    [Senate Hearing 119-277]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-277

    HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF DAVID FOTOUHI TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
    OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND AARON SZABO TO BE ASSISTANT
    ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
                               PROTECTION AGENCY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON

                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 5, 2025

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-682                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                 SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Chairman
                SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Ranking Member

    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    MARK KELLY, Arizona
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 ALEX PADILLA, California
    PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska              ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               ANGELA D. ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
    JON HUSTED, Ohio

                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
                      Dan Dudis, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 5, 2025
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     1
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma..     5
    Husted, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio............     6
    Fotouhi, David, Nominee to be Deputy Administratorof the
      Environmental Protection Agency................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    13
            Senator Merkley..........................................    18
            Senator Markey...........................................    22
            Senator Schiff...........................................    24
            Senator Blunt Rochester..................................    28
    Szabo, Aaron L., Nominee to be Assistant Administratorof the
      Office of Air and Radiation of the Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Capito...........................................    34
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    34
            Senator Markey...........................................    50
            Senator Blunt Rochester..................................    52

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letters of support for both nominees:
        Statement by Senator Cynthia Lummis..........................    75
            Letter to Senator Capito and Senator Whitehouse from:
                The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy......    76
                American Trucking Association (ATA)..................    77
                National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
                  (NRECA)............................................    78
                American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)..........    79
                The Aluminum Association and 13 other groups.........    81
                Letter to Senator Capito from American Fuel &
                  Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).................    83
                Letter to Senator Thune from the Independent
                  Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)............    84
                Letter to Senator Thune and Senator Schumer from
                  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).    86
    Letter of disapproval for the nomination of David Fotouhi from
      The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO).............    88
    Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California from the
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...........................    93
    Public Financial Disclosure Reports to Senator Capito from:
        Aaron Szbabo.................................................    97
        David Fotouhi................................................    98

    HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF DAVID FOTOUHI TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
    OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND AARON SZABO TO BE ASSISTANT
    ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
                               PROTECTION AGENCY

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore
    Capito (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Capito, Whitehouse, Cramer, Curtis,
    Ricketts, Husted, Kelly, Padilla, Schiff, Alsobrooks.
        Also present: Senator Mullin.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Good morning. I am going to call this
    hearing to order and thank everybody for coming this morning.
        Today we will receive testimony from David Fotouhi, the
    nominee to serve as the Environmental Protection Agency's
    Deputy Administrator and from Aaron Szabo, to serve as the EPA
    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. These are two
    very important positions in the agency. I'm looking forward to
    this productive conversation about how Mr. Fotouhi and Mr.
    Szabo will ensure President Trump's agenda to get the agency
    back to its core mission and reestablish American energy
    dominance.
        Mr. Fotouhi currently is a partner at Gibson, Dunn and
    Crutcher, where he has represented clients on matters relating
    to environmental law. He previously served as the Acting
    General Counsel and Principal Deputy General Counsel at the
    EPA. He is no stranger to EPA. Mr. Fotouhi has been recognized
    by multiple national law publications for his work in
    environmental and energy law, and as a leader on those issues.
        Mr. Fotouhi's previous experience at the EPA provides him a
    wealth of perspective on the Agency's critical role in
    protecting our Nation's air, land, and water while doing so
    within the boundaries of the legal authority that Congress has
    established.
        The EPA Deputy Administrator is generally tasked with
    overseeing the day-to-day operations of the agency. In this
    role, Mr. Fotouhi will coordinate the work of the EPA's
    important air, water, and chemicals offices, in addition to the
    EPA's regional offices research, enforcement, and General
    Counsel teams. Effectively integrating the agency's work will
    be at the top of Mr. Fotouhi's list of responsibilities.
        Facilitating economic growth while protecting public health
    and the environment requires the agency to establish consistent
    and legally defensible regulations, fairly and clearly enforce
    those rules, and communicate with the States, communities, and
    entities impacted by these regulations.
        Mr. Szabo, President Trump's nominee to serve as the
    Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, is
    currently serving as a Senior Advisor to the EPA Administrator
    after representing a wide variety of clients in the private
    sector on energy and environmental matters. For more than 10
    years, Mr. Szabo worked as a career civil servant, first for
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and then the Office of
    Information and Regulatory Affairs, known as OIRA, and then the
    Council on Environmental Quality.
        As an NRC career staff member, Mr. Szabo was repeatedly
    recognized with awards for his excellent performance in the
    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
        In June 2016, during Mr. Szabo's tenure working for the
    Obama administration's OIRA, he received the Special
    Achievement Award. Mr. Szabo's nomination to lead the Office of
    Air and Radiation will place him in a central role to roll back
    the Biden administration's extreme attack on reliable, baseload
    energy sources.
        Under the Biden EPA, American energy producers were subject
    to a barrage of legally suspect regulations that were intended
    to bankrupt oil, gas, and coal companies. These attacks led to
    increased energy costs on American families, reduced electric
    reliability, and undermined our energy security.
        In contrast to the Biden administration's agenda, President
    Trump's agenda will right size our environmental regulations
    within the bounds of the laws passed by this Congress and past
    Congresses, while in turn increase energy production, enable
    innovation, and unleash economic growth while protecting the
    environment. As Administrator Zeldin stated during his
    confirmation hearing, the EPA has far too often exceeded the
    legal authority Congress has provided in law.
        This pattern, repeated during the Obama and then the Biden
    administrations, forced American businesses to pay for costly
    compliance requirements, even though the underlying regulation
    was ultimately struck down by the courts. Today's nominees
    understand the impact of the Obama-Biden regulatory strategy.
        Mr. Fotouhi and Mr. Szabo have represented a wide range of
    energy and environmental clients in legal and regulatory
    proceedings, as well as counseled clients on environmental
    compliance and due diligence. While some might suggest that
    representing regulated entities, particularly ones they do not
    like or agree with in private practice, should bar attorneys
    like Mr. Fotouhi and Mr. Szabo from serving in these roles. I
    believe that view misses the extensive value of both of the
    nominees' public and private experiences.
        It is important for all of the EPA's staff, especially
    senior leadership, to understand how the agency's use of
    statutory authority and enforcement tools affect States and
    regulated entities, as well as how that regulatory action can
    best achieve compliance and maximize positive environmental
    outcomes.
        I am confident our witnesses' legal training, previous
    government experience, and professional experience will serve
    them well in the positions for which they have been nominated.
        The EPA must get back to what it does best: facilitating
    cleanup of polluted sites in communities across America,
    establishing scientific sound and achievable regulations, and
    fulfilling the cooperative federalism model of working with
    States to meet national environmental standards.
        I look forward to exploring these issues in more detail
    with our witnesses.
        I now recognize Ranking Member Whitehouse for his opening
    statement.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman.
        Today is Day 45 of the second Trump administration. In his
    first month and a half, we have seen attacks on the rule of
    law, willful disregard for the Constitution, a funding freeze
    that is threatening to kill jobs and drive up energy costs for
    families, and to use the Project 2025's own words, ``trauma''
    inflicted on dedicated career staff at various agencies.
        We on this dais have oversight responsibility for the
    Environmental Protection Agency. Despite my asking, many times,
    I am still trying to figure out what is happening within the
    walls at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. I have sent reasonable
    requests to EPA for information and have been met with near
    total radio silence.
        On January 31, along with all the Democrats on this dais, I
    wrote to Administrator Zeldin to request that he explain his
    legal basis for EPA's funding freeze that continues to threaten
    American jobs and jeopardize infrastructure projects from
    Alaska to West Virginia to my home State of Rhode Island. Much
    of this funding was passed on a bipartisan basis to make long
    overdue investments in our roads, bridges, transit, ports,
    drinking water, wastewater, and other systems that are the
    backbone of our Nation's economy.
        On February 6th, I again wrote to Administrator Zeldin and
    his counterpart at OPM calling out the administration's so-
    called ``deferred resignation'' scam against hard-working civil
    servants, again asking how the administration could legally
    promise such a thing without congressional appropriations.
    Promising money that's not yet there has a name. It is called
    Deficiency.
        On February 24, I again led all of the EPW Democrats in
    demanding answers about EPW's efforts to claw back $20 billion
    in congressionally approved clean energy funding for projects
    nationwide. Administrator Zeldin has been gaslighting the
    American people, manipulating facts as a pretext to terminate
    an already obligated, congressionally authorized program that
    would lower household energy costs, spur economic development,
    and reduce pollution.
        On February 28th, all of us EPW Democrats again wrote to
    Administrator Zeldin, asking him about reports that he had made
    a backroom push to the White House to rescind the EPA's
    Endangerment Finding, a 2009 determination based on sound
    science that greenhouse gases are harmful to human health.
        Now, last night you would never hear any recognition of
    what fossil fuel emissions are doing to our atmosphere or to
    our oceans. Those facts completely eluded the conversation. We
    never heard any recognition last night that 90 percent of new
    power coming onto the grid in America is solar and wind and
    battery.
        The Energy Executive Order does not even define solar and
    wind as energy, which would be news to energy recipients in
    Texas and Wyoming and Iowa.
        That greenhouse gases harm public health was scientific
    fact when the endangerment finding was issued in 2009. Sixteen
    years later, the evidence has only gotten stronger, and the
    looming economic harms more dangerous. One obvious way climate
    change is harming Americans across the Country is through
    spiraling insurance premiums and a looming collapse in property
    insurance markets. Another is through spiking grocery prices.
        The only people who benefit from repealing the endangerment
    finding are the planet's biggest polluters.
        In reply to these four letters, we received just one
    response, which didn't come close to answering the questions.
