▶ 0:11:25>> 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're going to begin respectful of our witnesses. Uh, one of whom has a hard stop. I know we have votes scheduled at about 130, so we're going to move forward.
▶ 0:11:51I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening statement. Today. The subcommittee is going to hear about the aggressive enforcement tactics employed by the environmental protection agency and the department of justice to intimidate small businesses into consent agreements and other enforcement actions.
▶ 0:12:13Today's hearings 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.
▶ 0:12:39The 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.
▶ 0:13:04The question is whether or not they have fairly and consistently applied its use of criminal authority or enforcement actions under any administrations were hyper charged in pursuit of left wing political objectives under the so-called banner of environmental justice. In the 1990s, congress expanded the epa's criminal authority.
▶ 0:13:31However, 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.
▶ 0:13:58Violation was of 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
▶ 0:14:29Only 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.
▶ 0:14:53And with the 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 involve raids on shops by teams of armed epa agents who intimidated small businesses with threats of criminal prosecution.
▶ 0:15:21If achieved, these prosecutions would deprive targeted individuals of their right to vote. Their second amendment rights. Not to mention the destruction of their businesses.
▶ 0:15:36As 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
▶ 0:16:06Violence to law enforcement. So the 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 could employ to help execute a warrant.
▶ 0:16:29But 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, 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 in the at zero dark
▶ 0:17:0130. And terrorize a 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. Obama administration, the biden administration. President trump's administration.
▶ 0:17:33Regulatory authority is regulatory authority for 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.
▶ 0:17:52Madam ranking member, I would like unanimous consent to enter a letter dated april the 11th directed from me, directed to honorable pam bondi, the attorney general, department of justice, and the honorable lee zeldin, administrator of the epa. Without objection, I now recognize the ranking member, miss lee, for the purpose of making an opening statement.
▶ 0:18:23>> 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 isn't always straightforward, especially for small businesses.
▶ 0:18:52But complexity does not make these protections any less necessary. Defeat devices 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.
▶ 0:19:22Workers 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 the epa's environmental justice offices. Nearly 200 staff laid off or pushed out. In march, epa stopped considering environmental justice all together in enforcement decisions.
▶ 0:19:49A 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 stood has stopped accepting new civil rights complaints or issuing findings of discrimination under title six of the civil rights act. 13 complaints are now in limbo, including one over poultry waste polluting black and indigenous communities in north carolina.
▶ 0:20:16Families living next to refineries and highways are being told their health doesn't matter. So let's 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.
▶ 0:20:45The 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'd 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
▶ 0:21:16History. Just outside of these walls, washington, D.C. is still under federal occupation. But instead we're 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. Um, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Uh, we have a member waving on to the subcommittee.
▶ 0:21:46Without objection, representative grothman of wisconsin is waved on to the subcommittee for the purpose of questioning the witnesses at today's subcommittee hearing. I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses for today. Mr. corey willis is the owner of power performance enterprises incorporated. A p e I based in louisiana. Ppe is a leader in automotive performance tuning.
▶ 0:22:18Mr. justin savage is a global co-leader of of sidley austin's environmental health and safety practice and co-leads the firm's automotive and mobility sector team. Mr. eric schaefer 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 nine g.
▶ 0:22:48The witnesses will please stand and raise their right hands. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? Let the record show that the witnesses all answered in the affirmative. Thank you. And you may be seated.
▶ 0:23:16We appreciate you being here today, and we look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we've read your written statement, and it will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your oral statement to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of you when you need to speak so that it's on and the members can hear you when you begin to speak. The light in front of you will turn green. After four minutes.
▶ 0:23:44The light will turn yellow when a red light comes on. Your five minutes have expired and I ask you that you wrap up. I now recognize mister corey willis for his opening statement. >> 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.
▶ 0:24:12And it is by the grace of god that I'm able to be here today. My name is corey willis, and I own power performance enterprises incorporated, better known as ppi. I love god, my country and my family. I want to share what I've 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 folder one month later.
▶ 0:24:38I quickly learned the fastest way to get from point a to point b was not walking. It was machines leading me to eventually start ppi. When I was 19 years old, ppi started 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.
