Legislative Update: Plastic Treaty Talks Collapse Amid Deep Divisions

Plastic Treaty Talks Collapse Amid Deep Divisions

Global negotiations to address the plastic pollution crisis collapsed over the weekend in Busan, South Korea, as diplomats failed to meet their year-end deadline for a deal, prolonging discussions into 2025. Divisions over key issues—including reducing plastic production, limiting harmful chemicals, and financing implementation—prevented consensus. During the final round of negotiations, the administration had detailed its priorities for a United Nations agreement to combat plastic pollution, outlining a list of 18 chemicals and eight plastic products for potential bans, restrictions, or further evaluation. After criticism by both industry and environmentalists, the administration walked back that previously reported shift in supporting production limits, instead promoting a “North Star” approach to encourage reduction rather than any binding commitments.

The treaty’s future role is now uncertain as Donald Trump prepares to take office. The Trump administration is expected to take a more skeptical approach to negotiations, with Congressional Republicans uniting against production limits. Meanwhile, a coalition of 85 nations, including the U.K., Germany, and France, continues to advocate for ambitious measures to curb plastic production and eliminate hazardous plastics.

The failure to secure an agreement has drawn criticism from both sides of the U.S. political spectrum. The White House National Security Council released a statement criticizing a coalition of oil-producing nations and corporations profiting from plastic production.  Republican lawmakers blamed the Biden administration for what they described as yielding to environmental activists, while Democrats, such as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), lamented a lack of ambition in U.S. leadership. The State Department expressed disappointment but reiterated its commitment to pursuing a “full-lifecycle approach” in future talks. As the negotiations face new geopolitical realities and heightened tensions between countries that want to reduce plastic pollution, and those that simply want to reduce plastic production.

Congress Reaches Bipartisan Agreement on Water Resources Development Act

House and Senate leaders announced on December 4 a bipartisan agreement on the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2024, reconciling differences between the versions passed earlier this year by the two chambers. The biennial legislation, which supports the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program, authorizes projects to reduce flood risks, improve ports and harbors, and restore ecosystems. Released as a House amendment to the Senate bill (S. 4367), the compromise follows months of negotiation to align priorities. The bill is expected to pass with broad bipartisan support, continuing a tradition of approval since 2014.

This year’s WRDA includes authorizations for over 200 new feasibility studies and 21 construction projects recommended by the Army Corps’ chief of engineers. The legislation also reauthorizes the Economic Development Administration and various regional commissions to promote economic growth. Additional provisions would redistribute unused infrastructure funds to states, implement reforms to reduce waste on unused federal properties and encourage federal employees’ return to office work. Leaders hailed the compromise as a critical step in enhancing water infrastructure, boosting supply chains, and protecting communities from extreme weather while supporting job growth.

GOP Plans Two-Phase Budget Reconciliation Strategy for 2025 Priorities

During a December 4 strategy session attended by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), and President-elect Trump, Republican leaders are proposing a two-phase budget reconciliation strategy in 2025 to address key priorities under the new GOP trifecta quickly, but internal divisions among the GOP is already showing competing visions in how they will choose to proceed based on legislative priorities. Majority Leader Thune is recommending that the first package, targeted for the early days of President-elect Donald Trump’s term, will focus on defense, energy, and border security, aiming to enact impactful legislation within the administration’s first 30 days—securing an early legislative win and fulfilling some key campaign promises. A second, more complex reconciliation bill will follow, addressing issues like the renewal of the 2017 tax cuts and other significant fiscal decisions.  Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mike Rounds (R-SD) are also emphasizing the need to address border security and energy priorities while carefully balancing fiscal concerns.

While House Speaker Mike Johnson supports this approach, some House GOP lawmakers are divided on how to structure a reconciliation package.  House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-TX), have expressed concerns, emphasizing the need for broader member input rather than top-down decision-making.  Some members on the Ways and Means Committee, worry this sequencing may hinder later efforts on tax reform, as combining tax with border measures could have incentivized broader support.  House budget hawks are also demanding spending cuts to offset costs, clashing with centrists and Senate Republicans. They argue that the tax bill’s complexity, compounded by campaign promises such as exempting tip income, requires more time for refinement.  Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), is proposing an initial reconciliation package combining border, fees, and tax measures, followed by permanent tax reforms later.

While nothing is decided yet, leaders emphasized the need for unity to navigate slim congressional margins. Republicans face other significant challenges in advancing budget reconciliation due to a slim five-seat majority (220-215) and procedural complexities. Speaker Johnson must secure votes for an initial budget resolution in January, with minimal room for defections following the departures of three key representatives moving to the administration. That majority will be 217-215 for the opening months of Congress until those seats can be filled.

Meanwhile, leveraging precedents set by Democrats during the Biden administration could expand reconciliation’s scope, but reconciling House and Senate differences remains challenging. Senate Parliamentarian guidance further limits options for a second reconciliation attempt later in the fiscal year.