    My staff have now twice requested a briefing on the funding
    freeze. Those requests have been met with radio silence. I
    suspect that's because Administrator Zeldin knows that he has
    no legal basis for the funding freezes, the clawbacks, or the
    manipulation of science.
        Yet, because I and my fellow Democrats do respect the
    Constitution and the rule of law, here we are today to consider
    two additional nominees to the EPA. I hope they will be more
    forthcoming, transparent, and honest in their answers than was
    Administrator Zeldin at his confirmation hearing.
        David Fotouhi, nominated to serve as Deputy Administrator,
    has held two jobs since graduating law school. First, as lawyer
    for a prominent white-shoe law firm defending a raft of big
    polluting interests including Chevron and Sunoco. Second, in
    EPA's Office of General Counsel during the first Trump
    administration, working hard to repeal environmental
    regulations meant to protect human health and the environment.
        It remains difficult for me to understand how someone who
    has made a career defending he very industries that destroy our
    environment has any business now being entrusted to protect it.
        Then there is Aaron Szabo, who has been nominated to serve
    as the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and
    Radiation. He is credited by name as a contributor to the EPA
    chapter of Project 2025, the extremist billionaire-funded
    right-wing blueprint for dismantling the Federal Government
    that Trump is now dutifully implementing.
        Some environmental highlights from Project 2025: weaken the
    Clean Air Act by reversing the Endangerment Finding; purge the
    agency and bring trauma to its employees. In case you are not
    keeping score at home, Administrator Zeldin is already hard at
    work on these.
        Mr. Szabo was an advisor to the America First Policy
    Institute, the Trump-aligned billionaire-funded think tank
    funded by Big Oil interests, and he worked as a lobbyist where
    he pushed the interests of major polluters like the American
    Petroleum Institute's members.
        Is this really what we want for the EPA? Is this really how
    we protect clean air and clean water?
        As I said at our hearing to consider Administration Zeldin,
    I will be watching closely today to see if Mr. Fotouhi and Mr.
    Szabo are able to differentiate themselves in any substantive
    ways from the polluter agenda.
        Forgive me, in light of their client lists and the chaos
    and lawlessness that have already occurred 45 days into this
    second Trump administration, if I seem skeptical.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. I wanted to put your little sign
    up there.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. We are very pleased here to have one of our
    fellow Senators to introduce one of the nominees. Thank you,
    Senator Mullin, for being here, and thank you for joining us.
    You are recognized. We miss you on this committee.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman. It is with a heavy
    heart that I no longer sit on the dais with you guys.
        It is a privilege of mine today, Chairman Capito and
    Ranking Member Whitehouse, to introduce a fellow Oklahoman to
    the Environment and Public Works Committee. David Fotouhi is
    President Trump's nominee to be the Deputy Administrator for
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. David was born in
    Venezuela, immigrated to Oklahoma when he was 4 years old with
    his parents, who are here today.
        Funny story, side note on that one, they dearly love each
    other, but I guess she does not trust him driving, so she flew
    and he drove from Oklahoma today. I think my wife may be doing
    that 1 day.
        After David graduated from high school in Oklahoma City, he
    attended Vanderbilt University, graduating with the highest
    honors and achieving a law degree from Harvard. An impressive
    guy, if you ask me. In Trump's first administration, David
    served at EPA in several senior roles, including Principal
    Deputy General Counsel, and later Acting General Counsel, where
    he lead the office of nearly 250 lawyers and staff.
        David's primary focus during the time included EPA's
    program under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
    Clean Air Act, Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act. In addition to working closely with leaders in multiple
    agencies such as the Department of Justice, throughout his
    service at EPA David prioritized stability, regulation that
    duly benefited both our environment and the economy, and did so
    with the highest personal standards of integrity.
        Prior to EPA, David worked as a partner with Gibson, Dunn
    and Crutcher in the international law firm practicing
    environmental law. There, David developed a wide breadth of
    litigation regulating experiences helping clients understand
    their legal obligation to reach compliance standards with State
    and Federal environmental law, which led to many legal
    publications, publicly recognizing him for his talented work.
        There is no doubt that David has the talent, experience,
    professionalism and temperament to be able to work with a broad
    group of career employees at the EPA and stakeholders of all
    kinds in this new position of responsibility as the EPA's
    Deputy Administrator.
        I am proud to be able to introduce a fellow Oklahoman this
    morning nominated to such a position in our Federal Government.
    I am confident that David will serve the EPA Deputy
    Administrator with the high personal and professional standards
    he is known for throughout his entire career.
        On a side note, I will say, ma'am, I am very deeply sad
    that I do not sit on this committee. I would take a great honor
    today to be able to sit up there with pride and see David down
    here answering questions and putting the EPA back on track and
    not just serving one side of our constituents base, but the
    entire Country, making sure that our economy and our
    environment can both thrive.
        With that, I yield back.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, and thank you for being here.
        I am now going to turn to Senator Husted to give his
    introductory remarks. Thank you.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JON HUSTED,
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I appreciate
    the chance to introduce Aaron Szabo this morning. It is my
    honor to do so. He is President Trump's nominee to be the
    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        Joining him today is his wife, Pamela, and his parents,
    John Szabo and Teddi Fine. Welcome, I am sure you are very
    proud.
        I have no doubt that Aaron's background will be impressive
    to the members of this committee, and he will do a great job in
    this important position. As someone who worked 25 years in
    State government, I know very well what Federal regulations can
    do to a State's economy. I have seen the EPA delay, provide
    conflicting advice, provide poor customer service at time, and
    negatively impact Ohio businesses and the Ohio economy. We know
    that time is money.
        I also know that we must be important, that it is important
    that our State and Federal regulators are good stewards of our
    natural resources. We have seen in an industrial State like
    Ohio how to strike that balance and we know how to do it right.
    States are in the best position to be able to do that, because
    they know what is best for their communities, they know what is
    best for their environment, they know what is best for business
    and the people, the people of the State that they represent.
        We know that protecting the environment and growing our
    economy are not mutually exclusive, and I know that, I believe
    that the colleagues, my colleagues on this committee understand
    that the people of their State know what is best and can be
    great collaborators, and in fact, they must.
        As we consider Aaron Szabo's nomination to serve at the EPA
    today, I want to note that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin
    traveled to East Palestine, Ohio just days after he was
    confirmed to lead that agency along with Vice President Vance
    and Senator Moreno and I were both there as well. Administrator
    Zeldin decided to make it his first trip in his new role to
    meet Ohioans on the 2-year anniversary of the devastating train
    derailment at East Palestine.
        I spent time on the ground with Ohioans there. I was there
    for many days after that happened, saw the effects firsthand. I
    can tell you that it matters that this administration remembers
    us, the people in East Palestine, and is working to keep our
    air clean and our economy thriving as we recover, as the people
    particularly of that community, as I have witnessed it, recover
    from those unthinkable hardships.
        I am also pleased to see the Trump EPA focus on working
    with States and not against them in our joint efforts to
    protect the environment. That is why I look forward to working
    with Aaron and the EPA to advance our shared mission in Ohio
    and see that the EPA work similarly with every State. That
    partnership working with the States is so very, very important,
    because they get it, they know what needs to be done.
        Let me share a bit more about why Aaron is here with us
    today and why he belongs at the EPA. Aaron understands how to
    promote a healthy environment and successful communities
    firsthand. He has followed in his parents' footsteps as a
    career civil servant. He began his own career as a public
    servant at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission while he was in
    law school.
        Aaron continued to serve in other career positions at the
    Council on Environmental Quality and at the Office of
    Information and Regulatory Affairs. He worked on issues related
    to the important statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, the
    National Environmental Policy Act, and regulations surrounding
    power plants.
        That experience will serve him well as an EPA Assistant
    Administrator. After more than a decade in public service,
    Aaron helped businesses navigate environmental and energy
    issues as a regulatory affairs attorney. He is highly qualified
    to fill this role, and he is motivated by service.
        Aaron understands how to keep Americans safe and healthy
    while powering the great American comeback. I believe he will
    lead the EPA Office of Air and Radiation with expertise and
    integrity, and believe me, that is what we all want in a person
    in charge of air quality. He understands these issues well.
        The Office of Air and Radiation developed policies and
    oversees the implementation of core environmental statutes like
    the Clean Air Act. Aaron will leverage his extensive experience
    to navigate complex issues for the America people. I have
    confidence in his ability and I am glad he is here today and
    willing to take on this responsibility as a continued work in
    public service.
        Congratulations to you, Aaron, to your wife, Pamela, on
    your nomination, and thank you for the opportunity to introduce
    you today.
        Madam Chairwoman, thank you, Ranking Member, thank you for
    the opportunity to share the reasons why we should support the
    nomination of Aaron Szabo.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        I will ask the witnesses to move up to the witness table,
    if you would. Do not sit down, because before we move to
    opening statement for our nominees, I will administer the oath
    to receive their sworn testimony.
        If you would raise your right hand. Please stand, raise
    your right hand and answer the following question.
        Do you swear the testimony you are about to give to this
    committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
    truth, so help you God?
        [Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Let the record show that the
    witnesses have answered in the affirmative. We will now proceed
    to our opening statements. Thank you both, and thank the
    families for joining them as well.
        Mr. Fotouhi, you are going to be recognized first for 5
    minutes for your opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID FOTOUHI, NOMINEE FOR DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF
                THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Fotouhi. Good morning, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
    Whitehouse, and distinguished members of the committee. It is
    my honor to appear before you today as President Trump's
    nominee for Deputy Administrator of the Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        I want to thank President Trump for the confidence he has
    placed in me and Administrator Zeldin for support of my
    nomination.
        If confirmed, I pledge to work every day for the American
    people to advance the mission of EPA to protect human health
    and the environment, and to support Administrator Zeldin as he
    does the same.
