectives under the so-called banner of
environmental justice.
In the 1990s, Congress expanded EPA's criminal authority.
However, shortly after enactment, the EPA conceded it has
limited criminal authorities. In an internal 1993 EPA memo, EPA
enforcement personnel concluded that Congress intended criminal
responsibility of an owner or operator to be strictly limited
to, quote, ``senior management or corporate officers,'' or the
Clean Air Act (CAA) violation was a knowing and willful
magnitude of intent.
That memo went on to state, quote, ``Automobile dealer or
repair shop tampering with automotive air emission systems
still cannot be prosecuted criminally under the CAA since the
mobile source regulations impose various compliance
certification responsibilities only on automobile manufacturers
and not on the dealers.''
Over time, the EPA's enforcement focus has clearly shifted.
Instead of pursuing massive industrial polluters who employ
highly paid legal defense teams, EPA, under the Biden
Administration, chose to focus on mom-and-pop shops. And those
shops had limited means to argue their case against the legal
might of the Department of Justice, backed by the EPA.
Often, EPA's enforcement actions involved raids on shops by
teams of armed EPA agents who intimidated small businesses with
threats of criminal prosecution. If achieved, these
prosecutions would deprive targeted individuals of their right
to vote, their Second Amendment rights, not to mention the
destruction of their businesses.
As a former law enforcement professional, I question why
the EPA even has the authority to have armed agents raiding
Americans' homes and workplaces for alleged violations that are
often highly technical regulatory violations, alleged
regulatory violations, with no suggestion of any threat of harm
or violence to law enforcement.
It is a legitimate question Americans should ask: Why are
these raids even happening in a regulatory environment? There
are plenty of other law enforcement resources at the state and
local level that, when truly appropriate, if the EPA felt that
they needed that kind of help, they can employ to help execute
a warrant.
But what is clear is that the use of armed EPA agents is
not motivated by public safety. Rather, such heavy-handed
tactics are clearly aimed at intimidation. They have a
regulatory focus and purpose backed by a political agenda, and
they drive that message home very clearly when they hit a home
or a business at zero dark 30 and terrorize the business owners
and the families.
For this reason, the Subcommittee has conducted a thorough
review of all regulatory agencies', quote/unquote, ``badge and
gun authority'' to determine if rogue administrative agencies
need their authorities curtailed under any administration--the
Obama administration, the Biden Administration, President
Trump's Administration.
Regulatory authority is regulatory authority, but
terrorizing Americans is a bridge too far. I fear the EPA's
aggressive use of its criminal authority proves the adage,
quote, ``Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.''
Madam Ranking Member, I would like unanimous consent to
enter a letter, dated April 11, directed--from me directed to
Hon. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the Department of
Justice, and Hon. Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the EPA.
Without objection.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Lee, for the
purpose of making an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SUMMER LEE REPRESENTATIVE
FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Enforcing our environmental laws is critical to protecting
public health and ensuring that every person in this country
has access to clean air, safe water, and healthy land. When EPA
enforces the law, children can breathe without inhalers or
drink water without lead and play outside without fear of
developing rare cancers.
I recognize that navigating the EPA regulations is not
always straightforward, especially for small businesses, but
complexity does not make these protections any less necessary.
Defeat devices are banned because they cause real harm,
more asthma, more respiratory disease, more premature death.
The solution to confusion is not to weaken protections but to
ensure the EPA has the staff and the resources to give
businesses the guidance they need, protecting both public
health and businesses from liability.
But, under the Trump Administration, the EPA has abandoned
its responsibilities. Workers have been laid off. Funding has
been withheld. More than 160 corporate enforcement cases have
been dropped. And, instead of focusing on the largest
polluters, enforcement has too often relied on criminal
penalties against small players.
At the same time, Trump has dismantled EPA's environmental
justice offices: Nearly 200 staff laid off or pushed out. In
March, EPA stopped considering environmental justice altogether
in enforcement decisions. A former EPA staffer warned that,
without those staff on the job, the air we breathe and the
water that we drink are at a greater risk from toxic pollution
that causes cancer, asthma, and lung disease.
EPA has stopped accepting new civil rights complaints or
issuing findings of discrimination under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act. Thirteen complaints are now in limbo, including one
over poultry waste polluting Black and indigenous communities
in North Carolina. Families living next to refineries and
highways are being told their health does not matter.
So let us be clear: The only persecution we should be
talking about is what Black and Brown and poor families have
endured for generations, families forced to raise their kids in
the shadows of smokestacks, children that are twice as likely
to die from asthma, communities where cancer rates soar beyond
the national averages and a government that continues to turn
its back on them.
The Trump Administration's actions are alarming and
abhorrent, but I would be remiss not to note the absurdity of
this hearing. If this Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement
were serious, we would be examining the most lawless
administration in modern history, one that is illegally
withholding congressionally appropriated funds, dismantling
Federal agencies, firing watchdogs, deploying troops into
American citizens, and withholding documents about one of the
worst child sex traffickers in history. Just outside of these
walls, Washington, D.C., is still under Federal occupation.
But, instead, we are here having a hearing focused on the
past, talking about, quote, ``weaponized environmental
enforcement'' while the current, right now, Administration
dismantles all of our environmental protections to the
detriment of our air, our land, our water, our health and, yes,
our people.
I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields back.
We have a Member waiving onto the Subcommittee.
Without objection, Representative Grothman of Wisconsin is
waived onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the
witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
I am pleased to welcome our witnesses for today. Mr. Kory
Willis is the owner of Power Performance Enterprises,
Incorporated, or PPEI. Based in Louisiana, PPEI is a leader in
automotive performance tuning.
Mr. Justin Savage is a global co-leader of Sidley Austin's
environmental health and safety practice and co-leads the
firm's automotive and mobility sector team.
Mr. Eric Schaeffer is the former Executive Director of the
Environmental Integrity Project.
We look forward to hearing what you have to say on today's
important topic. Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses
will please stand and raise their right hands.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Schaeffer. I do.
Mr. Savage. I do.
Mr. Willis. I do.
Mr. Higgins. Let the record show that the witnesses all
answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you may be seated.
We appreciate you being here today, and we look forward to
your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read
your written statement and it will appear in full in the
hearing record.