Farm Bill Extension Stalls Amid Policy Disputes as Deadline Nears

Senate Agriculture ranking member John Boozman (R-AR) expressed serious concerns about progress on negotiating a one-year extension of the farm bill as the December 31 deadline looms. The current farm bill expired on September 30, though funding for many programs remains in place through the end of the year. Boozman, set to chair the committee in the next Congress, cited unresolved policy differences as the primary roadblock but did not provide specific details but emphasized the importance of raising reference prices for risk management tools used to help farmers when commodity prices drop.

Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) expressed confidence that the extension will pass on time, contrasting Boozman’s skepticism. The farm bill extension is likely to be tied to the continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government before current funding expires on December 20. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) stated that lawmakers are making progress on the CR and remain optimistic about meeting the deadline. However, significant differences between the House and Senate farm bill versions remain unresolved, further complicating efforts to finalize the extension. The ongoing negotiations reflect broader tensions in balancing farm program priorities.

Trump’s OMB Pick Signals Aggressive Deregulatory Agenda for EPA

President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Russell Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a second time signals a strong commitment to implementing the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a deregulatory blueprint aimed at drastically reducing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget and regulatory authority. Vought, a staunch advocate for curbing the executive branch’s civil service, has outlined measures to revoke key Biden-era policies and streamline regulatory processes. His Project 2025 contributions emphasize a powerful role for OMB in overseeing agency decision-making, reducing regulatory burdens, and rolling back initiatives he deems excessively focused on climate policies. His prior leadership at OMB during the Trump administration and founding of the Center for Renewing America underscore his alignment with conservative cost-cutting and deregulatory objectives.

Critics of Vought’s nomination argue that his support for Project 2025 represents a dangerous consolidation of executive power, threatening democratic norms and public health protections. They warn that his plans could severely undermine environmental protections and erode civil servant autonomy.  Proposed cuts, such as reducing  EPA’s budget by nearly 30%, are framed as an attack on climate initiatives and enforcement programs, though funding for Superfund cleanups and water infrastructure would remain. Proponents, including Trump, praise Vought’s commitment to dismantling what they call a “weaponized government.”  

The incoming Trump administration and Republican Members of Congress will rely heavily on the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to remove many of the overreaching EPA and other agency regulations implemented by the Biden administration.  The CRA allows Congress to review and disapprove “major” rules issued by federal agencies before the rules take effect for up to 60 legislative days after Congress adjourns.   Though the 2024 CRA “lookback period” cannot be determined until the 118th Congress adjourns sine die, CRS unofficially estimates that rules submitted by the Biden administration on or after August 1, 2024, until the end of the 118th Congress, are likely to fall within the lookback period.

Zeldin Vows Clear WOTUS Guidance and Transparency

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for EPA Administrator, former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), committed to issuing guidance clarifying the scope of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This guidance addresses concerns raised by farmers and ranchers who struggle to navigate regulatory and permitting requirements, in an interview with Inside EPA, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE). Zeldin acknowledged during their meeting that the current lack of clarity places an undue burden on landowners, necessitating clear and actionable guidance. This issue has been a focal point of debate since the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision in 2023, which found fault with EPA’s amended WOTUS rule. While Zeldin has not indicated whether the Trump administration will pursue revisions to the rule, revert to the vacated Trump-era Navigable Waters Protection Rule, or rely solely on guidance, addressing WOTUS is expected to be a key priority.

EPA Finalizes Controversial TSCA Rule on New Chemical Reviews with a Narrow Scope

On December 4, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final rule revising the framework for reviewing new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The rule seeks to modernize and align the agency’s internal review processes with TSCA reforms enacted in 2016. However, the changes are already facing criticism for their limited scope. The rule is described as “largely similar” to the 2023 proposal, which both industry and environmental groups broadly criticized for failing to address their concerns. Industry groups have pushed for a more streamlined review process to resolve application backlogs, while environmentalists argue for stricter safety measures.

The final rule incorporates several updates, including barring certain chemicals from qualifying for exemptions, such as low-volume and low release and exposure exemptions (LVE and LoREX). It also introduces measures to improve application clarity, ensure completeness, and restart the review process for incomplete submissions. While these changes aim to improve efficiency and safety, industry experts, such as former EPA chemicals official David Fischer, characterized many updates as superficial, with little impact on the prolonged review timelines.

Notably, the rule does not revoke previously granted LVE approvals for PFAS but reserves the right to reassess these approvals on a case-by-case basis. It also introduces new procedural requirements, mandating one of five statutory determinations for every new chemical application to assess risks before manufacturing or processing begins. Additionally, the EPA has included provisions to modify compliance orders based on new information that suggests existing measures are insufficient to mitigate risks to health or the environment.

The rule’s limited scope leaves the possibility of further revisions open. With a new administration incoming, mechanisms such as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or regulatory freezes could lead to additional changes or repeals. Industry representatives have also signaled continued advocacy for more substantive reforms to address long-standing inefficiencies.