        I want to thank my family, current and former colleagues,
    and close friends for being here to support me, many of whom
    have traveled great distances. In particular, I want to thank
    my parents, who are both here today, for their sacrifices and
    unabating support.
        EPA's mission is deeply personal to me. I am an immigrant
    to this Country. I was born in Venezuela and came to the United
    States as a child with my parents, with the hope of a better
    future. As a naturalized citizen, I have a unique view of our
    Nation's heritage of conservation and strong environmental
    protections that are not shared by many other countries.
        The American legacy of stewardship toward our air, water,
    and land was not my birthright, it was not something I was
    predestined to enjoy. Thankfully, I do get to enjoy it, along
    with every other American. We need to look no further than to
    places like Venezuela to see how differently things can go.
        From my perspective, I see environmental protection and
    conservation as woven into every fiber of this Country. They
    are at the core of what makes this Nation great and prosperous.
        EPA's human health mission specifically resonates with me
    in a deeply personal way. Like millions of other Americans, I
    am a cancer survivor. EPA plays a critical role in protecting
    the health of all Americans, including by reducing cancer risk
    through programs addressing air and water quality along with
    hazardous waste and chemical substances, across the agency and
    directly in communities facing the greatest challenges.
        Professionally, I have devoted my life to environmental law
    and environmental issues. I have practiced environmental law
    for nearly 14 years, including my prior service at EPA.
        In private practice, I have represented a broad array of
    clients and spent much of my career helping them understand and
    achieve compliance with their environmental legal obligations
    and responsibilities.
        As mentioned, I served for nearly 4 years at EPA,
    culminating in my time as the agency's acting General Counsel.
    It was a privilege to work alongside the career lawyers and
    other professionals at EPA, where I found some of the most
    knowledgeable and most dedicated public servants.
        If confirmed, I will work every day to earn their trust and
    respect as I did during my prior tenure at the agency.
        That tenure also reaffirmed my belief in the importance of
    the rule of law. Indeed, it is critical that EPA upholds the
    rule of law by carrying out its mission based on the enumerated
    authorities given to it by Congress. EPA must also provide
    necessary clarity and certainty so that every American
    obligated by an environmental requirement knows exactly what is
    expected of them.
        If confirmed, I will work every day to earn and keep the
    public's trust in EPA and its actions.
        America has made dramatic environmental progress in my
    lifetime. More Americans now have access to clean drinking
    water than ever before. Sulfur dioxide air emissions in 2023
    were 94 percent lower than they were in 1980. NOx emissions
    were 75 percent lower.
        America accomplished this while growing our population and
    GDP, setting an example for the world. We have much to be proud
    of, but there is more work to do.
        In 2023, our major cities experienced more days of
    unhealthy air quality than in any year of President Trump's
    first term. More than 1,300 contaminated sites across the
    Country remain on the National Priorities List, not ready to be
    fully returned to their communities for reuse.
        Drinking water supplies in some communities face challenges
    from lead and emerging contaminants like certain PFAS
    chemicals. Our changing climate demands work at home, like
    fully implementing the AIM Act and expediting carbon
    sequestration permitting, and work abroad to ensure a level
    global playing field that does not disadvantage hardworking
    Americans.
        EPA must work with States, tribes, and local partners, as
    well as with the regulated community and NGO's, to confront
    these and other issues consistently with the law and while
    preserving our global economic dominance.
        I am confident EPA, under Administrator Zeldin's
    leadership, can make progress through smart, transparent, and
    cost-effective regulatory solutions rooted in sound science;
    through compliance efforts that achieve real pollution
    reduction and enforcement efforts for violators who refuse to
    follow the law; and, importantly, through unleashing American
    innovation and our economic growth engine to find tomorrow's
    solutions for today's challenges.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. I look forward to learning more about your priorities
    and answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fotouhi follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Fotouhi.
        Now we will turn to Mr. Szabo. I will now recognize you for
    5 minutes for your opening statement. Thank you.

         STATEMENT OF AARON L. SZABO, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
       ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR AND RADIATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member
    Whitehouse, and distinguished members of this committee. I am
    honored to be here today and deeply grateful to President Trump
    for nominating me to serve as Assistant Administrator for the
    Office of Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection
    Agency and help protect America's air.
        I also want to thank Administrator Zeldin for his trust,
    both in my current role and this nomination.
        I would also like to thank my wife Pamela, my parents, in-
    laws, and other friends and colleagues that are here supporting
    me today in person and virtually. I would not be here today
    without them.
        I sit before you today as the nominee for Assistant
    Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation who suffers
    from a chronic lung disease. I was diagnosed with cystic
    fibrosis at 6 months old. Throughout my life, I have taken
    hundreds of thousands of pills, spent countless hours using
    nebulizers, and been hospitalized multiple times. While it has
    not always been easy, unlike many others with cystic fibrosis,
    I am blessed to be alive today.
        Of my lung disease, I have always been acutely aware of air
    quality. Growing up, I could feel the impact of poor air
    quality in my lungs. After college, I followed in my parents'
    footsteps as Federal employees and began my professional career
    in government service as a career employee at the U.S. Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission).
        At the NRC, I had the privilege to work with and learn from
    exceptional hard-working career staff for six and a half years.
    In 2014, I joined the White House and served in the Office of
    Information and Regulatory Affairs. At OIRA, I had the
    opportunity to work with EPA career staff and both Democratic
    and Republican political officials. I saw firsthand the process
    of translating policy direction into regulatory outcomes
    consistent with laws and facts.
        For example, during the Obama administration I worked as
    hard as I could to complete the Clean Power Plan, the 2015
    Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and oil and
    natural gas methane regulations. Then, during the Trump
    Administration, I continued with that same dedication while
    working on rescinding the Clean Power Plan, revising the oil
    and natural gas methane regulations, and implementing President
    Trump's Two-for-One Executive Order.
        After over 10 years of Federal service, I transitioned to
    the private sector where I learned how regulated entities
    comply with the Federal Government's thousands of regulations
    and policies. I also saw firsthand that the people working in
    these companies want to ensure the environment is properly
    protected.
        I rejoined the Federal Government on inauguration day for
    the first time as a political appointee. Currently, I serve as
    Senior Advisor to the Administrator of the EPA.
        If I have the honor to be confirmed to be head of the
    Office of Air and Radiation, I commit to you and to the
    American people that all this experience will guide me in this
    role. I will give my utmost every day working with the talented
    career staff and responsible stakeholders to provide the best
    and most durable air quality solutions for the Nation.
        Since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, the United States
    has made remarkable progress in reducing air pollution. We have
    seen significant decreases in carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
    lead, ground-level ozone, particulate matter and other
    hazardous air pollutants, all while our economy has continued
    to grow.
        I believe all those who worked to improve air quality for
    the past 50 years, whether it be within or outside the
    government, deserve our appreciation for their successes.
        Congress structured the Clean Air Act around the principle
    of cooperative federalism and controlling air pollution at its
    source is the primary responsibility of States and local
    government. EPA must always work hand-in-glove with its State
    partners to ensure that air quality standards are attained and
    maintained.
        The best environmental results are reached in a
    collaborative way. This was the wise decision by Congress in
    establishing the Clean Air Act and it remains the best approach
    today.
        One subject area that was not on Congress' radar when it
    enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970 was climate change. I believe
    the climate is changing. EPA must always carefully analyze all
    matters before it to make sure they are squarely grounded in
    statutory authority, are sound policy, and are based on a
    robust evidentiary record.
        Finally, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that we are
    mitigating traditional air pollution. As someone with a lung
    disease, I find it deeply concerning that there are around 140
    million people that currently live in nonattainment areas, many
    of which have been living in those nonattainment areas for
    decades. We should prioritize helping these areas achieve
    compliance and improve air quality.
        Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Whitehouse, and all the
    members of this committee, thank you again for your time and
    consideration. I look forward to answering your questions and
    discussing the issues that matter to your constituents.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Szabo follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you both.
        I will start with the questions, but first I would make a
    comment that you both have very compelling personal stories,
    particularly as it regards to your own personal health. I think
    that is one of the main missions of EPA, to help folks that
    have been affected much like you, but also for future
    generations. Thanks for being so open about those issues.
        I want to ask my first question on cooperative federalism.
    We have talked a little bit, a couple of us have mentioned it
    already. The environmental laws are based on the principle of
    which States are co-regulatory partners with the Federal
    Government.
        Rather than considering the States as partners, the
    previous Administration has sort of overlooked and treated
    States as subordinates. State and local environmental agencies
    are dedicated to working to working together with Federal
    regulators and a lot of times, certainly understand the areas,
    their own personal, their own regions a lot better. State
    agencies are best suited to understand the diversity in their
    geographic, economic and social elements.
        I will start with you, Mr. Fotouhi. Will you commit to
    engaging with States under the cooperative federalism framework
    to establish workable rules and implementation strategies--this
    is for both of you--to protect public health and the
    environment?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you, Senator. Yes, absolutely. The
    environmental statutes, as you said, broadly speaking, are
    drafted in a way that the Federal Government and States and
    tribes and others work in partnership to achieve the results
    that Congress intended when the statutes were promulgated.
        Doing so in a way that empowers States through cooperative
    federalism, as you mentioned, providing the technical
    assistance that States need to understand their resources best,
    and also to encourage States and tribes to assume the
    responsibility for Federal permitting programs will be a
    priority of mine if confirmed.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Good.
        Mr. Szabo, same question, and can you describe what you see
    as the primary benefits and, I didn't know if you had had
    experience with this in your prior government service.