Please limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. As a
reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of
you when you need to speak so that it is on and the Members can
hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front of you
will turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow.
When the red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired and I
ask that you wrap up.
I now recognize Mr. Kory Willis for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF KORY WILLIS, OWNER & FOUNDER
PPEI CUSTOM TUNING
Mr. Willis. Chairman Higgins, Ranking Member Lee, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. It is a privilege and an honor to be here, and
it is by the grace of God that I am able to be here today.
My name is Kory Willis, and I own Power Performance
Enterprises, Incorporated, better known as PPEI. I love God, my
country, and my family.
I want to share what I have experienced during the past
decade since the government started prosecuting me and my
company, culminating in a civil consent decree in 2022.
I walked at 11 months, and I was placed on my first four-
wheeler one month later. I quickly learned the fastest way to
get from point A to point B was not walking; it was machines--
leading me to eventually start PPEI when I was 19 years old.
PPEI started out as a company that specialized in high-
performance tuning of vehicles for racing, and interest in our
products grew as it became evident that diesel vehicles with
the original manufacturer emissions control devices were
failing.
Regular guys like me had to choose between fixing their
cars or enjoying a vacation or dinner out. My tunes solved
their problems and, in fact, made their cars drive more
efficiently. It also took off for others who wanted to see
their everyday cars go faster.
The journey with the EPA started on my 25th birthday,
November 3, 2015, almost ten years ago, when I received a
request for information from the EPA. We forwarded it to the
attorneys to handle for me, thinking it was a formality and
essentially not a big deal. I had no idea that EPA was making a
change in their enforcement priorities to include our industry
practice.
In the years following that information request, my family
and I spent several million dollars in legal fees, legal and
accounting fees, and hundreds of, even thousands of hours of
staff time responding to the EPA's demands and trying to
understand EPA's position on the sales of our company's tunes.
We tried to differentiate certain aspects of our business,
including related to military and emergency vehicles and off-
road or competition use, all of which are supposed to be not
subject to the strict Federal emission standards.
The propaganda machine has led many to believe that
combustion engines are far more harmful than they really are.
We scrambled to try to come to agreeable terms regarding what
we could and could not sell and the appropriate penalty.
This was a massive undertaking by our legal team and staff.
For example, one of our document productions was 44,000 pages.
At one point, during the civil consent decree negotiations, EPA
demanded tens of millions of dollars to resolve the matter. I
had nowhere near the numbers that they proposed, and for this,
we fought for years.
In the spring of 2019, EPA and DOJ civil enforcement
attorney advised that, in short, we could either stop selling
any products or go to court. Going to court was not a viable
option, due to the cost and the stress it would have on my
entire family.
In August 2020, family and friends' homes were all
devastated by Hurricane Laura and then pounded again by Delta
in October. My offices were demolished. We were struggling for
survival. We were fighting insurance companies to cover
damages. We were trying to figure out where we were going to
work, and our employees were displaced.
The EPA was demanding my time while I was rescuing people
and cutting trees off the roofs of peoples' homes, literally
orchestrating 18-wheeler loads of water and other essentials at
my ripped-apart office, and we were doing this for search-and-
rescue teams also. Many of the members of these teams even
stayed at my house while I had holes in the roof.
Our record-setting Diesel Drag Program fell apart, due to
the hurricanes and continuing demands related to the EPA
investigation and prosecution.
People matter more than business. So, while my attorneys
were scrambling to respond to requests from the EPA for
information, I generally just tuned out the legal storm that
was building around me to focus on recovery from the hurricanes
that had devastated us.
I never gave up on my business or my employees. I kept them
on the payroll during COVID while myself and other senior
employees donated our paychecks back to the company. I worked
with them to build our business back and all of our
livelihoods.
And I am speaking out now because I do not want to see this
type of confusing and overbroad agency enforcement impact other
people the way it has impacted us.
On May 2022, the consent decree was finalized. We simply
did not have the money to fight the endless resources of the
Federal Government, and the DOJ's overly burdensome requests
would have continued to plague my family and business.
While there was so much in the consent decree that I prefer
to be different, it was not in my best interest to keep
fighting since negotiations had been going on for about seven
years. I believed then that the consent decree offered to PPEI
and me were our best option.
I was hopeful that, despite the restrictions imposed, we
could keep PPEI afloat, allowing me to continue to keep paying
me and my staff and continue doing what I love. But the consent
decree immediately impacted PPEI, putting it at a disadvantage.
PPEI was losing money and forced to lay off employees.
For us to get our products to market, the consent decree
required us to obtain executive orders issued by the California
Air Resources Board, or CARB. We would have to obtain a
certificate within two years or stop selling our products.
Previously, California had regulations that we could work
with, but it is no longer that way. It will take me decades to
recover from the nightmare we have all gone through.
I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak today.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Willis.
I now recognize Mr. Savage for his opening statement.
Mr. Savage. Good afternoon, Chairman Higgins, Ranking
Member Lee.
Mr. Higgins. Turn your mic on.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN SAVAGE, PARTNER
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
Mr. Savage. There you go. Good afternoon, Chairman Higgins,
Ranking Member Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today in my personal capacity.
The views I share are my own.
My name is Justin Savage, I am a partner the law firm of
Sidley Austin, where I co-lead our Environmental Team and I co-
chair our Global Auto Group. I practiced law for 29 years,
including nearly a decade at the U.S. Department of Justice,
where I represented EPA, enforcing our Nation's environmental
laws.
Before turning to my testimony, I wanted to mention that I
am proud to appear before your Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman,
because my daughter, Kaitlin, was born in Lake Charles, and my
wife, Amy, and I, who is here today, graduated from McNeese
State University there.
I am here today to focus on the surge of criminal
environmental enforcement against small automotive industry
players for check engine light violations, also called on-board
diagnostics or OBD tampering, the lack of statutory authority
for these prosecutions, and the impact of this weaponization on
small businesses and individuals.
As President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin have said,
economic prosperity and environmental stewardship are
compatible. To accomplish that mission, we are blessed with
many dedicated leaders and public servants at EPA and DOJ.
The problem we have, is that environmental enforcement can
stray from its core mission, becoming a game of gotcha where
due process, fair notice, and proportional punishments are
thrown out the window.