▶ 0:25:04My tune 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 3rd, 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.
▶ 0:25:27I had no idea the 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.
▶ 0:25:50We 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 subject, 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.
▶ 0:26:19For 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.
▶ 0:26:48In august of 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 people's homes, literally orchestrating 18 wheeler loads of water and other essentials at my ripped apart office.
▶ 0:27:17And 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 or 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.
▶ 0:27:49I kept them on the payroll during covid while my staff, 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'm speaking out now because I don't 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.
▶ 0:28:11We 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 preferred to be different, it was not in my best interest to keep fighting. Since negotiations had been going on for about seven years. I believe then that the consent decree offered to ppi and me were our best option.
▶ 0:28:31I was hopeful that despite the restrictions imposed, we could keep ppi afloat, allowing me to continue to keep paying my me and my staff and continue doing what I love. But the consent decree immediately impacted ppi, putting it at a disadvantage. Ppi 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.
▶ 0:28:58Previously, 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. >> thank you, Mr. willis. I now recognize Mr. savage for his opening statement. >> good afternoon, chairman higgins. Ranking member lee hope. There you go.
▶ 0:29:26Good afternoon, chairman higgins, ranking member lee and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And my personal capacity. The views I share are my own. My name is justin savage. I'm a partner in the law firm of sidley austin, where I co-lead our environmental team and I co-chair our global auto group. I practice law for 29 years, including nearly a decade at the us department of justice, where I represented epa enforcing our nation's environmental laws.
▶ 0:29:55Before turning to my testimony, I wanted to mention that I am proud to appear before your subcommittee, Mr. chairman, because my daughter caitlin was born in lake charles, and my wife, amy and I here today graduated from mcneese state university there.
▶ 0:30:10I'm 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 diagnostic or obd tampering. The lack of statutory authority for these prosecutions, and the impact of this weaponization on small businesses and individuals.
▶ 0:30:33As 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.
▶ 0:31:03As a defense lawyer, I've seen these excesses where epa pursues small businesses that sell products and repairs for diesel pickup trucks. These are folks with 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's sometimes been a resort to heavy handed tactics, including sending in armed agents.
▶ 0:31:29This happened to john 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.
▶ 0:31:50John'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 john'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 y'all.
▶ 0:32:14The government charged john 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 administration, 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.
▶ 0:32:46Mr. john's conduct. We also have with us today two other victims of these kinds of prosecutions. Josh davis and aaron rudolph. Just like john 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 get back to their communities with josh serving as a republican, elected member of the woodford county board of commissioners, and aaron most recently supporting rescue operations during hurricane helene.
▶ 0:33:14Yet, epa aggressively pursued josh and aaron for clean air act compliance concerns over aftermarket products. Under the biden administration, we saw a nine fold increase in these kinds of baseless criminal prosecutions, often against small businesses. When you're faced with a 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 john, josh and aaron. Those criminal cases should have never been brought.
▶ 0:33:42Epa should not be allowed to move the legal goalposts and charge people with novel crimes, particularly small businesses. Let me 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.
▶ 0:34:01The problem is the compliance path as a condition of clean air act civil settlements, epa has frequently required businesses, as corey 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 upfront. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. >> we thank you, Mr. savage. I now recognize Mr. schaefer for his opening statement.
▶ 0:34:29Let me just add before you start, sir, before you start the clock, I'm going to call votes here shortly. Um, we're going to play that by ear. Mr. schaefer, you're recognized. >> 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.
▶ 0:34:53But 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'll 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're working.
▶ 0:35:18I've provided an exhibit with some of those that 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 emissions system so these products are sold with a promise that they are going to remove or disable your emission controls on diesel trucks.
▶ 0:35:46That's a problem, because that kind of tampering is prohibited by the clean air act, but it's also very dangerous. Epa has estimated that trucks that have removed their pollution control devices released about 570,000 tons of nitrogen nitrogen oxides into the air between 2009 and 2019. Those nitrogen oxides drive smog.
▶ 0:36:11You 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 shouldn't be a partizan issue. I can't speak to the specific cases that have been discussed today.