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. I would say that for me, it
    is, as I mentioned in my opening statement as well as in my
    conversations with you and other Senators on both sides of the
    aisle, the importance of cooperative federalism, as David
    mentioned, it is important that States have the primary role in
    regulating. They know what is best for their States. It is
    something I believe and it is something which the Clean Air Act
    requires.
        States know how to regulate their entities the best, and it
    is important to allow them to do that under the Clean Air Act.
    Additionally, it is also important not to punish those States
    for emissions that are not the fault of their own State.
        I think that we can work better in a cooperative manner
    with the States and provide those environmental protections
    faster.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. I think it is important to note
    in the last administration under one of the provisions the
    States were asked to do a State implementation plan when doing
    that, to the EPA, of their oversight. They just scrapped all
    the State plans and said, no, you are going to do the Federal
    plan.
        That to me does not speak of cooperative federalism. I
    think, again, we want to keep our eye on where are the core
    functions, but also what functions the best.
        I want to talk a little bit about electric energy
    reliability. We know that the Clean Power Plan has certainly
    had a lot of experience with this, intentionally designed to
    impose unattainable requirements to cause the early retirement
    of our lot of coal and natural gas plants.
        During the same time, prices have skyrocketed and our
    reliability has been called into question. The North American
    Electric Reliability Corporation forecasts that well over half
    of the U.S. will face potential electricity shortages and
    blackout risks. This is a large result of reduced supply
    baseload power.
        Mr. Szabo, I warned your processor, Mr. Goffman, about the
    potential for his strategy to undermine the reliability of our
    electric grid several times. Based on his actions, he ignored
    these warnings.
        As you oversee and implement the Clean Air Act's statutory
    obligations to protect public health and environment, will you
    ensure that the agency takes into account electric reliability
    and energy affordability on the impacts on American families?
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Currently,
    and then also if confirmed, we are bound by what is stated in
    the Clean Air Act, and that includes the consideration of costs
    and impacts on the Country. With respect to any action within
    Section 111 that the Clean Power Plan was, or the Clean Power
    Plan 2.0, whichever version you want to call it, was
    established under, we must follow the law and that includes the
    consideration of impacts on electricity reliability.
        Senator Capito. Well, I would say too the prior
    administration, at one point I remember seeing a chart of
    where, you know, this is No. 1, two, three, four, they
    reordered where the priorities should like in terms of looking
    at reliability. I would discourage that.
        Mr. Fotouhi, do you have a comment on that, on the
    reliability issue?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, thank you, Senator. I think the agency
    needs to heed the decision of the Supreme Court and the West
    Virginia case in particular. That was very clear that EPA is
    not a grid-wide energy regulator. It is not an entity that is
    responsible for determining whether generation shifting should
    occur between different sources. EPA should always, when
    implementing the Clean Air Act or any other program, abide by
    its statutory authority that Congress has delegated to it.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Before I turn to the Ranking Member, I will have to slip
    out, we have a roll call vote over in Commerce, so I will go do
    that, and then I will come back. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Szabo, good morning. What effects
    are carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion having
    in the earth's atmosphere?
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I cannot
    speak to generally what the specific impacts would be from
    fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide in combination with other
    greenhouse gases can result in heat being trapped in the
    atmosphere.
        Senator Whitehouse. Can result, or are actually resulting?
        Mr. Szabo. My understanding is that there is some heat
    trapping that occurs from greenhouse gases.
        Senator Whitehouse. Is it not scientifically established
    that CO2 and methane are both greenhouse gases that trap heat
    in the atmosphere?
        Mr. Szabo. That is my understanding.
        Senator Whitehouse. What effect does methane leakage from
    fossil fuel production and transport have in the atmosphere?
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you for the question. As I mentioned
    previously, I cannot call out what the specific impacts would
    be from methane from fossil fuels. Methane in general is also a
    greenhouse gas that can trap heat in the atmosphere.
        Senator Whitehouse. Can trap heat in the atmosphere, or
    actually does trap heat in the atmosphere right now?
        Mr. Szabo. It does, I am not specific to every single
    molecule of methane. I know in general methane does trap heat.
    I just am not a scientist and do not know what the impact of
    every single molecule of methane may be in the atmosphere.
        Senator Whitehouse. What effect are carbon dioxide
    emissions from fossil fuel combustion having in our oceans?
        Mr. Szabo. As I mentioned previously with respect to just
    carbon dioxide in general, it does result in acidification of
    the ocean, as well as there is heat trapping in the oceans, as
    you mentioned in your opening statement.
        Senator Whitehouse. How much heat trapping? How would you
    measure what the oceans are taking up in terms of excess heat
    from carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion?
        Mr. Szabo. As I mentioned, I can not speak to specifically
    from carbon fuel combustion but my understanding is, I believe
    NOAA has stated that 90 percent of the heat is trapped in the
    ocean.
        Senator Whitehouse. You have no disagreement with that?
        Mr. Szabo. I am not a scientist, so I defer to the
    scientists.
        Senator Whitehouse. Do you understand that the excess heat
    going into the ocean is measured in zettajoules, which is an
    enormous number with 21 zeroes?
        Mr. Szabo. As I mentioned, Senator, I am not a scientist.
    If that is the number, I am not aware of the exact number.
        Senator Whitehouse. Have we hit the 1.5 degree climate risk
    threshold, and why is that important?
        Mr. Szabo. My understanding is that we are on a trajectory
    to hit that threshold, according to scientists. The stated
    importance of that, I believe, is that climate impacts would
    get worse at that degree temperature. However, my understanding
    is that was also a policy decision that was made as part of the
    U.N. discussions and the Paris Climate Accord.
        Senator Whitehouse. You used the word ``stated.'' Does that
    indicate any hesitation in believing that?
        Mr. Szabo. I have not--my understanding is there is various
    scientific studies on the impact of 1.5 degrees as well.
        Senator Whitehouse. What do they generally conclude?
        Mr. Szabo. I mean, it would depend on which, I mean, as I
    said, I am not a scientist.
        Senator Whitehouse. I said generally. What do they
    generally conclude? What is the strong consensus message about
    1.5 degrees as a risk threshold?
        Mr. Szabo. That it could result in increased climate change
    based on that temperature threshold.
        Senator Whitehouse. What are key climate tipping points
    that you would watch in your position to try to avoid?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe that the climate is changing.
    I believe that it is important for us to adapt to any change
    including those that occurred with respect to climate.
        Senator Whitehouse. Not to mitigate, to prevent it. Just to
    adapt to it, even if it is man-made pollution that is driving
    it?
        Mr. Szabo. I am currently, and if confirmed am bound by the
    laws that Congress has established and cannot----
        Senator Whitehouse. Last question. Are we now on a pathway
    to climate safety? Or do we need to do more to reduce carbon
    emissions in order to get on that pathway?
        Mr. Szabo. As I stated previously, I believe that we need
    to be adapting to all changes, including those to the climate.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Senator Cramer?
        Senator Cramer. As tempting as it is to give Senator
    Whitehouse my time, I am going to take a little bit of it
    first.
        Thank you both for being here. I join the Chairwoman in
    thanking you for your personal testimoneys, and being so
    transparent. It is inspirational, to say the least.
        One or both of you have referenced the United States'
    contribution to the global issue. I think we flaunt it too
    often, take all the blame for our own excellence, compared to
    the world that is not, it is quite mediocre in comparison, in
    my view.
        In fact, I also share Chairman Capito's affection for
    cooperative federalism. I mean, for the life of me I do not
    know why a State like North Dakota or West Virginia or any
    other State of excellence would relinquish that excellence to
    mediocrity at the Federal level.
        That being said, I want to explore a little bit with you
    the contribution of the United States emissions to compare to
    the globe's emissions. As I see the reduction, and I think on
    or both of you have testified to this, the reductions that we
    have been making as a country while growing our economy and
    growing our manufacturing base, growing even our energy sector
    at a time when there is actual electricity hogs out there, just
    waiting for a place that would welcome the opportunity to
    invest, why would they seek the United States if we are going
    to have these, what I think are actually very non-competitive
    regulatory issues?
        That said, I have been looking at a lot of the--by the way,
    I am not as smart as you guys, but I am fairly nerdy and pretty
    resourceful, and having been an energy regulator for a long
    time. The issue of reliability is a really big deal. The issue
    of availability at a time when again these economy, whether it
    is AI, crypto, the energy hogs, are looking for places to land,
    I think it is really, really important.
        I would like to explore our contribution and our declining
    contribution in the global State of things. Maybe Mr. Szabo,
    you could start with what you may know about the various models
    and data and how the United States measures up.
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator Cramer. It isn't going to be
    shocking to anyone, but we have significantly decreased both
    our greenhouse gas and traditional air pollution emissions
    tremendously, especially over the past 20 years. While other
    countries such as China have significantly increased their
    greenhouse gas emissions as well as their traditional air
    pollution emissions over the years, and what we are seeing now
    actually is that international emissions, as you kind of
    mentioned about not talking about some of the other things,
    traditional air pollution from China goes and impacts States
    like California, due to the transport from the Pacific.
        Generally, if we shut off all greenhouse gas emissions in
    this Country tomorrow, that would not have any real impact with
    the increases that we have seen from other countries around the
    world, specifically China.
        Senator Cramer. Mr. Fotouhi, anything to add to that?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you, Senator. I would echo those
    comments. I think something over the last 20 years or so, as
    Mr. Szabo was saying, American greenhouse gas emissions have
    decreased by something like a million tons per year, while
    China's have increased by something like six to seven million
    tons per year, completely swamping our hard-earned reductions
    in greenhouse gas emissions.
        I think to the extent there needs to be work to be done to
    address that issue, it needs to be done both domestically and
    globally.