As a defense lawyer, I have seen these excesses where EPA
pursues small businesses that sell products and repairs for
diesel pickup trucks. These are folks with previously clean
records, many of whom have never dealt with EPA.
Instead of reaching out to these small businesses to bring
them into compliance, if necessary, there has sometimes been a
resort to heavy-handed tactics, including sending in armed
agents. This happened to Jon Long, who is here today in the
hearing room. John defended our Nation as a member of the
United States Navy for 20 years. In addition to serving in the
Navy as a diesel mechanic, John had a small side business he
ran out of his home garage to repair pickup trucks.
Jon's first contact with EPA occurred when ten armed agents
pounded on the door of his family home at dawn, wielding a
battering ram. That dawn raid on Jon's home escalated into six
felony charges under the Clean Air Act for allegedly tampering
with on-board diagnostics, or OBD systems.
Putting that into plain English for you all, the government
charged Jon for allegedly helping six pickup truck owners turn
off their check engine lights. For decades, EPA considered this
conduct to be a civil infraction, not a Federal crime.
EPA issued a guidance document in April 1993 during the
Clinton Aadministration stating that the Clean Air Act did not
authorize this kind of criminal liability, but EPA
reinterpreted that statute to make it a crime to turn off a
check engine light after Mr. Jon's conduct.
We also have with us today two other victims of these kinds
of prosecutions: Josh Davis and Aaron Rudolf. Just like Jon,
they had clean records and no prior interactions with EPA. Both
grew thriving auto businesses that employed dozens in Illinois,
Florida, and North Carolina. And they give back to their
communities, with Josh serving as a Republican elected of the
Woodford County Board of Commissioners, and Aaron most recently
supporting rescue operations during Hurricane Helene.
Yet, EPA aggressively pursued Josh and Aaron for Clean Air
Act compliance concerns over aftermarket products. Under the
Biden Administration, we saw a ninefold increase in these kinds
of baseless criminal prosecutions, often against small
businesses.
When you are faced with the threat of a Federal criminal
prosecution, many have no choice but to take a plea rather than
risk their freedom. I was proud to defend Jon, Josh, and Aaron.
Those criminal cases should have never been brought. EPA should
not be allowed to move the legal goalpost and charge people
with novel crimes, particularly small businesses.
Let me conclude with this: There are ample civil
enforcement authorities to address Clean Air Act compliance
concerns so we all have that clean air that we want to breathe
and protect our families.
The problem is the compliance path. As a condition of Clean
Air Act civil settlements, EPA has frequently required
businesses, as Kory mentioned, to obtain approval from the
California Air Resources Board, which can be burdensome and
costly. Instead, EPA should consider public-private
partnerships, including voluntary certification processes for
compliance. And the rules should be clear up front.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Higgins. We thank you, Mr. Savage.
I now recognize Mr. Schaeffer for his opening statement.
Let me just add before you start, sir, before you start the
clock, they are going to call votes here shortly. We are going
to play that by ear.
Mr. Schaeffer, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ERIC SCHAEFFER (MINORITY WITNESS)
FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FORMER)
ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT
Mr. Schaeffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Lee and Members of the Committee for inviting me here.
I led the Environmental Integrity Project for 22 years
before I retired last year. But, before that, I was director of
the Office of Civil Enforcement at EPA from 1997 to 2002.
If you spend a few minutes online, you will see a lot of
businesses advertising products that promise to delete or
disable emission controls or to disable the monitors that
determine whether or not they are working.
I provided an exhibit with some of those where you can see
some of those ads. Just to cite from one, it promises to
``unleash your truck's full potential with our complete full
delete bundle. This all in one kit removes your entire emission
system.''
So, these products are sold with the promise that they are
going to remove or disable your emission controls on diesel
trucks. That is a problem, because that kind of tampering is
prohibited by the Clean Air Act, but it is also very dangerous.
EPA has estimated that trucks that have removed their
pollution control devices released about 570,000 tons of
nitrogen oxides into the air between 2009 and 2019. Those
nitrogen oxides drive smog. You also get more diesel
particulates, which are particularly hazardous and linked to
cancer and heart disease.
So, getting these illegal and dangerous products off the
market should not be a partisan issue. I cannot speak to the
specific cases that have been discussed today, but I do want to
make the point that the launching of this enforcement
initiative to crack down on the sale of these aftermarket
devices started under the Trump Administration in President
Trump's first term.
There are some online rumors that suggest that enforcement
may stop altogether. I certainly hope those rumors are
unfounded.
So, the Clean Air Act long ago required EPA to limit
tailpipe emissions. That is to control--to keep them--to keep
us from being smothered by smog and soot, which would otherwise
happen if these vehicles did not have to comply with emission
control limits.
Those same requirements said that you had to install
monitors to make sure that those pollution controls, those on-
board systems, catalytic converters, particulate filters, were
actually working.
You have an on-board diagnostic system that lights up when
your emission controls are faulty, and it will not turn off
until the repairs have been made. So, that is the alert that
tells you your system--your pollution control is not working
and you need to take the truck in.
So, whether we agree the standards are too stringent or not
stringent enough, it surely makes no sense to require
manufacturers to install pollution control systems and monitors
to make sure they work but then allow companies to strip them
out as soon as diesel trucks leave the dealer's lot. But that
is happening. That is a real problem.
It is a Federal crime to tamper with monitoring devices.
That is a position that, again, the Trump Administration took
in its first term. To its credit, it put out lots of guidance,
put out a lot of guidance when it launched the enforcement
initiative, explaining that and insisting that there were
criminal, potential criminal penalties. The same guidance
documents offered incentives for companies to come in and
voluntarily self-disclose.
Federal Courts have actually rejected the argument that the
Clean Air Act does not apply to these aftermarket defeat
devices. Quoting--and that includes the monitoring systems that
ensure they work. Quoting from one recent decision--three
district courts have all gone the same way--the judge said,
``Nothing in the text of the Clean Air Act suggests the
statutes only apply to devices that monitor emissions. On the
contrary, the statute covers any monitoring device or method
that the Clean Air Act requires.'' That judge and others are
citing the law, not EPA policies or interpretations.
So, as I said, you get dangerous levels of emissions when
these emission control systems are stripped out of trucks.
People who live near highways or in neighborhoods that are
crowded up against ports or constructionsites get hit with a
heavy load of these diesel particulates. They are most exposed.
