Legislative Update: House GOP Backs Pyrolysis Shift in Recycling Debate

House Republicans Support Bid to Ease Pyrolysis Regulations As Lawmakers Explore Bipartisan Paths on National Recycling Standards and the UN Plastics Treaty

On July 17, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment held a hearing to examine recycling standards in a hearing entitled, “Beyond the Blue Bin: Forging a Federal Landscape for Recycling Innovation and Economic Growth.” Lawmakers from both parties expressed renewed interest in addressing systemic challenges facing U.S. recycling policy, including issues such as electronic waste, inconsistent labeling, and fragmented state regulations.

House Republicans aligned with the chemical industry’s push to ease Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on chemical recycling technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification.  They advocated for classifying chemical recycling technologies as manufacturing processes rather than as forms of incineration. This reclassification would reduce regulatory burdens and remove certain environmental permitting requirements currently applied to these technologies.

Full Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL) emphasized the need to remove regulatory obstacles that could impede investment in innovative recycling methods and domestic manufacturing. Industry representatives argue that these technologies convert plastic waste into usable fuels or materials, and therefore, they should be classified as manufacturing processes rather than incineration.

Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers and testified on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), called on Congress to deliver regulatory certainty by formally defining advanced recycling as a manufacturing process. He emphasized that the lack of clear federal guidance has created permitting delays and discouraged investment in technologies that could significantly reduce plastic waste. While critics of advanced recycling raise concerns about emissions and limited material recovery, industry advocates argue that these innovative processes are essential for strengthening domestic supply chains and meeting environmental goals through private-sector solutions. The EPA recently declined to classify chemical recycling under its June rule on solid waste incinerators, leaving the regulatory landscape unsettled.

During the hearing, industry groups expressed support for a national recycling framework to streamline standards and promote long-term investment. However, Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (R-AL) and several Republican members voiced concern about expanding federal control over recycling policy. Instead, they emphasized the importance of fostering innovation, reducing regulatory burdens, and allowing market-based strategies to lead. Eisenberg described this as a unique moment of alignment between industry and environmental stakeholders, yet acknowledged that a key legislative proposal supported by the ACC to place EPA at the center of a national system has not yet secured new bipartisan sponsorship.

While consensus on a comprehensive national recycling framework remains elusive, the volume of bipartisan proposals and stakeholder engagement reflects mounting pressure for federal lawmakers to modernize recycling infrastructure and standards. Bipartisan support appears to be coalescing around targeted legislation. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY) introduced the “CIRCLE Act” to provide tax incentives for recycling facilities, drawing broad backing from the waste industry and environmental organizations. Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) announced the “PACK Act,” which would create national labeling standards to reduce consumer confusion over recyclability claims.

In the Senate, Environment and Public Works Chair Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) continues to advance related initiatives. Her committee approved the “STEWARD Act” (S. 351), which would allocate $30 million in grants to improve recycling data and expand access to recycling services in rural communities. A companion bill from Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) remains under House committee review.

Republican leaders also used the hearing to consider how the U.S. should engage in the UN Global Plastics Treaty and what would an “America First” plastics treaty look like? Lawmakers and industry witnesses reflected diverging views along partisan lines on the United States’ role and priorities in the negotiations.

Chairman Palmer criticized the Biden-Harris administration’s prior support for bans and production caps under the treaty, asserting such positions are not in America’s interest. He emphasized the President’s executive order, which prioritizes U.S. interests in international environmental agreements.  Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) echoed concerns about overregulation, urging U.S. leadership in the treaty negotiations to reject European-style mandates and focus on innovation and competitiveness.

Mr. Eisenberg called on Congress and the administration to engage actively in the treaty process, stating that the U.S. should focus on stopping plastic pollution while protecting innovation and investment. He supported a treaty that promotes waste management infrastructure and avoids broad restrictions on plastic production or chemical inputs.

Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ), in contrast, endorsed a robust U.S. role in the negotiations, arguing that producers should bear more responsibility for plastic waste. He warned against the U.S. ceding leadership by withdrawing, as occurred with past environmental accords under President Trump.  Eisenberg warned that failing to engage risks allowing other countries to shape the agreement in ways that may disadvantage U.S. industry.

GOP Lawmakers Urge Targeted Trade Approach Behind Closed Doors 

A group of House Republicans from manufacturing-focused districts is working behind the scenes to ensure that the Trump administration’s trade policies continue to advance American competitiveness while minimizing unintended consequences. These lawmakers are advocating for a more strategic application of tariffs—one that targets bad actors abroad without disrupting vital U.S. industries such as pharmaceuticals and aerospace. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) recently led a letter, signed by 20 GOP members of the Ways and Means Committee, emphasizing that careful calibration is needed to avoid jeopardizing access to life-saving medications. Similarly, Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS) organized a letter expressing support for the administration’s broader manufacturing goals while urging restraint on potential tariffs affecting civil aircraft.