        Senator Cramer. I have been looking at some MAGICC data in
    modeling. Would it be an exaggeration to say that our trend of
    going down and the rest of the world, particularly the big
    polluters going up in terms of emissions, that our power sector
    can be like contributing less than .2 percent of the emissions
    in the future, with current trends? Does that sound plausible?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would have to go look back at the
    exact data, but happy to work with you on those numbers after
    talking to staff and make sure we are working with you on
    getting those values.
        Senator Cramer. I would welcome that opportunity and wish
    you both well. Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Senator Padilla?
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
    both of the nominees before us for their public service and
    their willingness to continue to serve. I especially appreciate
    the comments that have been made by you, Mr. Fotouhi, by Mr.
    Szabo especially and even the Chairwoman recognizing our
    collective mission to achieve clean air. Clean air is possible,
    not just environmental, but the health impacts that pollution
    contaminants have and the recognition that State and local
    governments have a primary role.
        Did I get that language correct from your testimony, for
    both of you?
        Mr. Szabo. Yes.
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Padilla. Okay, thank you. It is in that spirit,
    proudly representing the State of California that prides itself
    in policy leadership in so many areas, but including and
    especially when it comes to environmental protection and clean
    air.
        Given the special collaborative relationship over the years
    between the State of California and the Federal Government, I
    would like, Mr. Szabo, for you to walk me through the statutory
    basis for EPA's authority to grant California a waiver of
    Federal preemption under the Clean Air Act.
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator Padilla, for that. It was a
    pleasure talking to you earlier about various issues related to
    California.
        The Clean Air Act requires EPA to provide a waiver to
    California assuming that certain requirements are met with
    respect to that. To my knowledge, we currently do not have any
    waivers in front of EPA.
        Senator Padilla. That is not my question. I am well aware
    of what was submitted in the prior administration, waivers that
    were granted, requests that have been withdrawn. Just for the
    record, it is from Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, which
    allows California to exercise this waiver opportunity and adopt
    its own emission standards if those waiver requests are
    granted.
        In reading the statutes, can you share with us, Mr. Szabo,
    under what specific statutory conditions can EPA deny a waiver
    request?
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. At this time, I cannot
    recall the exact provisions in Section 209 and I do not want to
    provide incorrect information to you. I am happy to get back to
    you with that information.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Colleagues, red flag No. 1.
    Obviously you are up for consideration for a very critical
    position. We are talking about air quality, must the
    environment's impact to health impacts that you both personally
    shared with the committee your experience.
        We are talking about the State of California, not just the
    most populous State in the Nation, but home to the largest
    number of people by far who live in non-attainment levels. We
    know the Federal Government hasn't done as much as it can and
    should do to improve air quality in California and elsewhere.
    We know that California has taken upon itself to do more.
        Given the jurisdictional balance and relationship between
    State and Federal Government, California has been successful
    through the waivers process to achieve more gains, yet you can
    not articulate for me the basis for denying a waiver request
    when you are going to play such a critical role is concerning.
        Let me ask this, then. Does the Clean Air Act give EPA
    discretion to deny a waiver simply because the Administrator
    may disagree with California's policy goals?
        Mr. Szabo. That, my understanding is no, it would not be
    just because of policy goals.
        Senator Padilla. Their answer is not discretion, then, on
    behalf of the Administrator and the agency?
        Mr. Szabo. From my recollection, within Section 209, there
    is nothing that states that it would be related to just a
    policy difference between California and the Federal
    Government.
        Senator Padilla. Do you believe that California faces
    compelling and extraordinary conditions when it comes to air
    quality?
        Mr. Szabo. When it comes to traditional air pollution, I
    believe that that can be the case.
        Senator Padilla. Then by traditional air pollution, the EPA
    is tackling pollutants and air quality?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe when it comes to National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards that that is right, as well as hazardous air
    pollutants. That is what I mean by it.
        Senator Padilla. To your knowledge, has an administrator
    ever denied a waiver on the ground that California does not
    face compelling and extraordinary conditions?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe that was part of the justification in
    the 2020 Safe Vehicle Rule Part 1.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Well, for the record, let me share
    with our colleagues that the answer is actually no. The EPA has
    tried to deny on other grounds, but never for the argument that
    California does not face compelling and extraordinary
    conditions.
        Mr. Szabo, my time is running out, so I will end with this.
    Can you point to where in the Clean Air Act it gives EPA the
    authority to revoke a waiver once it is granted?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe that would be within Section 209 of
    the Clean Air Act.
        Senator Padilla. Actually, no. We know that there will be
    efforts to do just that. I will end. I know my time is up, with
    the recognition, very important distinction between a waiver
    request, a waiver denial, and a waiver being granted versus
    rulemaking. When there are attempts by Congress to utilize the
    CRA to undo a waiver that was granted, precedent has
    established that that is not appropriate because a waiver is a
    waiver, not a rule.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Husted?
        Senator Husted. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I appreciate
    the opportunity to talk with the nominees today.
        Mr. Szabo, I want to bring up an issue that we talked about
    briefly, based on my experience in the East Palestine train
    derailment and subsequent fire and disaster that happened
    there, just for the sake of sharing something that can be
    hopefully helpful, is that one of the things that happened in
    that crisis moment is that while we had a team of people on the
    ground there from the EPA who were very versed in the rules and
    regulations they weren't very versed at crisis management.
        I just shared with you in our conversation that I, this
    administration in the course of 4 years will face one of those
    moments. It is inevitable that the unexpected will occur. I
    just want to share thoughts, and either of you, actually, can
    respond to this about thoughts that you have on how we can be
    better prepared for a time of crisis.
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, I am happy to respond initially. It
    is a critical function of the agency, its emergency response
    function. I had the privilege, when I worked in the agency
    during the first term of the Trump administration to work
    closely with the career civil servants who are housed in that
    emergency response office within the Office of Land and
    Emergency Management and across EPA's regional offices. They
    are often the ones who plan for natural disasters, things like
    hurricanes, making sure that industrial sites are prepared so
    that there are not environmental incidents as a result of a
    natural disaster.
        Similarly, they play an important role in responding to
    issues like the East Palestine derailment or the fires in Los
    Angeles or the floods in western North Carolina. Administrator
    Zeldin, in his first month on the job, has made the emergency
    response function of the agency a critical priority. If
    confirmed, I would support him in that effort.
        Senator Husted. Great. Thank you.
        I have, my next question is also largely an Ohio-related
    question. It is because in the final, literally the final day
    of the Biden administration, they imposed a new rule at EPA
    over, it is called a nuisance rule. It was enacted on January
    the 20th, regarding rules on air, dust, grime, things like
    that.
        It is unique to Ohio. We have our own nuisance rule
    regulations in Ohio to be adjudicated through the Ohio EPA and
    the Ohio court system. Now we have one State that was
    identified, basically picked on, the EPA and the
    administration, to put this new rule in place. The Ohio
    delegation is united behind eliminating that.
        This is what we talk about, when we talk about the Federal
    Government imposing things on States without the cooperation of
    those States and the people who understand what makes sense in
    those States. I just would ask for your support in our efforts
    to overturn this rule and that any comments that you have about
    that or the partnership between Federal and State regulators in
    general.
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, thank you for that question. I know in
    my time at EPA I have heard about the issues with that action.
    If confirmed and just in general right now, as I stated in my
    opening statement and in our conversations, cooperative
    federalism is key. That is working with the States, not against
    them. I look forward to working with you as well as the State
    of Ohio in resolving these kinds of concerns and issues that
    have been created.
        Senator Husted. Thank you. I just will close with this
    thought. The people who run State government, the EPA, the
    Governors, the communities that are affected, they care more
    about their States and their communities than anybody else.
    They know what is best. Please be collaborative with the States
    of this Nation and their regulators and their enforcement
    entities to make sure that they can solve environmental issues
    and do it in a timely manner, but also in a manner that is not
    burdensome to the people who are trying to live and operate in
    those States.
        Thank you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Alsobrooks?
        Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you so much, Chair Capito and
    Ranking Member Whitehouse.
        Mr. Fotouhi, Mr. Szabo, good to see you. Congratulations on
    your nominations.
        Last week at his cabinet meeting, the President said that
    Administrator Zeldin ``thinks he is going to be cutting 65
    percent or so of the percent of the people,'' is what he said,
    from the EPA. Administrator Zeldin later clarified that he
    meant 65 percent of the agency's budget.
        I have questions for both of you. I just want to be clear
    and get a direct answer. Do you support cutting the EPA's
    budget by 65 percent?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question, and I
    appreciated the time that you took to meet with me earlier in
    this process. My view on that is that what Administrator Zeldin
    has referred to publicly on that issue is that the reduction
    would pertain to a baseline reduction from the amount of
    expenditure in 2024, which included a significant amount of IRA
    funding as opposed to a reduction of the base budget, which is
    of course congressional, is for Congress to determine.
        Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, so you agree, then, that the role
    of setting funding levels belongs to Congress, and not to the
    administration?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, Congress sets EPA's budget.
        Senator Alsobrooks. Okay. Then if you are confirmed, will
    you enforce the law, including appropriations law, and ensure
    that that function continues to remain one that is a
    congressional function?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. On this
    issue and all issues, if confirmed, I will always follow the
    law and always advise Administrator Zeldin in the same manner.
    That extends to issues related to appropriations and budget.
        Senator Alsobrooks. Thank you.
        Now, in Maryland we are doing really great work where
    climate is concerned. We are also working to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions and air pollutants.
        Right now, there are many actions related to Maryland's
    State implementation plan for the Clean Air Act that are
    pending approval at the EPA. This plan is very critical to
    Maryland. It ensures that my constituents have healthy air to
    breathe, and it also provides certainty to businesses who are
    investing in Maryland.