▶ 0:36:30Um, 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, the there are some online rumors that suggest that enforcement may stop altogether. I certainly hope those rumors are unfounded.
▶ 0:36:55So the clean air act long ago required epa to limit tailpipe emissions. That's to control keep them, uh, keep us from being smothered by smog and soot, which would otherwise happen if these vehicles didn't have to comply with emission control limits.
▶ 0:37:16Those same requirements said that you had to install monitors to make sure that those pollution controls, those onboard systems, catalytic converters, particulate filters were actually working. You have an onboard diagnostic system that lights up when your emission controls are faulty, and won't turn off until the repairs have been made.
▶ 0:37:40So that's the alert that tells you, um, your system, your pollution controls aren't working, and you need to take the truck in. So whether we agree the standards are too stringent or not stringent enough, it it surely makes no sense to require manufacturers to install pollution control systems and monitors to make sure their work, but then allow their companies to strip them out as soon as diesel trucks leave the dealer's lot.
▶ 0:38:09But 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 puts out lots of guidance, put out a lot of guidance when it launched the enforcement initiative, explaining that and insisting that there were criminal, um, potential criminal penalties.
▶ 0:38:39The 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 doesn't 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.
▶ 0:39:06Nothing 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.
▶ 0:39:29So, as I said, you get dangerous levels of emissions when these emission controls systems are stripped out of trucks and people who live near highways or in neighborhoods that are crowded up against ports or construction sites get hit with a heavy load of these diesel particulates, they're most exposed. They don't have the resources to move or fight back.
▶ 0:39:53I know it's not fashionable to say this, but those folks are trapped in a classic 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.
▶ 0:40:15But 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?
▶ 0:40:36If you're 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 the city choked by smog, don't you have the right to breathe clean air? We used to think so. Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank the witnesses for their opening statements.
▶ 0:41:01Will note for the record that the chair was quite generous with Mr. schaffer's statement, and over six minutes. Um. Consult with the ranking member for.
▶ 0:41:53Okay. I recognize myself for questioning for five minutes and and then very likely we're going to we're going to break for for votes. And I'm not sure how long that will take, but we'll be back as quickly as possible. Um. Mr. willis, we're going to be careful that, you know, we're not trying to ask you questions that you're not able to answer.
▶ 0:42:20And it's my understanding that you're 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're not comfortable with, I do believe you have counsel present. Is that correct? >> that is correct. >> okay. So if your counsel needs to hand you a message or something that then we're going to allow that. And if you don't feel comfortable answering a question, perhaps you can defer to Mr. savage or Mr.
▶ 0:42:47Schaefer 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, you had had you ever had interaction with the epa?
▶ 0:43:09Had they come by your shop and told you or indicated to you that maybe you're violating any regulations? >> no, sir. We received the rfi on november 3rd, 2015. >> okay. And the the request for information was regarding your sales. And that was the your first indication that maybe the epa was looking at you. Is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> okay.
▶ 0:43:37And have you have you ever in your business I ask this respectfully. Do you ever have any like tax issues with the irs or did that the federal government ever indicated to you that you were doing business in a shady manner, or just describe your operations for us? Would they professional documented you pay taxes, etc. >> yes, sir. We've paid our taxes and clean books. No issues. >> as my understanding.
▶ 0:44:05Just trying to clarify for the american people that Mr. willis has squared away business as far as he knew, he was following every law state law. Later on, I did my best to help and and we were heavily involved and we we couldn't find anything that he had done wrong. It seemed like it was a targeted investigation and persecution.
▶ 0:44:33I didn't really want to believe that about my government, but it seemed that way and they began enforcing it seems like, uh, if you can speak to this, Mr. willis, california mission standards, did you sell parts in california? What would happen if I was in california and I wanted to order one of your your tuning kits? >> uh, our website back then and still today. Uh, if you're in california doesn't allow full checkout.
▶ 0:45:04>> why not? >> uh, we don't sell to california. >> why not? >> it's extremely difficult to do business in california. >> do they have different emission standards? >> yes, sir. Carb standards. >> does it squared away? Business owner, you recognize that you didn't do business in california, correct? Correct. Did the epa use california standards to prosecute your civil case and your criminal case. >> or or plea agreement requires us to utilize california standards. >> but you didn't do business in california, did you?