This measured approach reflects a desire to strengthen the administration’s negotiating position by offering constructive input rather than public confrontation. It is often coordinated with manufacturers and industry associations seeking to protect jobs and secure stable supply chains. Lawmakers are particularly attentive to the implications of new tariffs under Section 232 investigations that span several key industrial sectors. While Senate Republicans have faced votes on specific tariff resolutions, House Republicans have maintained unity with President Trump’s broader economic vision, while privately promoting refinements that safeguard U.S. productivity and public health.

Trump Administration Prepares Rule to Revoke EPA’s Climate Authority

The Trump administration has reportedly prepared a draft EPA rule that seeks to repeal the “endangerment finding,” a foundational 2009 scientific determination that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare. This finding underpins the federal government’s authority to regulate emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources under the Clean Air Act. According to individuals familiar with the plan, the draft argues not against the science of climate change. Instead, it claims that the EPA exceeded its legal authority in issuing a broad finding on greenhouse gases. The administration’s proposed repeal also includes the elimination of federal tailpipe emissions standards aimed at promoting electric vehicle adoption.

If finalized, this rule would not only nullify existing federal climate regulations but also prevent future administrations from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Experts say such a move could severely undermine the government’s capacity to respond to climate change for years to come. Legal experts, including former EPA officials, warn that this proposal contradicts the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which recognized greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. They anticipate the draft rule would face significant legal challenges if implemented.

The EPA has not confirmed the details but stated that the draft proposal was submitted to the White House for review on June 30 and will be subject to public comment once interagency review concludes. Critics argue that the draft ignores the overwhelming scientific consensus on the health impacts of climate change documented in the original endangerment finding. The proposed repeal is consistent with broader Trump administration efforts to prioritize fossil fuel development, limit clean energy expansion, and dismantle federal climate initiatives.

The draft asserts that regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act should be narrowly applied to specific emissions sources rather than a general threat to public welfare. This approach would mark a dramatic shift in environmental policy, potentially leaving the U.S.  without a clear federal mechanism to address rising emissions amid worsening climate effects.

Appropriations Gridlock Deepens As Continuing Resolution Looms for FY26

As federal funding is set to expire on September 30th, many anticipate that continuing resolutions will be needed to avert a government shutdown. These resolutions would likely maintain current funding levels, but the Trump administration may still attempt to circumvent congressional intent by impounding funds to align actual FY26 spending with the president’s budget proposal. That proposal envisions a sharp 22.6 percent reduction in non-defense discretionary spending, making clear the administration’s commitment to shrinking the federal footprint and ensuring that FY26 appropriations become a high-stakes political battle.

The House of Representatives is currently struggling to make progress on FY 2026 government funding.  Speaker Mike Johnson adjourned early for the August recess, with only two of the twelve required appropriations bills being passed. House Appropriations members express concern over lost time and internal disagreements, with some, like Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), openly supporting a year-long CR despite its limitations.

The Senate is preparing to advance a four-bill fiscal year 2026 appropriations package, following a bipartisan 90-8 vote to proceed with the Military Construction-VA funding bill (H.R. 3944). According to Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME), the legislation will serve as the vehicle for a broader “minibus” package that will incorporate three additional measures: Agriculture (S. 2256), Commerce-Justice-Science (S. 2354), and Legislative Branch (S. 2257) appropriations. Collins emphasized the Senate’s “very good progress” on appropriations, though the exact timing for floor consideration remains undecided.

Democrats, however, remain cautious about the broader appropriations process due to mounting concerns over what they perceive as the administration’s encroachment on congressional budgetary authority and distrust in the GOP’s approach to spending negotiations. Last week’s narrow House passage of a $9 billion rescissions bill (H.R. 4), which cuts foreign aid and public broadcasting funding, has further complicated bipartisan cooperation. There are also concerns that the administration may pursue “pocket rescissions,” a legally contentious tactic to impound funds late in the fiscal year.