They do not have the resources to move or fight back. I know it
is not fashionable to say this, but those folks are trapped in
a classics textbook case of environmental injustice.
So, I just want to close by saying that I understand that
the emission controls required by law require maintenance, and
that can be inconvenient. But, while a few diesel truck owners
believe they may have the right to remove pollution controls
and turn off monitors, most of them are complying with the law,
and diesel trucks have gotten a lot cleaner.
But, speaking of rights, what about the rest of us? If you
are stuck behind a diesel truck or a bunch of diesel trucks in
a traffic jam and being showered with soot, live in an
apartment next to a highway or in a city choked by smog, don't
you have the right to breathe clean air? We used to think so.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Higgins. I thank the witnesses for their opening
statements. We will note for the record that the Chair was
quite generous with Mr. Schaeffer's statement, over 6 minutes.
Consult with the Ranking Member?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Higgins. Okay. I recognize myself for questioning for 5
minutes, and then very likely we are going to break for votes.
And I am not sure how long that will take, but we will be back
as quickly as possible.
Mr. Willis, we are going to be careful that, you know, we
are not trying to ask you questions that you are not able to
answer, and it is my understanding that you are under some
level of restrictions on how you can talk about your case.
And, if any of us up here ask you a question that you are
not comfortable with, I do believe you have counsel present. Is
that correct?
Mr. Willis. That is correct.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. So, if your counsel needs to hand you a
message or something, then we are going to allow that. And, if
you do not feel comfortable answering a question, perhaps you
can defer to Mr. Savage or Mr. Schaeffer if you feel they can
respond to one of the Members' questions.
So, prior to--you said your first notice, your first
interaction with the EPA was a notice that you received in
2015. Prior to that, had you ever had interaction with the EPA?
Had they come by your shop and told you, indicated to you that
maybe you are violating any regulations?
Mr. Willis. No, sir. We received the request for
information (RFI) on November 3, 2015.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. And the request for information was
regarding your sales, and that was your first indication that
maybe the EPA was looking at you. Is that correct?
Mr. Willis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. And have you ever--in your business, I
ask this respectfully, did you ever have any like tax issues
with the IRS or had the Federal Government ever indicated to
you that you were doing business in a shady manner? Describe
your operations for us. Were they professional, documented? Did
you pay taxes, et cetera?
Mr. Willis. Yes, sir. We have paid our taxes and clean
books. No issues.
Mr. Higgins. That is my understanding. Just trying to
clarify for the American people that Mr. Willis had a squared-
away business. As far as he knew, he was following every law,
state law. Later on, I did my best to help, and we were heavily
involved. We could not find anything that he had done wrong. It
seemed like it was a targeted investigation and persecution.
Now, I did not really want to believe that about my
government, but it seemed that way. And they began enforcing it
seems like, if you can speak to this, Mr. Willis, California
emission standards.
Did you sell parts in California? What would happen if I
was in California and I wanted to order one of your tuning
kits?
Mr. Willis. Our website back then and still today, if you
are in California, it does not allow full checkout.
Mr. Higgins. Why not?
Mr. Willis. We do not sell to California.
Mr. Higgins. Why not?
Mr. Willis. It is extremely difficult to do business in
California.
Mr. Higgins. Do they have different emission standards?
Mr. Willis. Yes, sir, CARB standards.
Mr. Higgins. So, as a squared-away business owner, you
recognized that, and you just did not do business in
California, correct?
Mr. Willis. Correct.
Mr. Higgins. Did the EPA use California standards to
prosecute your civil case and your criminal case?
Mr. Willis. Our plea agreement requires us to utilize
California standards.
Mr. Higgins. But you did not do business in California, did
you?
Mr. Willis. No, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Do you now?
Mr. Willis. We never shipped into California.
Mr. Higgins. Have you ever?
Mr. Willis. No, sir. We have never shipped into
California----
Mr. Higgins. Okay.
Mr. Willis [continuing]. Unless it got through.
Mr. Higgins. Can you speak to how much economic impact this
had on you? Like, how much money did you end up paying to the
EPA? Can you speak to that?
Mr. Willis. Yes, sir. It was in excess of $3.1 million.
Mr. Higgins. Okay. How much--have you estimated
conservatively how much business you have lost over the last
decade, you and your family?
Mr. Willis. Just the last five years on emissions compliant
products, probably around $12 million. And then, if we are
talking full racing products, probably over $100 million.
Mr. Higgins. And can you speak to what you have paid
counsel, what you have had to pay attorneys over the last
decade?
Mr. Willis. Yes, sir. In excess of $7 million.
Mr. Higgins. So, you have an American family here that is
talking about losing $20 million, maybe a lot more, a squared-
away business that paid its taxes and, according to everything
he knew, followed the law. And the EPA never invited them in
and say, ``Hey, we believe you may be in violation in this
category.'' They went straight to prosecution.
And, when the weight of the Federal Government comes upon
an American family, it is like lights out. It is very difficult
for a regular American family to respond. You just get ground
up into the gears of the Federal Government. That is what has
happened to Mr. Savage.
I hope to ask you questions later if we have a second
round. Votes have been called, and we are going to go ahead and
declare the Committee in recess, subject to the call of the
Chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Higgins. The Subcommittee is back in session.
And I recognize Ms. Simon for 5 minutes for questioning.
Ms. Simon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses for coming today. This is an
important conversation. The issue surrounding the health of our
children and our families is, I know, important to all of us
and one of the reasons why the voters in my district sent me
here to Congress. So, I am excited about this conversation.
This Administration has actively, in my office's opinion,
undermined the enforcement of laws and regulations that ensure
that we all have access to clear air, clean water, and land
that is safe to live in, regardless of our incomes and ZIP
Code.
In March 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency
illegally terminated over 400 grants as part of this
Administration's anti-Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
crusade, and these grants were aimed at mitigating childhood
lead poisoning, air pollution, and health risks from heat and
wildfires.
The EPA also canceled multiple grants related to childhood
asthma, clean drinking water, and healthy housing projects.
This included a $500,000 grant for the West Oakland--this is in
my district--Environmental Indicators Project through the
Inflation Reduction Act and a $75,000 grant for the same
organization for the Port of Oakland's transition to zero
emissions.