        I understand that there are similar backlogs in other
    States, and it is because the office that you have been
    nominated to lead is understaffed and not overstaffed. The
    question is, in light of this concern around slashing budgets,
    how would you achieve the efficiencies that will be necessary
    to ensure we have clean air to breathe and that we meet our
    other goalposts, if we are cutting budgets and slashing work
    force?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. It is a
    priority of mine, if confirmed, to ensure that across the
    agency that we are reducing backlogs for things like State
    implementation plans under the Clean Air Act, for water quality
    standards from States under the Clean Water Act, other
    submittals like permit applications and the like. Working to
    ensure with Administrator Zeldin that appropriate staffing is
    put in the right places and that we have the expertise needed
    to process those applications and State implementation plans in
    a timely manner would be an area of emphasis to me. I look
    forward to working with you and your staff on the Maryland
    issues that you raised specifically.
        Senator Alsobrooks. Okay, thank you. Just one final
    question, and this question I would be asking of Mr. Szabo. The
    cost of homeowners insurance is on the rise. Since 2018,
    homeowners insurance non-renewals have increased by 30 percent
    in Maryland. This means that major homeowners insurance
    providers are dropping hundreds of thousands of policy holders
    in response to frequent extreme weather events caused by
    climate change.
        I want to know whether or not you acknowledge that the root
    cause of climate change, including reducing greenhouse
    emissions, has a very serious connection to what we are seeing
    in terms of unaffordable insurance premiums, and ask what you
    intend to do about that.
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        In my current role and if confirmed, while I believe that
    it is important that we as Americans and we as humans continue
    to adapt to all changes, including those with respect to
    climate, I would not have any regulatory authority over the
    insurance markets themselves and how those insurance companies
    may or may not react to changes in the climate. I am fully
    supportive of Americans and people adapting to any changes in
    the climate that may be occurring.
        Senator Alsobrooks. The last part, and I know my time is
    up, would you agree that the effects of climate change are
    driving economic hardship for families?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe that there are impacts to climate
    change.
        Senator Capito. Senator Curtis?
        Senator Curtis. Thank you, Chairman.
        It is great to be with you, both of you, thank you for
    coming by my office. Some of what I want to talk about in my
    short 5 minutes we discussed. I think it is important to have
    this discussion so that everybody, particularly back in Utah,
    can hear our discussion and your thoughts on it.
        We discussed, and I tried to make the point in this venue a
    lot of times, Utah's unique geography and natural phenomenon
    require a nuanced approach. Approximately 80 percent of our
    ozone comes from, ozone emitting from the earth surfaces or
    from outside of the region. As Utahns, that means we only
    control 20 percent of the ozone in the area.
        Utah's air quality has improved significantly, and that is
    because our publicly elected officials, our education, our
    business leaders, all have made commitments and we have had
    great investments in new technology to improve our air.
        I might say I am very grateful for the new administration's
    early jump into this and some of the relief that we have
    received already. Please pass along my appreciation for that.
        Utah's Uinta Basin faces similar challenges of oil and gas
    production in the region where we provide affordable, reliable
    and clean energy are burdened by EPA standards and do not
    account for this unique geography that we have in Utah.
    Fortunately, all of our stakeholders, as I mentioned, are all
    committed, the education community, the political leaders and
    business communities are all committed to this.
        Despite this, in the final stretch the Biden administration
    EPA reversed course, instead of granting the extension as
    previously proposed, the agency issued a final ruling
    redesignating northern Watsatch Front Uinta Basin as non-
    attainment with significant impact to it economically and
    otherwise for our area.
        Once again, thanks for your help there.
        I would like to just ask both of you, so folks back home
    can hear, if confirmed, can we count on this flexibility in
    working with regional administrators to follow their lead in
    dealing with these tough issues? Hopefully we can have that
    commitment from both of you?
        Mr. Szabo, if you want to jump in.
        Mr. Szabo. Sure. Senator, it was great talking to you
    yesterday about these issues as well. In my current role as
    well as if I am confirmed I will commit that we will work with
    the State of Utah as well as all the States on each State's
    unique issues, but specifically Utah's.
        Senator Curtis. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you, Senator, and I also appreciated the
    time meeting with you. You have my commitment to work together
    to resolve these issues and to do so in a way that protects our
    air and also protects the economic development and growth that
    your community is looking for.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you. I am glad that you mentioned
    that. Everybody does want to protect the air, everybody wants
    clean air. We just have some unique geographic features.
        Also part of the Uinta Basin, we have a number of small
    suppliers. They really struggle to meet the methane
    regulations, not out of will, but just simply out of resources.
    We find that EPA sometimes has been overly restrictive in how
    they fix the problem, rather than defining what they want fixed
    and letting people get there through using different types of
    technologies.
        Once again, I would like to ask for your working with
    regional administrators to get to the end goal and not be so
    prescriptive on how we get there.
        Mr. Szabo. Absolutely, Senator.
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, you have my commitment on that, Senator.
    Thank you.
        Senator Curtis. Good, thank you.
        Mr. Fotouhi, we talked in the office about this chemical
    approval problem. I would also just like to clarify, previous
    administration we had zero percent of chemicals approved within
    their statutory guideline. Many of these chemicals would
    replace currently problematic chemicals that are bad for our
    environment.
        By not approving them, we are actually really harming our
    environment. I would like to just have you assure with my folks
    back home your commitment to work on getting these chemicals
    approved in a timely manner.
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, thank you, Senator Curtis. It is a
    critical function that the agency performs to review new
    chemicals. It needs to do so in abidance with its statutory
    timelines and in consideration of the science as well.
        As you said, those chemicals often replace older
    chemistries and the newer chemicals are often more
    environmentally friendly. You have my commitment to take that
    as an area of emphasis, so that EPA gets back on track and is
    meeting its statutory obligations in its new chemicals program.
        Senator Curtis. Thank you.
        With all my love and affection for you and your new boss,
    we will have a honeymoon period and then I will use this pulpit
    to be really tough on you as I was your predecessors, if we are
    not getting those approved.
        Thank you, I yield my time.
        Senator Capito. Senator Schiff?
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Szabo, is climate change real?
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. Yes, the climate is
    changing.
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Fotouhi, the same question, is climate
    change real?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Szabo, would you agree that human
    activities contribute to climate change?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe there are many things that
    can create the climate to change themselves.
        Senator Schiff. That would include human activities, would
    it not?
        Mr. Szabo. In the aggregate, there is a potential impact
    from human activities on the climate.
        Senator Schiff. You would agree, Mr. Fotuhi, that human
    activity contributes to changes in the climate?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Schiff. Some of those human activities include
    burning coal, oil, and gas, Mr. Szabo?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe there are many activities that can
    release greenhouses gases into the atmosphere in general.
        Senator Schiff. Well, I am asking you in particular,
    burning coal, burning oil, burning gas contributes to climate
    change, does it not?
        Mr. Szabo. Those activities do release greenhouse gases
    into the atmosphere.
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Fotouhi, you would agree that burning
    coal, oil, and gas contributes to climate change?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, emission of greenhouses gases into
    the atmosphere plays a role and does contribute to the changing
    climate.
        Senator Schiff. In particular, burning coal, oil, and gas
    contributes to climate change?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, those activities, depending on how
    they are undertaken, can result in the emission of greenhouse
    gases, yes, including methane.
        Senator Schiff. In trying to address climate change, would
    you agree that trying to reduce our reliance on coal, oil, and
    gas as they are contributors to climate change makes sense, Mr.
    Szabo?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe that it is important that we adapt to
    any changes, including those with respect to the climate. I
    believe that the American people can adapt to those changes.
        Senator Schiff. That is a bit of a murky answer. If coal,
    oil, and gas are contributing to climate change, wouldn't you
    agree that one strategy to address climate change would be to
    reduce our reliance on coal, oil, and gas?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe, once again, that we can adapt to the
    potential impacts to climate change without causing potential
    issues to our reliance on our natural resources within this
    Country.
        Senator Schiff. I am not sure I understand that answer. If
    coal, oil, and gas are contributing to climate change, would it
    make sense as part of our strategy to address climate change to
    reduce our reliance on coal, oil, and gas? Yes or no.
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I think it is important to take the,
    with respect to the potential impacts from those sources of
    emissions with respect to the global nature of any with climate
    change, and consider it that with respect to any policy
    positions moving forward.
        Senator Schiff. I am still having trouble understanding
    your answer.
        Should we reduce the consumption, the burning of coal, oil,
    and gas as part of a strategy to mitigate climate change? Yes
    or no.
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe that it is important that we
    follow the law with respect to any actions we take. If Congress
    wishes for us to take a different action on climate change, I
    would leave that into the decision of those in Congress about
    what policies the United States would take with respect to
    that.
        Senator Schiff. As a potential top official in the EPA, you
    would agree, would you not, that if coal, oil, and gas
    contribute to climate change and climate change is resulting in
    horrendous fires like we had in Los Angeles and stronger
    hurricanes and more flooding, that one part of a sensible
    approach to dealing with climate change would be to reduce our
    reliance on fossil fuels that are contributing to that crisis?
    Wouldn't you agree with that?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would say that the wildfires in
    California were very tragic. There were many reasons as to what
    the results of those, why those wildfires occurred in and of
    themselves.
        Senator Schiff. Mr. Szabo, do you think the oil industry
    has a disproportionate impact on our ability, willingness, to
    speak plainly about climate change? You seem to be having
    difficulty. Does the oil industry exert too great an influence
    on our policy dealing with climate change such that you can not
    answer that question?
        Mr. Szabo. No. I am curious if you are insinuating that I
    am somehow under the influence of the oil and natural gas
    industry. I have been consulting with career executives----
        Senator Schiff. I think this whole Congress is under the
    influence of the oil, coal, and gas industry. That makes it so
    difficult to answer a simple question about if these are
    contributors to climate change. Wouldn't a sensible policy be
    to reduce our reliance on them? There is some explanation for
    why that question is difficult to answer, and it is not
    science.
        I yield back.
        Senator Capito. Senator Ricketts?
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate
    it. Thank you, Ranking Member, for calling this hearing today.
    Thank you to our witnesses for being willing, or our nominees
    for being willing to serve in the Federal Government. I
    appreciate it.
        I do want to hit upon some of the things that have come up
    in this topic before. First of all, the cooperative federalism,
    States being responsible--nobody cares more about our
    environment than the States. That is, as a former Governor,
    that is what we want to do, we want to protect our environment,
    we want clean air, clean water. We do want to work
    cooperatively with the EPA to be able to have it. When the EPA
    just throws out State implementation plans, it really is a
    disregard for the law and our system of federalism. I think
    that is one aspect that I want to hit upon.
        Also I wanted to hit upon this idea of consensus. There was
    a consensus early on in the pandemic, and I was just introduce
    Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at the Health Committee about, we should
    lock down schools. Well, it turns out that, because this was
    just wrong, right? Science is about arguing, it is about
    research, it is about everything, like you may have an idea,
    you have a theory, you test it, you have research, and there is
    going to be research not always going to agree.
        Consensus is meant to be challenged, right? That is what
    the point of science is. We want to make sure we are thinking
    about those things. For example, when you are, the Senator from
    California was just talking about oil and gas. Well, why do not
    we sequester carbon dioxide, if you are worried about that? We
    can burn coal and sequester the carbon, the technologies could
    be out there, we do not have to reduce it. We can just
    sequester the carbon dioxide, if that is the problem you are
    concerned about.
        There are other solutions out there. I do not think we have
    to run to a one-size big government solution about how to fix
    this, and that has been the problem for the last
    administration. They tried to mandate certain solutions, like
    EVs, that do not work in places like Nebraska. Let's let
    American innovation solve these problems.
        One of the innovations that we can solve happens to be
    biofuels. I know the Chairman knows I love talking, being on
    this committee, talking about biofuels.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Ricketts. The good news is biofuels are safe, can
    save consumers money at the pump, they cleanup our environment,
    all the things the Senator from California wants to do, and it
    is good for our farmers and ranchers.
        What I want to do is just work on making sure we can do
    that. E15 is one of the things we can do to do that. The EPA
    has been issuing waivers to be able to do that.
        This is a very simple question for the both of you. Waiver
    is an annual emergency thing. To make it permanent, Mr.
    Fotouhi, do not we actually need to pass a bill on E15?
    Legislation has to be passed by Congress to be able to make E15
    all year around permanent, is that right?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. That is
    my view. When I served in the first term of the Trump
    administration at EPA, we attempted a regulatory proceeding to
    allow for the expanded use of E15, and ultimately a court
    determined that the agency lacked the adequate statutory
    authority for that action.
        My view is that congressional, if that is the congressional
    intent, then congressional action is required for EPA to be
    able to take that on without going through the RVP, Reid Vapor
    Pressure, waiver or emergency waiver process.
        Senator Ricketts. Mr. Szabo, same question.
        Mr. Szabo. I would just echo what David said, and yes, we
    would need a legislative solution.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Perfect. Second, additionally,
    timely review of renewable volume obligations are mandated by
    the renewable fuels standard, that is a law, should be a
    biofuels priority for the EPA here. RVOs are powerful signals
    to producers of the fuel markets. They need to be published
    reliably in thoughtful increments and should be reflective of
    market realities.
        I understand you cannot prejudge the outcome of an agency
    rulemaking, but I want to get you on the record here. Will you
    commit, again, because the RVOs that were supposed to be
    published November 2024 are not supposed to be done now until
    December 2025, a year late, Mr. Fotouhi and Mr. Szabo, do you
    each commit to implementing statutory directives in the
    renewable fuels standard to publish a timely rulemaking for the
    renewable volume obligations?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Senator, thank you for the question. It is
    important that we hit our statutory timing obligations for
    setting RVOs. My recollection is that in the Biden
    administration when EPA set the RVO for 2023 half the year had
    already passed. That is not the type of clarity and certainty
    to all market participants that are needed from this program.
        My view is that the statutory timelines are very important.
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I agree with what David said, and
    commit to make sure that we get RVOs out in time to provide
    that certainty for industry.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Follow the law is exactly the
    right answer from both of you. Thank you very much. I look
    forward to your speedy confirmations.
        With that, Chairman, I turn it back over to you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. We may have some others coming.
    We did commit to have a second round.
        I have one question, then I will go to the Ranking Member.
    Then Senator Padilla, do you have a question for a second
    round? Yes.
        Mr. Fotouhi, you have served as an attorney who has advised
    and litigated on behalf of both private clients and the EPA for
    almost 15 years. How would that experience guide your approach
    to ensuring the EPA rules are consistent with statute and
    durable for the long term? I think this is part of the problem.
    I have been on this panel for 10 years. The swings in
    administrations and regulations and viewpoints and other, even
    reflected really on the questioning that has been coming from
    the panelists, from the Senators, as well, I think is a
    difficult part of the system. I do not know how people adjust
    from a business standpoint, environmental, municipality,
    whoever, even a State.
        How does your past experience, would it be consistent with
    not just the statute, but more durable, so we do not have these
    swings that we have seen recently?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Thank you for the question, Senator. Rule of
    law is my touchstone. It is extremely important to me as a
    professional, as an environmental lawyer, as it was the case
    when I served at EPA, in my role there advising the
    administrator on options and legal issues.
        The critical touchstone has to be, in every occasion,
    ensuring that we are following the congressional authorization
    and statutory language that has been drafted by Congress. The
    Supreme Court has been very clear on this point, repeatedly. In
    the Biden administration alone, the Biden EPA lost every
    Supreme Court case that it had in front of a court over the
    last 4 years.
        We need to restore trust in EPA's actions, and part of that
    is to ensure that those actions are done consistently with the
    law, and that we are not over-reading our statutory authority
    and exceeding the boundaries that this Congress has placed on
    the agency.
        With regard to your point about switching and lack of
    predictability or certainty, I think the Waters of the U.S.
    Rule is a prime example of that, where the court has now spoken
    in the Sackett decision in a very prescriptive manner about
    what is and is not jurisdictional for regulatory purposes under
    the Clean Water Act. It is incumbent now on the agency to
    clarify that for the American public, so that they can
    understand when they need a permit from the Corps of Engineers
    or from EPA or their State and when they do not, without hiring
    a legion of consultants and attorneys to tell them what the law
    means.
        Senator Capito. Senator Whitehouse?
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much.
        Mr. Szabo, let's go back to your work for Project 2025. You
    were a contributor to that document and were thanked by the
    author of the chapter on EPA, correct?
        Mr. Szabo. Yes, that is correct, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. How did you contribute? What precise
    advice did you give to the document's authors?
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I
    provided just general advice and thoughts with respect to
    policies that, within the Clean Air Act section specifically.
        Senator Whitehouse. Do you have, or do they have any record
    of the advice that you gave?
        Mr. Szabo. I am not aware of any records they may have. I
    was a volunteer, and I do not have any records myself.
        Senator Whitehouse. You have no notes, you have no memos,
    nothing was in writing on all of this?
        Mr. Szabo. I have no records, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Is that because you had records and you
    have gotten rid of them, or were there never any records?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I have no records.
        Senator Whitehouse. That does not answer the question.
        Is the reason you have no records because you got rid of
    your records of your engagement with Project 2025?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, as a private organization, I am not
    sure what their recordkeeping policies were or are. I do not
    have any records.
        Senator Whitehouse. Did you submit anything in writing to
    them at any point? Did you ever have records? You not them,
    you.
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I provided advice to Project 2025.
        Senator Whitehouse. How? By email? By phone? Personal
    conversations? Memos?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I provided them advice in a number of
    ways.
        Senator Whitehouse. Including ways that were in writing?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, that is likely.
        Senator Whitehouse. Likely? Isn't that something you would
    actually know, since it was your advice and you would have
    written it down? How is that likely? Isn't that yes or no?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would have to go back and, as I said,
    I have no records. I would have to go think more about whether
    there were----
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, I will ask you to think more and
    also to make this a records preservation request. We will
    followup as appropriate.
        The EPA chapter of Project 2025 has dedicated five pages to
    the Office of Air and Radiation, which you intend to lead. Do
    you stand by the policy recommendations in that subsection
    related to NAAQS, climate change, HFCs, mobile and stationary
    source permitting, Clean Air Act sections 111 and 112,
    radiation and EPA personnel?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, thank you for the question. My
    understanding is these are aspirational ideas that were put out
    by a non-profit which are very similar to what other non-
    profits have done, including the Center for American Progress,
    for decades, for potential candidates. I was not involved in
    any sort of final review or determination as to what went into
    that chapter or any of the other chapters within Project 2025.
        Senator Whitehouse. Were you compensated for that work?
        Mr. Szabo. No.
        Senator Whitehouse. What is your intention, well, let me
    just go back a step. What we have seen is everybody from
    President Trump down saying, we had nothing to do with Project
    2025, and that is not our blueprint. Then as we watch things
    roll out in real life, we see that it is the Project 2025
    blueprint, over and over and over again.