▶ 0:45:34>> no, sir. >> do you now. >> we never shipped. >> and have you ever. >> uh, no, sir. We've never shipped into california. >> okay. >> as it got through. >> uh, can you speak to how much the economic impact this had on you? Like, how much money did you end up paying to the epa? Can you speak to that? >> uh, yes, sir. It was in excess of $3.1 million. >> okay. How much have you estimated? Conservatively, how much business you've lost over the last decade? You and your family?
▶ 0:46:04>> um, just the last five years on a missions compliant products, probably around 12 million. And then if, uh, we're talking full racing products, probably over 100 million. >> and what have you, can you speak to what you've you've paid council, what you've had to pay attorneys over the last decade? >> yes, sir. In excess of 7 million. >> so you have an american family here.
▶ 0:46:27That is talking about over $20 million, maybe a lot more. A squared away business that paid his 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. It went straight to prosecution.
▶ 0:46:52And when the weight of the federal government comes upon an american family, that it's like lights out is very difficult for regular american family to respond. You just get ground up in the, the, the, the gears of the federal government. That's what has happened. And Mr. savage, I hope to ask you questions later if we have a second round.
▶ 0:47:17Uh, votes have been called and we're going to go ahead and declare the committee in recess, subject to the call of the chair. >> thank you. You did it at the right place. The last.
▶ 0:47:58>> let's go. >> yeah. >> hey, Mr. >> shay, I didn't get. I didn't get the judy chu. Um. Thank you for being here. Thanks. Very professional job, I disagree. So that you will get a chance to. Yeah, it's not for. >> Mr. savage. >> and we will. We'll be back.
▶ 0:48:30>> ten minutes. >> after. You're talking about roughly 40 minutes. Yeah. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Okay. We'll be back. Environmental. City council. Thank you, thank you. Yeah. We we are friends. Yes. We work with, um. They're they're good for. Yeah. Great.
▶ 0:49:07Hey. Yeah. Oh. Oh, really? Yes. So I. Yeah. That's.
▶ 2:13:37I concession. And I recognize miss simon for five minutes for questioning. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And thank you to our witnesses for coming today. Um, this is an important conversation. Uh, the issue surrounding the health of our children and our families is, and 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.
▶ 2:14:07Um, this administration is actively, in my office's opinion, undermining the enforcement of laws and regulations that ensure that we all have access to clean air, clean water, and land that is safe to live in regardless of our incomes and zip code.
▶ 2:14:25In march 2025, the environmental protection agency illegally terminated over 400 grants as part of this administration's ntd 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.
▶ 2:14:52This 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 to enter into the record a list of targeted grants. >> without objection.
▶ 2:15:17>> 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 in the funds obligated by the previous administration. In july 2025, capacity collaborative, based in oakland and other program had two grants terminated, totaling 6 million that were supporting leadership training for indian indigenous communities in hawaii.
▶ 2:15:43Excuse me 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.
▶ 2:16:07This 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.
▶ 2:16:28For example, according to the east bay community foundation, a recent study found that in west and downtown oakland, there are more than 70% residents who are people of color. 1 in 2 childhood asthma cases were due to traffic related air pollution, and nearby oakland hills, which is a very affluent community. The rate to pollution is only 1 in 5. Mr.
▶ 2:16:56Schaefer, how will cutting nearly 800 grants for environmental justice exacerbate existing health disparities for our communities children? >> do you have any? There is a. >> I think your mic, sir.
▶ 2:17:16>> 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, um, highways and other major sources of pollution are jammed up near low income neighborhoods, often with people where people of color are the majority. Cutting these grants, um, cuts a lifeline to them that would have, I think, been very useful.
▶ 2:17:44And again, these are communities that don't have the means to hire high priced attorneys or have the income to move. They're stuck where they are. And those grants were intended to help them. >> I appreciate your your answer, Mr. schaefer.
▶ 2:18:00Would you also agree that without proper staffing and funding for environmental justice, for environmental justice, the environmental justice office at the epa and its grant recipients that our communities are at risk of cancer and asthma and lung disease and toxic pollution. >> I would. >> say more, please. I have 26 seconds.
▶ 2:18:25>> I will, um, the office of environmental justice actually didn't do a lot of enforcement, 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. >> I appreciate all of you for being here. Thank you. And I will yield back, Mr. chair. Thank you. >> gentlelady yields. Mr. grothman is recognized for five minutes for question. >> sure. We'll try to get two big issues out of the way. Mr.
▶ 2:18:57Savage, we'll put it on your broad shoulders. Um, in, uh, in 2015, the epa. 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 it was state of wisconsin, and our department of natural resources engaged in good faith efforts to reduce
▶ 2:19:28Emissions, the epa again reclassified wisconsin's, not reclassified wisconsin's non-attainment status in january of 2025. The ozone we have along milwaukee and along lake michigan is due to pollution migrating from other states like illinois and indiana.
▶ 2:19:51There is nothing we can do to lower the standard, and we have already decreased ozone concentrations 22% in the last 20 years, and I grew up in that area. I never knew there was any pollution problem 60 years ago. Um, given the data cited by the wisconsin dnr, the epa show that most ozone pollution originates south of wisconsin.
▶ 2:20:20Um, what is your take on causation and downwind liabilities? Is it fair? And is the epa out of control? Um, with kind of this anti-business feeling?
▶ 2:20:37And, um, what what type of scientific proof should epa be required to meet in demonstrating that ambient air is non-attainment and that, I'm sorry, ambient air in non-attainment is caused by in-state sources versus, uh, transported pollution? And do you believe the agency has met the standard here, or are they have they erred by over attributing ozone to wisconsin's responsibility?
▶ 2:21:08>> uh, first of all, thank you, congressman, for the thoughtful question. I want to emphasize at the outset, I'm speaking here in my personal capacity. Uh, I have not worked directly on these issues in wisconsin, but it is an issue near and dear to my heart. I've got some relatives up there, including one who used to live very close to the jelly belly factory. So I know I know the area pretty well up near kenosha. So let me just say this.
▶ 2:21:32I think the good news is that, uh, both the courts and the administration are taking a serious look at this. And the courts, really these efforts, uh, on wisconsin air quality grew out of two things that the biden administration, a rule called the good neighbor rule that imposed various requirements on states in order to address ozone. The us supreme court, uh, stayed that rule is no longer in effect then.
▶ 2:21:58Epa at the tail end of the biden administration tried to reclassify, as you said, wisconsin. The us court of appeals for the seventh circuit stayed that on september 9th, 2025. I have you know, I understand administrator zeldin and epa are looking at your issues. And then as a legislature, I'll let me just share this perspective and again, emphasizing my personal perspective. You know, we are blessed with incredible clean air. There's been so much work done to this point.
▶ 2:22:28And if you all ever go to other countries, it's 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've 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.
▶ 2:22:54And this is a perfect example in that when you reclassify an area more serious under the clean air act, it can trigger more stringent permitting, could trigger the need to get emissions offset and frankly, advising companies on where to move in the country. It makes it more difficult to cite industrial sources. >> right? Things are much there is so much cleaner than it used to be. And still they come up with higher and higher standards that it's even impossible for wisconsin to meet.
▶ 2:23:23Now we're talking about impossible standards in this evil agency. Um, I want to talk a little bit about the iris program, which is dealing with, uh, chemical, uh, chemicals. Um, and we're running out of time here. So I'm going to say this one, and we want chemicals produced in this country. We don't want all our jobs in india and china. From your perspective.
▶ 2:23:51Well, right now, in the case of ethylene oxide, they've sent a threshold set a threshold 23,000 times lower than naturally naturally occurring in the human body. In other words, I ridiculous standard that nobody is going to be able to make. What is it? Tell us about the reliability of iris and iris science, and what kind of economic damage can be resulted from these flawed assessments?
▶ 2:24:20>> uh, thank you, congressman, for the thoughtful question. I will just say in my personal capacity, here are a few thoughts. I'm not a scientist, but as a lawyer, I can tell you iris is not in a federal statute. It's not statutorily authorized by this body to develop outside of it. There's not a transparent process. And as a lawyer, it's 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.