In the Senate, Democrats face a critical decision on whether to cooperate or use the appropriations process as leverage.  Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) urged support for the Military Construction bill, calling it critical for veterans and affirming her support for a three-bill minibus package. Murray emphasized the importance of bipartisan collaboration to prevent a government shutdown and ensure spending aligns with state-level needs.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated that no final decision has been made on shortening the Senate’s August recess, following President Donald Trump’s call to stay in session to confirm more nominees. Thune stated he is “keeping the options open” and that the pace of confirmations next week will be a determining factor. He emphasized that the outcome largely depends on Democrats’ cooperation, noting that confirmations can proceed either through prolonged procedural votes or through expedited, precedent-based agreements.

House Panel Advances Interior-Environment bill with sharp EPA cuts

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on July 15 advanced its fiscal year 2026 Interior-Environment spending bill on a party-line vote of 33-28, allocating $38 billion in nondefense discretionary funding—a 7 percent cut from current levels. The bill sharply reduces EPA funding by $2.1 billion to $7 billion and blocks enforcement of multiple Biden-era regulations, including emissions standards for power plants and vehicles. The bill also provides $1.2 billion to the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF), down from $1.6 billion in FY 2025—a 25% cut.  Cuts to $2.1 billion for State Revolving Funds (SRF) bring the fund to the lowest levels since 2008.

Republicans rejected a series of Democratic amendments that aimed to implement more significant policy changes, including an amendment offered by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that sought to restore funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to FY25 levels. The underlying bill proposed cutting those SRF programs in favor of funding for community projects. DeLauro argued that community project funding and SRF allocations serve distinct purposes and should not compete against one another, emphasizing that critical infrastructure investments should not be sacrificed.

Despite the cuts from FY2025 levels, the bill is still $2.84 billion higher than the president’s $4.16 billion request.  Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-ID) defended the EPA cuts as necessary to prioritize funding for tribal services and firefighter pay increases. He emphasized that the bill promotes energy dominance and mineral development while rolling back regulatory barriers imposed during the Biden administration.

House Energy-Water Bill Boosts Water Infrastructure  

On July 17, the House Appropriations Committee approved its FY 2026 Energy and Water Development spending bill, proposing substantial funding cuts while shifting priorities in line with President Donald Trump’s budget framework. The $57.3 billion discretionary package reduces funding for the Department of Energy (DOE) by approximately $1.4 billion and eliminates or scales back several clean energy programs. Water infrastructure features prominently in the proposed legislation.

The Army Corps of Engineers would receive $9.9 billion, a notable increase of over $1 billion, to support civil works projects. The Bureau of Reclamation would also see a modest boost, with a proposed $1.9 billion in funding—an increase of $5.7 million. Over $900 million is earmarked for specific water projects. Despite broad cuts, these increases reflect bipartisan consensus on the importance of water resource management and infrastructure.

In contrast to the House’s aggressive reductions, the Senate Appropriations Committee is proceeding more cautiously and on a bipartisan basis. While the Senate has not yet released its Energy-Water bill, it has already advanced the Agriculture bill and is preparing to markup Military Construction and Veterans Affairs legislation.

Trump Policy Reverses Biden-Era Push to Reduce Single-Use Plastics

The Trump administration has proposed a new federal procurement rule that would ban the use of paper straws by government contractors, instead requiring straws made from plastic or biobased materials with similar durability. This move follows President Donald Trump’s February executive order aimed at eliminating paper straws from federal use. The proposal argues that plastic straws are more cost-effective, more durable, safer for individuals with disabilities, and pose fewer health risks than paper straws, which the administration claims dissolve quickly and may contain harmful chemicals.

The policy shift is a clear departure from the Biden administration’s sustainability-focused procurement strategies, which had encouraged reduced reliance on single-use plastics. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, which includes the General Services Administration (GSA), Department of Defense, NASA, and OMB, is leading the regulatory effort. The Trump administration frames the rule as a practical response to cost and safety concerns, but critics may view it as part of a broader rollback of Biden-era environmental initiatives.

EPA Dissolves Research Office and Initiates Mass Layoffs Amid Restructuring

The EPA announced the elimination of its Office of Research and Development (ORD) and initiated a significant workforce reduction, marking one of the most sweeping reorganizations in the agency’s history. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin stated that the restructured agency will now center its scientific work in a newly formed Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions, which will operate within program offices focused on air, water, and other key policy areas.

The agency states that this realignment will enhance efficiency and scientific integration, while saving approximately $750 million. Total EPA staffing will be reduced by more than 3,700 employees—nearly 23%—bringing the agency’s workforce to 12,448. This move follows a Supreme Court ruling that enabled President Donald Trump’s broader plan to significantly reduce the federal workforce.

The agency has acknowledged that more than 1,100 scientists, including chemists and toxicologists, could lose their jobs, although lab functions are expected to continue under the new structure.