        My question to you, is it your intent going into this job
    to implement the recommendations of Project 2025 in the office
    that you intend to lead?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, if confirmed, I believe in an open door
    policy with respect to ideas from all potential stakeholders,
    whether they be conservative or democratic. I am open to any
    groups' ideas. I believe that is the best way to be a regulator
    is to have an open, collaborative framework with anyone who
    would like to engage with the Federal Government.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Nice in theory, except that your
    career working for America First, which is a fossil fuel funded
    organization, doing the work for American Petroleum Institute
    members, who are by definition fossil fuel corporations,
    facilitating Project 2025, which was run by Heritage, a fossil
    fuel funded front group, everything in your past shows you
    absolutely aligned with the industry that is the heart of
    climate pollution. It makes me wonder how it is possible for
    you to take an honest look at climate change and the risks that
    it presents to us from that background.
        My time is expired.
        Senator Capito. You can respond.
        Mr. Szabo. Thank you, Senator. I would also mention I spent
    over 10 and a half years as a Federal career civil servant,
    including over two of those, I think two of those, in the Obama
    White House, implementing many of those policies. I believe
    that based on my extensive career of civil service that that
    would be done.
        Senator Whitehouse. Time will tell, won't it?
        Senator Capito. Senator Kelly?
        Senator Kelly. [Remarks off microphone.] As we discussed,
    and as I discussed with Administrator Zeldin during his
    confirmation hearing, we are facing serious challenges when it
    comes to ozone non-attainment under the Clean Air Act. All the
    data shows that the overwhelming source of our ozone pollution
    does not come from sources within Maricopa County. Yet, any new
    development in the region needs to identify offsets to get
    their permit.
        Of course, the goal of the Clean Air Act, and a goal that I
    share, is to find a pathway to improve air quality without
    stifling economic development, like Arizona's clean energy
    manufacturing industry.
        Do you agree that the goal of the Clean Air Act is to
    improve air quality?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, it was a pleasure talking to you
    earlier, and yes, the goal of the Clean Air Act and my goal
    currently and if confirmed is to improve air quality.
        Senator Kelly. Of course, as you know, ozone pollution is a
    challenge to address. I know you know this, but for my
    colleagues here, can you just explain how ozone pollution forms
    and why regions like Phoenix are susceptible to ozone
    formation?
        Mr. Szabo. Yes, thank you, Senator, for the question.
    Nitrous oxides and other forms of emissions interact with the
    atmosphere, and therefore, create ground level ozone, which can
    happen in smog, create smog. With respect to the geographic
    nature of your States, that can increase that potential ground
    level ozone, especially with potential emissions from outside.
        Senator Kelly. Yes, a combination, we have nitrous oxide
    and we have volatile organic compounds reacting with sunlight,
    it creates ozone.
        The problem we have is a lot of this does not come from the
    Phoenix area. In fact, somewhere between 80 and 85 percent of
    the emissions come from outside of the region, yet when a new
    permit has to be issued, EPA requires emissions reductions that
    generate offsets or credits that can only come from within the
    region, even though the ozone is coming from outside the
    region, or the organic compounds or the nitrous oxide comes
    from outside.
        First, if confirmed, will you commit to making yourself and
    your staff available to work with my staff, other Members of
    the congressional delegation, and our Arizona stakeholders to
    help us work through non-attainment related challenges?
        Mr. Szabo. Yes.
        Senator Kelly. Second, without prejudging outcomes, will
    you commit to ensuring that the Region 9 office and EPA
    headquarters dedicate resources to quickly review any pending
    new source review permits in the region, ideally before we move
    into serious non-attainment?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I would be happy, if confirmed, and in
    my current role, to work with Arizona on those issues.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Similarly, without prejudging
    outcomes, will you commit to ensuring that coordination between
    Maricopa County, Region 9 and EPA headquarters continues to
    make progress on the two local rules proposed by Maricopa
    County? We spoke about these, Rule 204 and 205.
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, as I mentioned earlier, I think it is
    very important to follow the Clean Air Act with respect to
    cooperative federalism, and can commit that if confirmed and in
    my current role, will work with Arizona on these issues.
        Senator Kelly. Will you commit to having EPA Region 9 and
    EPA work with our local officials to ensure our attainment
    plans can account for pollution from other countries and ensure
    there is a more streamlined exceptional event process for
    wildfire smoke?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, yes, I can confirm that.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. I have 40 more seconds; I want to
    talk a little bit about staffing issues and cuts. Mr. Szabo, I
    understand you have not been a part of a staffing conversation
    in your current role. We spoke about that. If you are
    confirmed, do you believe you could significantly reduce the
    number of staff in the Office of Air and Radiation and still
    keep the commitments you just made to me?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, yes, I believe that we can meet our
    obligations with the budget provided.
        Senator Kelly. My understanding is you have been working at
    EPA for the past 6 weeks, is that correct?
        Mr. Szabo. Since January 20th, yes.
        Senator Kelly. So far, has your impression been that the
    Air office is overstaffed or understaffed?
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, I believe that both the political and
    the career civil servants have been doing a fantastic job
    implementing their obligations under the Clean Air Act.
        Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you. Madam Chair, my
    apologies for going over by 10 seconds.
        Senator Capito. Oh, no problem.
        Senator Padilla?
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy I was
    able to make it back for the second round of questions.
        I would like to pick up where I left off with questions for
    Mr. Szabo. Before I left, I was trying to highlight the
    difference and distinctions between the rulemaking process and
    the waiver process.
        Maybe let me ask you, if you have a minute here, to
    articulate for the record your understanding of the difference
    between the two procedurally, the waiver process under Section
    209 versus the rulemaking process under the Administrative
    Procedures Act.
        Mr. Szabo. Senator, thank you for that question. My
    understanding is that they both go through a comment period
    themselves, and for instance, the California waiver granting is
    similar to a SIP approval process.
        Senator Padilla. Is the process identical, pretty much
    identical? Or how are they different?
        Mr. Szabo. They are both rules, and the process is with
    respect to what the requirements are under the Clean Air Act.
        Senator Padilla. They are not both rules. One is a
    rulemaking process; one is a waiver process. If you are not
    familiar with the important distinctions, let me move on.
        Does granting a waiver implement a new EPA policy? Or is it
    simply granting, in my case the State of California, the
    ability for it to enforce its own standards?
        Mr. Szabo. Similar to granting a State a State of
    implementation plan that would just be providing that State
    that authority.
        Senator Padilla. That is my understanding as well.
        When the EPA does grant a waiver, when does it go into
    effect?
        Mr. Szabo. My understanding is it goes into effect when it
    is signed.
        Senator Padilla. Automatically, right? Immediately. As a
    followup, you may or may not know the answer to this question,
    what does the congressional Review Act say about the time
    length for Congress to act on a disapproval resolution?
        Mr. Szabo. I believe it is within 60 legislative days from
    the date that it is either the later of the publication within
    the Federal Register notice or when it has been submitted to
    Congress and GAO.
        Senator Padilla. Right. Unless or until that happens, the
    waiver is in effect.
        Is the granting of a waiver adjudicatory?
        Mr. Szabo. It is a rule.
        Senator Padilla. Is it adjudicatory?
        Mr. Szabo. It is a rule under the congressional Review Act.
        Senator Padilla. All right, adjudicatory, the action is
    covered under the congressional Review Act.
        Mr. Szabo. With respect to the waivers, they are a rule
    under the congressional Review Act.
        Senator Padilla. They are waivers; they are not rules. That
    has been established. For the record, that is why for 50 years,
    including under the first Trump administration, the EPA has
    treated waivers, including the attempted revocation of a
    waiver, as an adjudication and not a rule. That is fact.
        I just want to end by spending a minute emphasizing, Madam
    Chair, why I have been so insistent and precise with my line of
    questioning. As I mentioned earlier, California has a
    disproportionate number of people who live in non-attainment
    areas, significantly.
        On the one hand, I am encouraged by what I heard from the
    nominees and from you, Madam Chair, and several members of this
    committee, of the State and local governments having the
    primary role in improving air quality. For multiple reasons,
    from an environmental protection standpoint and from a health
    standpoint, that is why EPA can and should help, collaborate,
    it should, when it may not be willing to consider this, it
    certainly should not hold up States and locals from going above
    and beyond if that is what they choose, if that is what their
    constituents need and deserve, so that we can have less
    Californians and less Americans in the future having to suffer
    from cancer or chronic lung disease and other impacts of the
    high levels of emissions, pollution and air contamination that
    so many communities throughout California and throughout the
    Country currently suffer from.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you both very much.
        As we conclude here, I would like to ask unanimous consent
    to enter into the record letters of support for both nominees.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. I did not give you the three standard
    questions that I should have done, and I apologize for that. I
    am going to ask you now.
        Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this committee
    or designated members of this committee and other appropriate
    committees of this Congress to provide information subject to
    appropriate and necessary security protections with respect to
    your responsibilities? Yes or no.
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes, Senator.
        Mr. Szabo. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
    briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of
    communication of information are provided to this committee,
    its staff, and other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
        Mr. Fotouhi. Yes.
        Mr. Szabo. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Finally, do you know of any matters which you may or ma not
    have disclosed that may place you in conflict of interest if
    you are confirmed?
        Mr. Fotouhi. No, Senator.
        Mr. Szabo. No, Senator.
        Senator Capito. Perfect. Okay.
        Now we have no further questions. I would like to thank the
    nominees, and all my colleagues for their participation.
    Senators who wish to submit written questions, and I believe
    there are some unanswered questions that we will need you to
    followup on, or further research I think you were going to do.
        For the record, you have until 5 p.m. this Friday, March
    7th, to do so. The nominee responses to those questions are due
    back to the committee no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, March the
    10th, and will be submitted to the record.
        With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you all very
    much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  [all]