Legislative Update: Senate Panel Advances Bipartisan Environmental Cleanup and Recycling Bills

Senate Panel Advances Bipartisan Environmental Cleanup and Recycling Bills

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced two bipartisan bills aimed at environmental cleanup and recycling initiatives in underserved communities. In separate voice votes, the panel approved the Strategies To Eliminate Waste and Accelerate Recycling Development (STEWARD) Act of 2025 (S. 351), which directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a pilot program for expanding recycling access. S. 347, which reauthorizes funding for brownfield revitalization through fiscal 2030.

The STEWARD Act, sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), establishes the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Program at the EPA to improve access to recycling services through competitive grants ranging from $500,000 to $15 million. These grants will support projects that increase transfer stations, expand curbside recycling programs, and reduce collection and transportation costs, focusing on areas lacking access to materials recovery facilities.

The Act also enhances data collection and reporting on recycling and composting by modernizing EPA metrics to assess waste management effectiveness. The bill directs the EPA to collect data on market trends, material processing rates, and accessibility challenges while encouraging voluntary data-sharing partnerships with state and local governments. Additionally, it mandates an assessment of national composting potential, examining infrastructure needs, regulatory obstacles, and industry trends. These efforts aim to streamline recycling operations and boost material diversion from landfills.

The STEWARD Act has garnered broad bipartisan and industry support from major corporations, including PepsiCo, Unilever, and General Mills, as well as trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

EPA Seeks 90-Day Delay in TSCA Framework Case as Trump Administration Reviews Rule

The EPA has requested a 90-day delay in the D.C. Circuit Court for oral arguments on the Biden-era TSCA framework rule, which dramatically expands chemical risk evaluations and enshrines the controversial “whole chemical” approach. Industry groups argue this approach is unlawful, as it ignores real-world exposure levels and misrepresents chemical risks. The Trump administration’s Justice Department filed the delay request on February 5, allowing new EPA leadership to review the rule and decide whether to continue defending it.

EPA argues that postponing oral arguments would conserve judicial and agency resources, as a review of the rule could render the lawsuit unnecessary or lead to modifications that address some of the contested issues. The agency also emphasized that such delays are common following presidential transitions, as new appointees require time to review ongoing litigation. If granted, the court would set new deadlines for motions after the 90-day period, potentially altering the future of the Biden administration’s chemical risk evaluation framework under TSCA.

Industry has strongly opposed the TSCA framework rule, finalized in spring 2024, as a radical departure from the previous risk-based model, replacing scientific evaluation with sweeping, overly restrictive regulations. The United Steelworkers (USW) lawsuit is one of three major challenges to Biden-era TSCA rules, all of which could set legal precedent. Meanwhile, similar TSCA risk management cases on chrysotile asbestos and methylene chloride are pending in the 5th Circuit, creating a high risk of conflicting rulings.

A key legal issue is whether EPA must account for worker protective measures (PPE) when assessing chemical risks. Unions argue that TSCA forbids consideration of PPE, while industry groups maintain it is essential for accurate risk assessments. The flawed approach by the Biden administration’s EPA could lead to unnecessary chemical bans, disrupt supply chains, and impose major economic costs.

Rep. Palmer Moves to Overturn Lead and Copper Rule via Congressional Review Act as EPA Seeks Delay in Lead Pipe Rule Lawsuit 

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) has introduced legislation (H.J. Res 18) to overturn the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) using the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to repeal recently enacted regulations with a simple majority vote in both chambers and presidential approval. If successful, federal regulators would be permanently blocked from implementing a similar rule in the future. Both parties have historically used the CRA to undo regulations finalized in the final months of previous administrations, and Congressional Republicans are expected to introduce multiple CRA measures to reverse Biden-era regulations this year.

A full repeal of LCRI would reinstate the prior Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), finalized during Trump’s first term, with a compliance deadline of October 16, 2024. This shift could leave water systems nationwide out of compliance, as certain requirements had been suspended for four years. As a result, further action by either Congress or the EPA may be required to adjust compliance timelines or protect water systems from regulatory enforcement.

