Shelley Moore 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.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 188, the CRA introduced by my colleague from Rhode Island Senator Whitehouse to overturn the Trump EPA's repeal of the Biden MATS rule. This rule would reinstate the 2024 MATS rule that was part of the Biden administration's power sector strategy specifically designed to shut down coal-fired powerplants.

During the Biden administration, we witnessed a regulatory attack that targeted affordable and reliable sources of energy that extreme environmentalists just do not like. The result was predictable and one that many of us warned about: The Biden administration created a grid reliability crisis and increased power prices.

We are now in a critical moment for American energy. We must ensure the energy required to onshore American manufacturing, win the AI race, and keep our lights on and our homes warm while addressing energy costs for families and businesses. We should be expanding our energy production and electric generation, not shutting it down. The Biden-era MATS rule and

this CRA that would resuscitate that rule are intended to close coal- fired powerplants.

In 2020, the EPA found that the existing MATS standards are protective of public health. Let me say that again. In 2020, the EPA found that the existing--pre to the Biden rule--MATS standards are protective of public health, with an ample margin of safety, and that revisions are not necessary. This finding was reaffirmed with, by, and for the Biden administration.

According to the EPA, by 2021, mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants were down 90 percent compared to pre-2012 levels. Despite these facts, the Biden EPA proceeded to finalize a rulemaking that had $860 million in compliance costs, which is twice as much as the claimed benefits.

The Trump administration has rightfully repealed these unnecessary and stringent standards.

This CRA would return to the failed policies of shutting down American energy, increasing consumer costs and putting American energy workers out of business. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this

Mr. President, I first would like to say to my friend Senator Britt from Alabama that her introduction of our colleague Senator Mullin was terrific. I would say high fives to everything that you have said about our friend Markwayne, and I know that he will lead that organization in a stellar way. I look forward to his leadership.