Mr. Chair, I ask for unanimous consent, sir, to enter into
the record OA list of targeted grants.
Mr. Higgins. Without objection.
Ms. Simon. In the months since, the EPA has nearly doubled
the number of canceled grants to 800, which has already been--
which had already been awarded and the funds obligated by the
previous administration.
In July 2025, Capacity Collaborative, based in Oakland,
another program, had two grants terminated totaling $6 million
that were supporting leadership training for Indian/indigenous
communities in Hawaii and youth training in Alabama harmed by
environmental racism to self-advocate to protect their own
communities' health and environment.
Housing and corporate racism have meant that the majority
of highways, power plants, waste storage, and industrial plants
have been built near low-income and communities of color. This
real reality has created health consequences for real folks in
communities throughout the Nation, not just in my district.
Many studies, we all know, have shown that communities of
color have higher rates of asthma, especially childhood asthma,
because of access and excess pollution near their homes and
their schools.
For example, according to the East Bay Community
Foundation, a recent study found that in West and downtown
Oakland, there are more than 70 percent residents, who are
people of color, one in two childhood asthma cases were due to
traffic-related air pollution. In nearby Oakland Hills, which
is a very affluent community, the rate to pollution is only one
in five.
Mr. Schaeffer, how will cutting nearly 800 grants for
environmental justice exacerbate existing health disparities
for our communities' children?
Mr. Schaeffer. Congresswoman, I think the evidence shows
that there is a disproportionate----
Ms. Simon. I think your mic, sir.
Mr. Schaeffer. I apologize. And I apologize for being a
little bit late returning.
But I think the evidence shows that, as you said, so many
power plants, highways, and other major sources of pollution
are ginned up near low-income neighborhoods, often with
people--where people of color are the majority.
Cutting these grants cuts a lifeline to them that would
have I think been very useful. And, again, these are
communities that do not have the means to hire high-priced
attorneys or have the income to move. They are stuck where they
are. And those grants were intended to help them.
Ms. Simon. I appreciate your answer.
Mr. Schaeffer, would you also agree that, without proper
staffing and funding for environmental justice, the
Environmental Justice Office at the EPA and its grant
recipients, that our communities are at greater risk of cancer
and asthma and lung disease and toxic pollution?
Mr. Schaeffer. I would.
Ms. Simon. Say more, please. I have 26 seconds.
Mr. Schaeffer. I will. The Office of Environmental Justice
actually did not do a lot of enforcement. It had a little bit
of involvement, but mostly these were efforts to reach out to
communities who needed to be heard and needed to be helped. And
I think the loss of that office is a shame.
Ms. Simon. I appreciate all of you for being here. Thank
you.
And I will yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields.
Mr. Grothman is recognized for 5 minutes for questioning.
Mr. Grothman. Sure. I will try to get two big issues out of
the way. Mr. Savage, we will put it on your broad shoulders.
In 2015, the EPA implemented new air quality control
requirements. As the result, in 2021, large portions of the
State of Wisconsin, particularly along Lake Michigan, were
redesignated from marginal to moderate under the 2015 standard.
Despite the fact that the State of Wisconsin and our
Department of Natural Resources engaged in good-faith efforts
to reduce emissions, the EPA again reclassified Wisconsin's
nonattainment status in January 2025.
The ozone we have along Milwaukee and along Lake Michigan
is due to pollution migrating from other states like Illinois
and Indiana. There is nothing we can do to lower the standard,
and we have already decreased ozone concentrations 22 percent
in the last 20 years. I grew up in that area. I never knew
there was any pollution problem 60 years ago.
Given the data cited by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and EPA show that most ozone pollution
originates south of Wisconsin, what is your take on causation
and downwind liabilities? Is it fair, and is the EPA out of
control with, kind of, this antibusiness feeling?
And what type of scientific proof should EPA be required to
meet in demonstrating that ambient air is nonattainment--that,
I am sorry, ambient air in nonattainment is caused by in-state
sources versus transported pollution? And do you believe the
Agency has met the standard here, or have they erred by
overattributing ozone to Wisconsin's responsibility?
Mr. Savage. First of all, thank you, Congressman, for the
thoughtful question. I want to emphasize at the outset I am
speaking here in my personal capacity. I have not worked
directly on these issues in Wisconsin, but it is an issue near
and dear to my heart. I have got some relatives up there,
including one who used to live very close to the Jelly Belly
Factory. So, I know the area pretty well up near Kenosha.
Let me just say this: I think the good news is that both
the courts and the Administration are taking a serious look at
this. On the courts, really, these efforts on Wisconsin air
quality grew out of two things, the Biden Administration, a
rule called the good neighbor rule that imposed various
requirements on states in order to address ozone.
The U.S. Supreme Court stayed that rule. It is no longer in
effect. Then EPA, at the tail end of the Biden Administration,
tried to reclassify, as you said, Wisconsin. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stayed that on September 9,
2025.
You know, I understand Administrator Zeldin and EPA are
looking at your issues. And then, as a legislature, let me just
share this perspective and, again, emphasizing it is my
personal perspective.
You know, we are blessed with incredible clean air. There
has been so much work done to this point. And, if you all ever
go to other countries, it is so much better. But, personally,
there may be some need to look at how we manage air quality
planning in this country, because of the issues you have
identified where it seems like our air quality standards are a
one-way ratchet toward perfection, because the other side of
the scale is, as you pointed out, there can be a loss of jobs.
There can be--it can make it more difficult to site areas.
And this is a perfect example in that, when you reclassify
an area as more serious under the Clean Air Act, it can trigger
more stringent permitting, it can trigger the need to get
emissions offset. And, frankly, advising companies on where to
move in the country, it makes it more difficult to site
industrial sources.
Mr. Grothman. Right. Things are much--they are so much
cleaner than it used to be, and still they come up with higher
and higher standards that it is even impossible for Wisconsin
to meet. Now, we are talking about impossible standards in this
evil Agency.
I want to talk a little about the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) program, which is dealing with
chemicals. And we are running out of time here. So, I am going
to say this: We want chemicals produced in this country. We do
not want all our jobs in India and China.
From your perspective, right now, in the case of ethylene
oxide, they have set a threshold 23,000 times lower than
naturally occurring in the human body--in other words, a
ridiculous standard that nobody is going to be able to meet.
