[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 128 (Wednesday, August 5, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Page S4468]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Congressional Review Act

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Well, I am sorry that we can't agree on this 
particular provision because we are working together on so many things 
so well. But I will have to confess I have real doubts about whether 
EPA is really trying to put this together, as deadline after deadline 
slips and slips and slips.
  So perhaps we will see what happens. But if, for some reason, this 
CRA should fail, perhaps we can come back again after EPA slips the 
deadline again and perhaps has baked in some goodies for the PFAS 
industry along the way. And if we can't do it today, then soon send a 
bipartisan message to the EPA to knock it off and get about their 
business with PFAS.

                          ____________________