Meanwhile, the EPA requested a 60-day stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a lawsuit challenging the Biden administration’s LCRI. The rule mandates the near-full replacement of lead service lines (LSLs) by 2037, a requirement that Republican AGs and water utility groups argue is infeasible under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The delay would allow the Trump administration to determine whether to continue defending the rule or seek a remand, potentially reverting to the less-stringent LCRR finalized at the end of Trump’s first term. However, any rollback would be subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) anti-backsliding provision, which mandates that new rules be as protective or more protective than prior regulations.

Senate Confirms Zeldin as EPA Chief, Outlines Five-Pillar Strategy to Implement Trump’s EPA Agenda

On January 29, the Senate confirmed Lee Zeldin as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a 56-42 vote, positioning him to lead former President Donald Trump’s efforts to roll back environmental regulations. Three Democrats—Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and John Fetterman (D-PA)—joined all 53 Republicans in supporting his confirmation.

On February 4, Zeldin outlined five policy “pillars” to guide the agency in implementing former President Donald Trump’s environmental agenda as part of the “Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative.” These priorities include ensuring clean air and water, promoting energy “dominance,” advancing permitting reform, strengthening infrastructure for artificial intelligence (AI), and revitalizing American auto manufacturing jobs. Zeldin emphasized that these measures align with EPA’s core mission while also supporting economic growth.

Zeldin made it clear that all EPA employees are expected to work in accordance with Trump’s policy directives, stating that those unwilling to do so should not remain at the agency. However, he acknowledged that he values diverse viewpoints on how best to achieve the administration’s goals. Alongside these policy changes, he expects a significant reduction in EPA staff, as part of the Trump administration’s broader federal government workforce reduction efforts through buyouts and targeted removals.

House GOP Eyes Yearlong Stopgap as Budget Talks Stall

House Republican leaders are reportedly leaning toward passing a yearlong continuing resolution (CR) instead of negotiating full-year fiscal 2025 appropriations bills. The decision is driven by increased debate between Republicans and Democrats following early executive actions by President Donald Trump, as well as the GOP’s focus on the budget reconciliation process. A final decision is expected this week, as Congress faces a March 14 deadline under the current stopgap spending bill.

The $90 billion gap between House and Senate spending proposals remains a central sticking point. House Republicans have sought cuts to nondefense spending. At the same time, Senate Democrats and appropriators have insisted on a 1 percent increase for defense and nondefense programs, consistent with the 2023 debt limit agreement. Despite initial efforts to reach a bipartisan topline spending deal, negotiations had barely gained momentum before Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo freezing federal assistance programs, angering Democrats.  Although the memo was later rescinded, Trump’s executive orders restricting climate funding, foreign aid, and other programs remain in effect, further delaying negotiations.

House Republicans now see a yearlong CR as a more viable option to avoid a government shutdown. However, this approach would lock in current funding levels and prevent any new policy initiatives from being implemented through appropriations. With time running short, lawmakers must decide quickly whether to move forward with the CR or attempt a last-minute agreement on full-year spending bills.

Senate GOP Pushes Ahead with House Divided on Budget

Senate Republicans are moving ahead with a two-step budget reconciliation plan, positioning themselves ahead of the House in the legislative process. Senate Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is expected to mark up a budget resolution next week to allocate approximately $300 billion in new spending, with half dedicated to border security and half to defense. The proposal would require mandatory spending cuts identified by relevant committees.  Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) backs Graham’s approach, with the Senate Budget Committee expected to advance its plan next week.

Meanwhile, the House GOP remains mired in internal debate over its budget resolution, combining border security, defense, energy policy, and tax cut extensions into a single package. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) continue to advocate for this comprehensive approach, arguing it is necessary to unite the Republican conference and secure enough votes for passage.

While some conservatives demand deeper spending cuts, others are concerned about proposed Medicaid reductions and their potential impact on rural hospitals. Additionally, GOP leaders have not agreed on whether to assume high economic growth rates or rely on more conservative estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Senate’s strategy could allow for quicker legislative action, potentially delivering an early policy win for former President Donald Trump. While Johnson and Smith are working to consolidate support for their all-encompassing bill, Senate Republicans, led by Graham, argue that a narrower, more focused approach has a greater chance of success.