What does it tell us about the reliability of IRIS science
and what kind of economic damage can be resulted from these
flawed assessments?
Mr. Savage. Thank you, Congressman, for the thoughtful
question. I will just say, in my personal capacity, here are a
few thoughts. I am not a scientist, but as a lawyer, I can tell
you, IRIS is not in a Federal statute. It is not statutorily
authorized by this body. Developed outside of it, there is not
a transparent process. And, as a lawyer, it is difficult to get
the courts to review.
The problem is, then, it becomes a foundation for very
stringent regulations through risk assessments and risk
evaluations. I understand there have been many, many technical
critiques of IRIS, including by Government Accountability
Office (GAO) and National Academy of Sciences (NAS), saying the
process is broken. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. And I hope, with our new
Administrator of EPA, we stop this antibusiness extremism that
is--you know, I mean things are so much cleaner than when I was
a kid. I cannot believe any Congressman would think we have to
tighten up the standards more. But thank you for being here and
sharing your thoughts.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields.
And, under unanimous consent, I would like to enter into
the record a bill that I have introduced entitled the
``Sovereign State Environmental Quality Assurance Act,'' which
essentially abolishes the Environmental Protection Agency.
Without objection.
And we have a couple of Members making their way back from
obligations on the Floor. I am going to recognize myself out of
order for an additional question. I will extend the same
courtesy, of course, to the Minority.
Ms. Simon. I am okay now, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam.
Mr. Willis--oh, Mr. Perry has returned. If Mr. Perry is
ready, I will recognize him for questioning.
Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Willis, I know that--I notice that you got cut short on
your opening remarks. So, I want to give you a minute to kind
of conclude your thoughts from your opening.
Mr. Willis. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. Turn your mic on, sir.
Mr. Willis. Thank you for the time, Congressman.
This consent decree that we are under immediately impacted
PPEI, putting it at a disadvantage. PPEI was losing money, and
we were forced to lay off employees.
For us to get our products on the market, the consent
decree required us to obtain an executive order issued by the
California Air Resources Board, also known as CARB. We would
have to obtain that certificate within two years or stop
selling our products, regardless of who was causing the delay.
Previously, California had regulations and policies in
place that we could work with. That all changed around the
signing of the consent decree. But no one in our industry could
have predicted the impact of those changes or what it would
have on our day-to-day business.
To obtain the executive order from CARB, particular testing
had to be performed. We had to have our software tested by an
independent lab, SEMA Garage, at great expense. For example, it
would cost us $22,000, right now, to get the testing on the new
Ford diesel done, only to have to wait for CARB to act.
Our new products were tested. And, without fail, they
passed SEMA's comprehensive testing regime. We complied. We
tested. We passed, and we provided the results to CARB, but
they have not approved a single application in well over two
years, placing our company on the brink of collapse.
Thank you.
Mr. Perry. So, let us be clear here, Mr. Willis. First of
all, what you should be is a poster for an American success
story starting at the age of 16, right? And then creating a
company with, I do not know, how many employees did you have at
your peak before all this started? How many?
Mr. Willis. It was in excess of 30.
Mr. Perry. Okay. So, you had 30 people selling millions of
dollars of stuff and abiding by the law. What you do not know
is that, under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, the
EPA has been deputized, so to speak, by the American government
to punish people under this wide-ranging purview, which is
defined by the bureaucrats that work at the EPA.
Mr. Savage, I think you can attest to this. Are you
familiar with PM2.5?
Mr. Savage. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Perry. So, you know that Gina McCarthy testified that
it was dangerous to human life at any level whatsoever at the
very moment the EPA was doing a so-called study where they were
pumping asthmatic children in a gas chamber full of particulate
matter. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Savage. I am not.
Mr. Perry. Well, I am. And what I am telling you is that
the regulations that you have to abide by are made up and based
on things called science that are not science.
You talk about, you know, climate change. I know we are
going to hear about it because all of us are guilty of
destroying the planet and humanity, but there is no global area
surface temperature data for over half of the planet, but yet
they used it. Where did they get the data? The data they used
to prevail on you with all these regulations to make you a
criminal, where did they get the data, Mr. Willis? You do not
know. And you know what? No one else knows either, because
there is not any. They made it up.
This is your Federal Government. You grew up, found your
passion, tried to do the right thing, hired people in your
community that realized dreams, right? They bought cars. They
paid for mortgages. They paid for their children's education,
based on your employment that you created out of thin air, out
of nothing, out of hard work and an idea.
And the Federal Government came, and they did not say,
``Hey, Mr. Willis, we want to work with you here. We want to
just make sure we are doing the right thing. Maybe you do not
realize X, Z, and Z. Can you help us understand, and can we
work with you to keep on hiring those people, keep on employing
those people, keep on doing the great things you are doing,
maybe do it a little differently?'' Even though it is all based
on fraudulent data, by the way. Everything you are being
accused of and being persecuted for is based on fraudulent
data, everything.
But they would not even do that, would they? They
immediately went--look, they went to the California Air
Resources Board, not because they wanted to get the answer.
Because they want you out of business. Because they want you
out of business.
How long has it taken for you to get a response from CARB?
Mr. Willis. It has roughly--roughly 90 days is where we are
in between communications with CARB.
Mr. Perry. Okay. So, when did this whole communication
start?
Mr. Willis. It started around 2022.
Mr. Perry. Well, it is 2025, Mr. Willis. How many 90-day
periods can you go through and sustain and pay your bills and
your employees and your insurance and your taxes?
Mr. Willis. We are at the point of laying off employees and
whatnot.
Mr. Perry. I am sorry to hear it, Mr. Willis.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Higgins. The gentleman yields.
The Ranking Member, Ms. Lee, is recognized for questioning.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned in my opening, EPA enforcement is crucial to
protecting our air and our land, water, and health.
Mr. Schaeffer, you have spent your career in environmental
enforcement, first as a part of the Federal Government and then
as a watchdog to make sure that the Federal Government is doing
its job.
I want to start by asking you just, you know, point-blank,
is the EPA under the Trump Administration right now doing its
job?
Mr. Schaeffer. I do not think so. And I do not think that
is----
Mr. Higgins. Turn your mic on.
