Business meeting to consider the nominations of David Fotouhi, of Virginia, to be Deputy Administrator, and Aaron Szabo, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Administrator, both of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

2025-03-13

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This meeting was called to order to consider and vote on two presidential nominations for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[ 00:26:24 ] . While Senator Wicker expressed support for the nominees, Senator Whitehouse voiced significant concerns regarding one of the candidates and the direction of climate policy at the EPA[ 00:27:08-00:27:19 ] [ 00:31:44-00:32:05 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Both nominees were ultimately favorably reported.

Themes

EPA Nominations and Qualifications

Roger F. Wicker stated his support for David Fatui and Aaron Szabo, highlighting their importance for roles at the EPA[ 00:27:08-00:27:19 ] . Senator Whitehouse, however, expressed deep frustration over Aaron Szabo's suitability for an EPA position, citing concerns about his views on climate change and his testimony during a hearing[ 00:31:44-00:32:05 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Whitehouse highlighted Szabo's characterization of climate change as a "religion" and his evasiveness about records related to his contributions to Project 2025[ 00:31:51-00:32:05 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Szabo explained his lack of records by stating he periodically deletes old messages for privacy and security. Despite these concerns, both David Fatui and Aaron Szabo were favorably reported for their respective positions after roll call votes.

Climate Change Policy and Scientific Integrity

Senator Whitehouse raised significant alarm regarding the nominee's description of climate change as a "religion," contrasting this stance with the climate science taught in state universities[ 00:31:51-00:32:05 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. He expressed concern that this perspective suggests an "ugly mess coming into EPA" regarding climate policy. Whitehouse emphasized the importance of upholding climate science, stating that no jury would believe the nominee's evasive answers regarding his records on such a critical topic.

Nominee Transparency and Accountability

Senator Whitehouse strongly criticized Aaron Szabo's lack of transparency during his hearing, particularly regarding his contributions to Project 2025. He found Szabo's explanations for not having records to be untrustworthy and expressed disturbance at the "quality of these people that are coming into EPA". Whitehouse questioned the integrity of Szabo's testimony and his capacity to serve effectively in a significant EPA role.

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting maintained a largely procedural and professional tone during the nomination votes. However, Senator Whitehouse's opening statement introduced a strong undercurrent of frustration and concern regarding the nominees, particularly Aaron Szabo, and the broader implications for climate policy at the EPA[ 00:31:44-00:32:05 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. His remarks conveyed deep skepticism about Szabo's honesty and qualifications, adding a tense, critical dimension to the otherwise formal proceedings.

Participants

Transcript

So I'm going to call this meeting to order, and I appreciate everybody's flexibility, and I'd like to thank my staff and Senator Whitehouse's staff for accommodating us to be able to meet here in the Capitol.  It's a big benefit.  So I'm going to waive an opening statement for me, but I am going to say that the two   folks that David Fatui and Aaron Szabo testified before our committee, and I am certainly in favor of them.  They are going to be filling important roles at the EPA, and I look forward to having their service.  So I'm going to let Senator, I'm not going to let, now Senator Whitehouse can give his opening statement.
Well, actually, thank you, because you have let me do this, and your team has set up the   a video monitor, I wanted to share two minutes and 20 seconds from the hearing involving Andrew Szabo, because nobody else was in the room at the time, and it is one of the ways in which I want to express my frustration with where we are going on climate change stuff.  We just had Zelden, who was tolerably reasonable,   in what he said in his hearings, say that he's going to undo this whole litany of regulatory things, including everything having to do with the climate change religion.  Every single one of your states has a state university that doesn't just understand climate science.  It teaches climate science.   So the notion that we're now in a place in which the person in charge of protecting us in this area is saying that it's a climate change religion and not climate science puts me into a really challenging position.  If you could roll the tape, this is the kind of person that he will have working for him.  And I just don't think this qualifies as any kind of a decent straight answer.  Go ahead.   You were a contributor to that document and were thanked by the author of the chapter on EPA, correct?  Yes, that is correct.  How did you contribute?  What precise advice did you give to the document's authors?  Thank you Senator for that question.
I provided just general advice and thoughts with respect to   policies within the Clean Air Act sections.  Do you have or do they have any record of the advice that you gave?  I am not aware of any records they may have.  I was a volunteer, and I do not have any records.  You have no notes?  You have no memos?  Nothing was in writing in all of this?   and you've gotten rid of them, or were there never any records?  Senator, I have no records.  That doesn't answer the question.  Is the reason you have no records because you got rid of your records of your engagement with Project 2025?   Senator, as a private organization, I'm not sure what their record-keeping policies were or are, but I do not have any records.  Did you submit anything in writing to them at any point?  Did you ever have records?  You.  Not that, you.  Senator, I provided advice to Project 2025.  How?   By email, by phone, personal conversations, memos?  Senator, I provided them advice in a number of ways.  Including ways that were in writing?  Senator, that's likely.  Likely?  Isn't that something you actually know since it was your advice and you would have written it down?  How is that likely?  Isn't that yes or no?   So I don't know about all of you, but I've been a trial lawyer and a witness like that.
no jury would ever believe anything else that he said after that.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up