▶ 2:24:49I understand there's been many, many technical critiques of iris, including by gao and nas, saying the process is broken. Thank you. >> thank you very much. And I hope, uh, with our new, uh, administrator of epa, we stopped this anti-business extremism that is, you know, I mean, things are so much cleaner than when I was a kid. I can't believe any congressman would think we have to tighten up the standards more.
▶ 2:25:17But thank you for being here and sharing your thoughts. >> the gentleman yields and the under unanimous consent. I'd like to enter into the record. A bill that I've introduced entitled the sovereign state environmental quality assurance act, which essentially abolishes the environmental protection agency. Without objection.
▶ 2:25:42And I'm we have a couple of members making their way back from obligations on the floor. I'm going to recognize myself out of order. Uh, for an additional question, I'll extend the same courtesy, of course, to the minority, sir. Thank you. Madam. Um. Mr. willis or Mr. perry has has returned. If Mr. perry is ready, I'll recognize him for questioning.
▶ 2:26:12>> how'd you get here? >> all right. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr. willis, I know that, uh, I noticed 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. Turn your mic on, sir. >> thank you for the time, congressman. This consent decree that we're under immediately impacted ppi, putting it at a disadvantage.
▶ 2:26:37Ppi 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 this 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.
▶ 2:27:00That 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 has 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.
▶ 2:27:29Our 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. >> so let's be clear here, Mr. willis. First of all, you're what you should be is a poster for an american success story starting at the age of 16. Right.
▶ 2:27:54And then creating a company with, I don't know, how many employees did you have at your peak before all this started? How many? >> uh, it was in excess of 30. >> okay. So you had 30 people selling millions of dollars of stuff and and and abiding by the law.
▶ 2:28:08What you don't know is, 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. Uh, Mr. savage, I think you can attest to this. Are you familiar with pm 2.5? >> yes, congressman.
▶ 2:28:35>> so you know that gina mccarthy testified that 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? >> uh, I am not.
▶ 2:28:59>> well, I am, and what I'm telling you is, is that the regulations that you have to abide by are made up and based on things called science that aren't science. You talk about, you know, climate change. I know we're going to hear about it because all of us are guilty of destroying the planet and humanity, but there's no global area. Surface temperature data for over half of the planet. But yet they used it.
▶ 2:29:26Where did they get the data, the data they use to prevail on you with all these regulations to make you a criminal? Where did they get the data, Mr. willis? You don't know. And you know what? No one else knows either, because there isn't 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 realize dreams. Right? They bought. They bought cars. They they paid for mortgages.
▶ 2:29:55They 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 didn't say, hey, Mr. willis, we want to work with you here. We want to we want to just make sure we're doing the right thing. Maybe you don't realize x, y, and z, can you help us understand? Can we work with you to keep on hiring those people? Keep on employing those people, keep on doing the great things you're doing.
▶ 2:30:25Maybe do it a little differently, even though it's all based on fraudulent data, by the way, everything you're being accused of and being persecuted for is based on fraudulent data. Everything. But they wouldn't 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?
▶ 2:30:56>> it's it's roughly roughly 90 days. Is is where we're in between communications with carb. >> okay. So when did this whole communication start? >> um, started around 2022. >> well, it's 2025, Mr. willis. How many 90 day periods can you go through and sustain and, and pay your bills and your employees and your insurance and your taxes? >> uh, we're at the point of of laying off employees and whatnot. >> I'm sorry to hear it, Mr.
▶ 2:31:26Willis. Mr. chairman, I yield. >> gentleman yields. Ranking member. Mr. lee is recognized for question. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Um, as I mentioned in my opening, epa enforcement is crucial to protecting our air and our land, water and health. Mr. shafer, you've 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. Uh, I want to start by asking you just, you know, point blank is the epa under the trump administration right now doing its job?
▶ 2:31:59>> I don't think so. Um, and I don't think that mike flood I'm sorry. >> I don't think so. And I think part of the problem is the agency is hemorrhaging. Staff is losing a lot of its top technical talent and, um, shrinking by the day. So they just don't have the resources to reach the problems. >> thank you. I think I agree, I don't think so either.
▶ 2:32:23The trump administration has effectively ceased enforcing our environmental protection laws, leaving us vulnerable to pollution and a variety of other environmental harms. But I'd like to talk about the reason why we're really here. Uh, which is Mr. willis's case, Mr. willis's company, ppe, 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.
▶ 2:32:49A lot of these devices and tunes are used by diesel truck owners who want to roll call, uh, coal in protest of emissions, uh, requirements resulting in giant plumes of black smoke coming from their vehicles. Uh, I don't know about you, but I absolutely have no desire to breathe that in. Mr.
▶ 2:33:12Shafer, you explained in your testimony, um, 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? >> it signals the problem is very serious. Epa said that miss bodine was the political appointee for the enforcement program. She made that clear.
▶ 2:33:42The 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.
▶ 2:34:03And I know that may not have reached everybody, but that was in the in the public announcements and reiterated that deleting monitoring devices on board these trucks was a criminal, a criminal violation. >> our epa enforcement priorities, generally informed by current president's own priorities and policies. >> I would say no for the most part.
▶ 2:34:27I don't 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 continued by the biden administration. >> thank you. Um, this despite defeat devices being an enforcement priority for trump administration. Mr. willis and Mr. and my republican colleagues have alleged that the biden administration weaponized enforcement against small businesses like Mr.
▶ 2:34:58Willis's, 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're dealing with when environmental laws aren't followed. To understand the facts of this case, I'd like to seek unanimous consent to enter Mr. willis's plea agreement into the record. I know you're not going to take five seconds to say yes. Right. >> I'm I'm not certain that that.
▶ 2:35:27Let's let's talk about that. >> okay. Well, I'm going to come back for those 30s or so. >> thanks. Is that a matter of public record? >> okay. >> it's a matter of public record. Yeah. >> so there's nothing. >> in there. Yeah. Like we printed this off the internet. >> yeah, I have the same thing, but I didn't know that, you know. No. >> no, it is.
▶ 2:35:57>> but there's no redaction called for. >> okay. And I trust you. >> yeah, certainly. And we can we can definitely discuss that. >> no worries. We just did. >> oh, great. We've done it. That was quick. Thank you. >> without objection. >> thank you so much. Um, 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.
▶ 2:36:24Schaefer, when we're talking about millions of pounds of excess pollution being released into communities on that scale, what are the real world health implications in which communities typically will bear the greatest brunt of this kind of environmental harm? >> so the primary pollutant in these cases are pollutants. Really there are two. One is nitrogen oxide, as I mentioned, though, that is fuel for smog formation. And smog blankets are very widespread.
▶ 2:36:52Urban 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 they just don't have the representation or the resources to push back. Uh, diesel particulates are another problem linked to cancer, linked to heart disease. Um, this is not fake information.
▶ 2:37:17Lots of science to support epa's concerns in that area and to show it's a public health problem. >> thank you. I appreciate your time. And I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields. >> yes. >> yeah. Um.
▶ 2:37:46>> on our way up, if you'd like to ask. >> unanimous consent to enter into the record, a media report regarding Mr.
▶ 2:38:09Willis's company's achievements at recent testings with the chrysler corporation. And the excellence of the, uh, of the technology that he is deploying. It noted by the manufacturer. Without objection.
▶ 2:38:37We have one of our witnesses, has a hard exit, Mr. savage, at 330. We have a member in the hallway. Understand to ask question. >> is there okay. >> okay. Mr. savage, thank you for being with us today.
▶ 2:39:01And we're sorry you have a hard exit, but we're going to we're going to honor that commitment to you. We had a long delay on the floor, but thank you for being here, sir. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. >> yes, sir.
▶ 2:40:27Chair recognizes Mr. presley for five minutes for questioning. >> 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.
▶ 2:40:58Mr. chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this september 2025 article from wbur titled fear and low morale and new england's epa office, as it loses a quarter of its staff under trump. 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'm proud to represent.
▶ 2:41:29In 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. schaefer, what are the public health consequences for frontline communities when environmental protections are weakened?
▶ 2:41:56>> increased risk of cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks, premature mortality from these pollutants. And I just again want to insist these issues have been studied and studied and studied. There are areas where there's room for debate, and there are other areas where the evidence is really obvious about the hazard. >> 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.
▶ 2:42:26Parents in boston know what it's 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 failing, falling behind in class because of pollution in the air they breathe. And these burdens are not equally shared. Mr. schaefer, what does the evidence tell us about racial disparities in exposure to air pollution? >> I would say that especially if you look at income, you do see a disparity.
▶ 2:42:53The pollution disproportionately affects low income communities, and that's because they tend to be located near factories, near highways centers, um, near construction sites, ports. And of course, in many of those neighborhoods, you have a majority of african american or latino or asian or asian american residents. >> that's right.
▶ 2:43:16And 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 didn't 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.
▶ 2:43:45When companies refuse to follow the law. Mr. schafer, how do the policies we're discussing today work to ensure companies account for the costs of their pollution? >> you. And first of all, I want to sort of reiterate, we're 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's wrong. It's wrong to do that.
▶ 2:44:15I don't know how many pamphlets or notices you need to read before you understand. You really shouldn't do that if you do. Epa has found the nitrogen oxide emissions will be 310 times higher than they are from a diesel truck that meets the standards. The particulate from diesel exhaust will be, I can't remember many times higher, at least an order of magnitude. Same for hydrocarbons.
▶ 2:44:42So you're you're 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. >> 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.
▶ 2:45:10This 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. >> gentlelady yields. 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 remarks. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:45:40Today the majority spent its time expressing deep concern about the government being too harsh on corporations that violated 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'll vote on two of those measures, and I expect every member of the majority to once again support these bills.
▶ 2:46:09The same voices lamenting government overreach when it comes to environmental enforcement have no problem expanding the carceral 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.
▶ 2:46:36But this committee applies these principles selectively when environmental enforcement protects communities from toxic pollution. Suddenly we care about proportional punishment when it's 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.
▶ 2:47:04Where 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 don't have corporate lawyers and public relations teams? The answer is nowhere, because this isn't really addressing overcriminalization in our government. It's about who deserves protection from government power and who doesn't.
▶ 2:47:30While 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.
▶ 2:47:50The 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 doesn't. It tells us who's suffering counts as real injustice and who doesn't.
▶ 2:48:19It tells us which crimes deserve mercy and which deserve punishment. The community's breathing polluted air like mine, deserves better. The children in those communities deserve a government that protects them, not one that protects the corporations. That's poisoning them. They deserve the same concern this committee shows for corporate defendants, until every person gets the same consideration we've shown here today for environmental law breakers, our criminal legal system will remain fundamentally unjust, I yield back.
▶ 2:48:50>> thank you. Member yields I recognize myself for closing remarks. I think it's important that we that we focus on regulatory enforcement when it comes to what has happened to these americans.
▶ 2:49:06Literally, the federal government has crushed these american families lives because they were alleged to be in violation of some regulatory complexity.
▶ 2:49:21This is really the country we want to live in, is we want tactical teams hitting american homes, wanting to know criminal investigation on a regular alleged regulatory violations.
▶ 2:49:37Seriously, if a grocery store or a hardware store doesn't follow the exact regulatory compliance requirements, we want to the 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.
▶ 2:49:59How dare they be in violation of some federal regulation and say, well, pollution is dangerous. It sell it, sell a lot of things in hardware stores that have been used for murders. And sell alcohol and grocery stores. Shall we have tactical teams at their homes?
▶ 2:50:22If 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's righteous for us to question. This is my point.
▶ 2:50:48Without throwing out, as my mother used to say to baby with the bathwater, there's a place for federal regulations and there's a there's a requirement for compliance. Yes, yes. But we should have a federal government that reaches respectfully into the lives of the americans. We're supposed to serve and advises them. You may be out of compliance here.
▶ 2:51:19If your first interaction with the federal government over regarding a regulatory violation, allegations of regulatory violation, is a tactical team hitting your house. Something's wrong, and we have a responsibility as a committee to look at that. So that's what we have attempted to do today. Just the beginning, this hearing. We have a lot more. With that.
▶ 2:51:44And without objection, I want to remind members 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.