If the Senate moves first, it could pressure the House to abandon its broader plan in favor of a more incremental legislative process. As Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) noted, the Senate’s leadership in the budget reconciliation process has become increasingly evident, setting up a potential showdown between the two chambers over the best path forward for advancing Trump’s agenda.

Federal Environmental Offices Center of Focus in Sweeping Restructuring Effort

The Trump administration initiated a sweeping rollback of environmental policy offices within the federal government, targeting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD). The EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, established under President Biden to address pollution in disadvantaged communities, is slated for closure, with its employees placed on administrative leave. Similarly, Attorney General Pam Bondi has rescinded Biden-era environmental justice directives, instructing U.S. Attorney’s Offices to revoke related policies.

At the Justice Department, the ENRD has faced sweeping changes, including eliminating its environmental justice office and a halt to pending environmental litigation. The administration has also reassigned career attorneys to a newly created office focused on enforcing immigration policies and plans to terminate approximately 20 employees.

U.S., Mexico, and Canada Reach Temporary Agreement to Avoid Tariffs

President Donald Trump agreed to delay the implementation of 25 percent tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada for at least 30 days following discussions with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The agreements, reached just before the tariffs were set to take effect on Jan. 3, are contingent on both countries intensifying efforts to curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States.  The agreements also paused potential retaliatory tariff actions by the leaders of the US’s largest trading partners.

Similar agreements on the across-the-board 10 percent tariff imposed on Chinese products have not been reached. That duty will be on top of the tariffs imposed on some $300 billion in Chinese imports in the first Trump Administration.  President Trump said yesterday he is in “no rush” to speak to Chinese President Xi after China immediately slapped retaliatory tariffs on US products and launched a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute against the 10 percent tariffs.

Mexico has committed to deploying 10,000 soldiers along its northern border to specifically target drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl. President Sheinbaum also announced that the United States has pledged to enhance efforts to prevent the trafficking of high-powered weapons into Mexico. Meanwhile, Canada has pledged $1.3 billion toward border security enhancements, including new helicopters, advanced technology, and increased personnel. Additionally, Trudeau announced the creation of a “Fentanyl Czar,” the classification of cartels as terrorist organizations, and the formation of a Canada-U.S. Joint Strike Force focused on organized crime, fentanyl trafficking, and money laundering.

Trump characterized the agreements as an initial step, stating that the tariffs would be postponed for 30 days to assess progress and explore a broader economic agreement with Canada. His decision to impose tariffs was initially framed as part of a wider effort to pressure trading partners into taking action on drug trafficking and migration.

In the coming weeks, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick will lead negotiations with Mexican officials to solidify commitments and evaluate further steps. The pause in tariffs allows all parties to demonstrate measurable progress in combating drug trafficking and illicit trade while averting immediate economic disruption.

Lutnick Nomination Advances, Commerce and USTR Nominees Vows to Enforce ‘America First’ Trade Agenda 

On February 5, the Senate Commerce Committee approved the nomination of Howard Lutnick as the next Secretary of Commerce in a 16-12 vote, with  Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) joining  Republicans in supporting Lutnick’s nomination. The full Senate vote expected as early as next week.

Upon his nomination, President Donald Trump indicated Lutnick would oversee trade policy, raising concerns about the role of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). However, in written responses to the committee, Lutnick affirmed that USTR’s statutory responsibilities remain unchanged and that the Department of Commerce and USTR would collaborate to advance an “America First” trade policy.

The Senate Committee on Finance will hold its hearing to consider the nomination of Jamieson Greer, President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), on February 6.  Greer will emphasize trade policy as a tool to “deter conflict” and strengthen national security.  In his prepared remarks, Greer argues that a strong manufacturing base and innovation economy are essential to maintaining U.S. power and protecting Americans. A former chief of staff to first-term USTR Robert Lighthizer, Greer supports Trump’s economic policies, crediting them with reducing inflation and pledging to continue that agenda if confirmed. While he does not explicitly reference tariffs, his comments suggest he views them as a means to ensure fair competition for American workers, farmers, and businesses.