TranslatePolitics.com

Recent debates

8 latest topics

09-03 Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026 13 statements 09-03 Moment of Silence in Honor of the 25th Anniversary of September 11 2 statements 09-03 Honoring Former U.S. Representative Charles Hatcher of Georgia 2 statements 09-03 Recognizing Firefighters from California's Third Congressional District 17 statements 09-02 Saluting White Plains Beautification Foundation 2 statements 09-02 Celebrating Rural Lawyer Julie Bear 4 statements 09-02 Operation Midway Blitz Anniversary 2 statements 09-02 Catherine Watts Celebrates 100th Birthday 4 statements

Senate

Congressional Review Act (Executive Calendar)

2026-08-05 Issue 128 Showing 1–3 of 3

Official Congressional Record ↗

Sheldon Whitehouse

Democrat

“I want the EPA to require companies to report PFAS use now. I don't want Trump's EPA to delay reporting again. PFAS is dangerous. It is at military bases and airports. Republicans and Democrats should agree to stop the delay. I want my colleagues to support this review act.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I am here to take us into the upcoming vote, the Congressional Review Act vote, with respect to an EPA rule related to PFAS. For those of you who aren't following this, PFAS is a dangerous and toxic substance that, I think, Republicans and Democrats alike see as a dangerous and inadequately regulated substance. Unfortunately, it is particularly prevalent in military installations, and particular exposure has been faced by veterans and also by folks who are in our emergency response community--firefighters. Airports get a lot of it because of the firefighting drills that they have to have. It is a very significant problem. There was a rule that required the reporting about PFAS use. Manufacturers and importers just have to say: Here is what we are doing. But it is important to get that information out so that people can understand where the exposure is to these toxic PFAS chemicals. Well, just before--like 4 days before--that reporting window was supposed to open and require the reporting of PFAS exposure, Trump's EPA announced a new interim rule with a delay of the reporting requirement until next year. They delayed it once. That delay ran out. This is the second delay. First of all, I don't think there is any need for a delay. Second of all, there is every reason to believe that the chemical industry is behind weakening PFAS protections during the delay period. That would be consistent with the Trump EPA's favoritism toward any pollutant and any polluter all the time. So here we are with a deadline for reporting. This isn't regulation; this is reporting public information that is being scrapped and extended. I would hope because of the fact that the PFAS contamination danger falls across red and blue States alike that we could send a bipartisan message today, through this Congressional Review Act, back to the EPA, saying: No, you don't get a second delay. Start the reporting right now. If you want to come back and weaken the standard, we will fight you on that, but that is a separate fight. At least let's get the reporting on PFAS contamination out there. So I urge my colleagues to support this Congressional Review Act. I understand that the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee would like to respond. So I ask unanimous consent that Senator Capito be recognized and that, at the conclusion of her remarks, I be recognized to go through the parliamentary steps necessary for the vote.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Shelley Moore Capito

Republican

“I want to delay EPA reporting. The EPA does not have the system ready. It is not the companies' fault. The government is not ready. We cannot require companies to report if the system isn't ready. If we try, it will make it harder for everyone. I want to address PFAS. I have worked on it in my state. But I do not think we can do this now. I want my colleagues to vote no.”

Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island for recognizing me but also for giving me a chance to talk about my opposition to S.J. Res. 187. As he explained, this resolution would rescind Trump's EPA's extension of its start date for PFAS reporting under section 8 of TSCA. Yet, the CRA only does one thing about the rule, and that is as to the date that the reporting window opens. It would force the window to open months before the EPA's reporting system is even ready to receive submissions. The EPA moved this date for a straightforward reason, which is that the infrastructure that is needed to support this reporting program is still being built. Companies will file this data through the EPA's electronic system, the Central Data Exchange. Across two administrations--that is the previous administration and this one--the EPA has moved this reporting window three separate times for this very reason, which is that the electronic platform that companies must use is just not complete. Both the Biden and the Trump EPAs have explained in detail the technical challenges associated with this reporting program: this rule's requiring of a collection of more than a decade of historic PFAS information from thousands of entities across a broad range of uses. This CRA cannot make the EPA build the system faster, and it won't address contamination or pollution in the interim. The only real effect it will have is to force an unworkable deadline rather than to stand up a PFAS reporting system that works for the long term, and that is what we all want. Consider what passing this would really mean. It would set a Federal reporting deadline that would be physically impossible to meet, putting both regulated entities and the EPA in a very difficult position. There is no finished system to file through, and there is no time left to assemble all of those years of data. It would do this while exposing small businesses and manufacturers to potential enforcement for failing to comply with the reporting requirement that the EPA itself has concluded cannot be met. I have seen the impact of PFAS contamination firsthand in my home State of West Virginia. I think Senator Whitehouse and I agree that this is an issue--an important issue--that we need to address. I have led efforts to try to clean up legacy contamination in order to protect communities that did not cause this pollution, like our water utilities and our farmers, and to ensure that polluters bear the responsibility for the PFAS cleanup. I have helped secure funding to address PFAS contamination in the communities that need it the most, and I have chaired hearing after hearing on PFAS cleanup, disposal, and liability. So I think my record is very clear on this. So addressing PFAS should not be a partisan issue. Both parties, both Chambers, both of us, and two consecutive administrations have recognized: PFAS is a serious public health challenge that requires practical solutions. But this does not make PFAS reporting more effective; it does not make the reporting system come online any faster; and it does not provide communities with better data. So I would urge a no vote from my colleagues. And with that, I yield back to Senator Whitehouse.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Sheldon Whitehouse

Democrat

“I am sad we do not agree. I do not think the EPA is trying hard enough. I hope we can pass this bill. But if it fails, we can try again later. I want to send a message to the EPA to do their job.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates