Shelley Moore Capito · TranslatePolitics.com

Senate

Congressional Review Act (Executive Calendar)

2026-08-05

“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 ↗