Mr. Schaeffer. I do not think so. And I think part of the
problem is the Agency is hemorrhaging staff. It is losing a lot
of its top technical talent and shrinking by the day. So, they
just do not have the resources to reach the problems.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I think I agree. I do not think so
either. The Trump Administration has effectively ceased
enforcing our environmental protection laws, leaving us
vulnerable to pollution and a variety of other environmental
harms.
But I would like to talk about the reason why we are really
here, which is Mr. Willis' case. Mr. Willis' company, PPEI, is
a company that sells so-called tuners or defeat devices as well
as the tunes that help vehicle owners reprogram their cars to
skirt Clean Air Act emissions requirement.
A lot of these devices and tunes are used by diesel truck
owners who want to roll coal in protest of emission
requirements, resulting in giant plumes of black smoke coming
from their vehicles. I do not know about you, but I absolutely
have no desire to breathe that in.
Mr. Schaeffer, you explained in your testimony that the
first Trump Administration made it a priority to enforce the
Clean Air Act against these companies to try to prevent this.
In your experience, when EPA identifies something as a national
enforcement priority, what does that typically signal about the
scope and seriousness of the problem?
Mr. Schaeffer. It signals the problem is very serious. EPA
said that. Ms. Bodine was the political appointee for the
enforcement program. She made that clear.
The Agency issued a series of guidance documents, memos,
completed a study, put out an enforcement alert, sent out
pamphlets to try to show how dangerous this pollution was and
how widespread the tampering and deletion of emission control
devices was, offered an opportunity for people to come in--and
I know that may not have reached everybody, but that was in the
public announcement--and reiterated that deleting monitoring
devices on board these trucks was a criminal violation.
Ms. Lee. Are EPA enforcement priorities generally informed
by the current President's own priorities and policies?
Mr. Schaeffer. I would say, no, for the most part. I do not
know about this Administration, but normally the EPA tries to
operate in a steady state mode when it comes to enforcement.
Again, this enforcement initiative was launched under
President Trump's--in President Trump's first term and was
continued by the Biden Administration.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Despite defeat devices being an
enforcement priority for Trump Administration, Mr. Willis and
my Republican colleagues have alleged that the Biden
administration weaponized enforcement against small businesses
like Mr. Willis', causing them to go bankrupt.
Now, I understand that navigating Federal regulations can
be challenging for small business owners, but we also have to
acknowledge the scale of the public health impact we are
dealing with when environmental laws are not followed.
To understand the facts of this case, I would like to seek
unanimous consent to enter Mr. Willis' plea agreement into the
record. I know you are not going to take five seconds to say
yes, right?
Mr. Higgins. I am not certain that that--let us talk about
that.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Well, I am going to come back for those 30
seconds or so.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Higgins. Without objection.
Ms. Lee. Thank you so much.
According to this agreement and the Justice Department
documents, companies in this industry have modified hundreds of
thousands of vehicles nationwide, resulting in millions of
pounds of excess pollution being released into our communities.
Mr. Schaeffer, when we are talking about millions of pounds
of excess pollution being released into communities on that
scale, what are the real-world health implications, and which
communities typically bear the greatest brunt of this kind of
environmental harm?
Mr. Schaeffer. So, the primary pollutant in these cases--
pollutants, really, there are two. One is nitrogen oxide, as I
mentioned. That is fuel for smog formation, and smog blankets
very widespread urban metropolitan areas, Houston, Dallas, Los
Angeles, and also the Central Valley. You have a lot of people
with low incomes in those areas who are--just do not have the
representation or the resources to push back.
Diesel particulates are another problem linked to cancer,
linked to heart disease. This is not fake information. Lots of
science to support EPA's concerns in that area, and it shows a
public health problem.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I appreciate your time, and I yield
back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields.
I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record a
media report regarding Mr. Willis' company's achievements at
recent testings with the Chrysler Corporation, and the
excellence of the technology that he is deploying noted by the
manufacturer.
Without objection.
We have--one of our witnesses has a hard exit, Mr. Savage,
at 3:30. We have a Member in the hallway, I understand, to ask
questions.
Okay. Mr. Savage, thank you for being with us today, and we
are sorry you have a hard exit, but we are going to honor that
commitment to you. We had a long delay on the Floor, but thank
you for being here, sir.
Mr. Savage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Pressley for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Republicans are working to
dismantle the very protections that keep our air and water
safe. They dismiss these--oh, I am sorry.
Starting over, Republicans are working to dismantle the
very protections that keep our air and water safe, protections
they dismiss as so-called burdens. But, when government makes
it easier for corporations to pollute, the real burdens fall on
the people.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
the September 2025 article from WBUR titled ``Fear and Low
Morale at New England EPA Office as it Loses a Quarter of its
Staff Under Trump.''
Mr. Higgins. Without objection.
Ms. Pressley. This reporting makes clear that the mass
firings in the EPA have destabilized our workforce and left
communities without critical safeguards and also disrupted the
livelihoods and lives of those who have been laid off.
In Boston's Chinatown, which I am proud to represent in the
Massachusetts Seventh, families live at the intersection of two
interstate highways. It is a vibrant neighborhood, rich in
culture and history, but one that has been paying the price of
pollution for generations. Study after study confirms what my
constituents already know: Chinatown routinely has the worst
air quality in Massachusetts because of toxic air emissions.
Mr. Schaeffer, what are the public health consequences for
frontline communities when environmental protections are
weakened?
Mr. Schaeffer. Increased risk of cancer, heart disease,
asthma attacks, premature mortality from these pollutants. And
I just, again, want to say these issues have been studied and
studied and studied. There are areas where there is room for
debate, and there are other areas where the evidence is really
obvious about the hazard.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. Yes. Less environmental
protections means more children with asthma, more elders with
heart disease, and more families with preventable illnesses and
lives cut short.
Parents in Boston know what it is like to watch their child
wheeze on the way to school or to spend hours in an ER on a bad
air quality day. Asthma alone causes 14 million missed school
days a year nationwide, meaning our children are falling behind
in class because of pollution in the air they breathe. And
these burdens are not equally shared.
Mr. Schaeffer, what does the evidence tell us about racial
disparities and exposure to pollution?
Mr. Schaeffer. I would say that, especially if you look at
income, you do see a disparity. Pollution disproportionately
affects low-income communities, and that is because they tend
to be located near factories, near highway centers, near
constructionsites, ports. And, of course, in many of those
neighborhoods you have a majority of African-American or Latino
or Asian-American residents.
Ms. Pressley. That is right. And Black children are twice
as likely to develop asthma, because communities of color in
Boston and across the country are disproportionately forced to
breathe dirtier air, drink less safe water, and be subject to
risks they did not create.
In Mattapan and Roxbury, two predominantly Black and Brown
neighborhoods in my district, children are seven times more
likely--seven--to go to the emergency room for asthma attacks
compared to children in more affluent neighborhoods just a
couple of miles away.
Now, Republicans want to strip away some of the only tools
these communities have to hold polluters accountable when
companies refuse to follow the law.
Mr. Schaeffer, how do the policies we are discussing today
work to ensure companies account for the costs of their
pollution?
Mr. Schaeffer. First of all, I want to sort of reiterate.
We are talking about aftermarket defeat devices that are sold
to strip out or disable emission controls in trucks. I mean,
common sense ought to tell you that is wrong. It is wrong to do
that. I do not know how many pamphlets or notices you need to
read before you understand you really should not do that.
If you do, EPA has found nitrogen oxide emissions will be
310 times higher than they are from a diesel truck that meets
the standards. The particulates from diesel exhaust will be--I
cannot remember--many times higher, at least an order of
magnitude. The same for hydrocarbons.
So, you are really talking about controls of that pollution
that meet the limits or no controls at all in a lot of these
cases, and the impact is pretty devastating.
Ms. Pressley. I agree. The choice is simple: defend
corporations who poison our air or protect the children who are
struggling to breathe. I urge my colleagues to make the right
choice and ensure polluters, not families, pay the price for
their pollution. This is a matter of lives being cut short and
futures stolen. There are up to 200,000 deaths every year from
air pollution.
I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The gentlelady yields.
If there are no further Members, in closing, I want to
thank our witnesses once again for their testimony today.
And I yield to the Ranking Member for her closing remark.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, the Majority spent its time expressing deep concern
about the government being too harsh on corporations that
violate environmental law.
We heard, of course, somewhat sympathetic testimony about
the burden of criminal penalties, about the need for
proportional responses. Yet, this is the same committee that
last week voted to vastly expand criminalization. And, in fact,
later today, we will vote on two of those measures.
And I expect every member of the Majority to once again
support these bills. The same voices lamenting government
overreach when it comes to environmental enforcement have no
problem expanding the incarceration system for children when it
serves their agenda.
I have serious concerns about our overreliance on
overcriminalization as a solution to social issues. I believe
we incarcerate too many people in this country. I believe the
criminal legal system disproportionately harms communities of
color and people without resources. I believe we should be
skeptical of expanding criminal penalties as a first resort.
But this Committee applies these principles selectively.
When environmental enforcement protects communities from toxic
pollution, suddenly we care about proportional punishment. When
it is the corporations that face accountability for poisoning
the air children breathe, suddenly criminal penalties are
excessive. When businesses with multimillion dollar monthly
revenues face consequences for breaking the law, suddenly we
discover concerns about government overreach.
Where is the same compassion for the teenager caught with
marijuana? Where is this concern about disproportionate
punishment for the mother struggling with addiction? Where is
the skepticism about criminalization when it affects people who
do not have corporate lawyers and public relations teams? The
answer is nowhere, because this is not really addressing
overcriminalization in our government. It is about who deserves
protection from government power and who does not.
While we debate whether corporations are being treated
unfairly, children in overburdened communities are developing
asthma at rates that should shock us. My community is one that
suffers from amongst the highest in the country. While we worry
about the burden on businesses, families are breathing air
poisoned by devices specifically designed to bypass pollution
controls.
The selective application of justice principles reveals
everything about our priorities. Environmental crimes that harm
entire communities get sympathy hearings. Street-level offenses
get mandatory minimums. Corporate executives get understanding.
Working families get prison sentences.
This Committee could choose to examine real Federal law
enforcement issues, but it will not. That choice tells us who
they believe matters and who does not. It tells us whose
suffering counts as real injustice and whose does not. It tell
us which crimes deserve mercy and which deserve punishment.
The communities breathing polluted air, like mine, deserve
better. The children in those communities deserve a government
that protects them, not one that protects the corporation that
is poisoning them. They deserve the same concern this community
shows for corporate defendants. Until every person gets the
same consideration we have shown here today for environmental
law breakers, our criminal legal system will remain
fundamentally unjust.
I yield back.
Mr. Higgins. The Ranking Member yields.
I recognize myself for closing remarks.
I think it is important that we focus on the regulatory
enforcement when it comes to what has happened to these
Americans. Literally, the Federal Government has crushed these
American families' lives because they were alleged to be in
violation of some regulatory complexity.
Is this really the country we want to live in? We want
tactical teams hitting American homes who are under no criminal
investigation on alleged regulatory violations? Seriously?
If a grocery store or a hardware store does not follow the
exact regulatory compliance requirements, we want the grocer
and the hardware guy, their home hit at night? We want to grind
them under the wheels of the Federal Government, crush their
families. How dare they be in violation of some Federal
regulation.
So, well, pollution is dangerous. They sell a lot of things
in hardware stores that have been used for murders. They sell
alcohol in grocery stores. Shall we have tactical teams hit
their homes? If a gas station or a daycare center fails to
check every box on a Federal form, shall we hit their homes
with tactical teams? Is that the country that we want? Is this
the country that veterans like me have served?
I think it is righteous for us to question this, is my
point, without throwing out, as my mother used to say, the baby
with the bath water. There is a place for Federal regulations,
and there is a requirement for compliance, yes, yes. But we
should have a Federal Government that reaches respectfully into
the lives of the Americans we are supposed to serve and advises
them, ``You may be out of compliance here.''
If your first interaction with the Federal Government
regarding a regulatory violation, allegations of a regulatory
violation, is a tactical team hitting your house, something is
wrong, and we have a responsibility as a committee to look at
that. That is what we have attempted to do today, just the
beginning, this hearing. We have a lot more.
With that and without objection, I want to remind Members
they have five legislative days within which to submit
materials and additional written questions for the witnesses,
which will be forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]