STEWARD Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
ID: C001047
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another exercise in futility, courtesy of our esteemed lawmakers. Let's dissect this trainwreck, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The STEWARD Act of 2025 (because who doesn't love a good acronym?) claims to improve recycling accessibility and infrastructure in underserved communities. How noble. The real purpose, however, is to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pockets of well-connected private entities and politicians' pet projects.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill establishes a pilot grant program (because "pilot" sounds so much more exciting than "boondoggle") to award grants to eligible entities (read: cronies) for recycling infrastructure development. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency gets to play Santa Claus, doling out funds to favored projects.
Changes to existing law? Ha! This bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak and obfuscation. It's a laundry list of definitions, exceptions, and exclusions designed to confuse and obscure the true intentions.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
* Eligible entities (public-private partnerships, Indian tribes, etc.): These are the real beneficiaries – the ones who'll get their hands on the grant money. * Underserved communities: The supposed recipients of this "generosity." Don't worry; they'll get some token improvements to their recycling infrastructure, but mostly as a PR stunt. * Taxpayers: As always, the ones footing the bill for this exercise in crony capitalism.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill will achieve exactly what its sponsors and lobbyists want it to:
1. Line the pockets of private entities with taxpayer dollars under the guise of "recycling infrastructure development." 2. Create a new layer of bureaucratic red tape, ensuring that actual improvements to recycling accessibility are slow and inefficient. 3. Provide a PR boost for politicians who can claim they're doing something about the environment (while actually doing nothing meaningful).
In conclusion, this bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a cynical exercise in self-serving politics masquerading as environmental policy. The only thing being "recycled" here is the same old playbook of corruption and incompetence that plagues our government.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 19 nodes and 23 connections
Total contributions: $107,400
Top Donors - Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 396 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Increase the use of commercial waste disposal. Using commercial disposal would reduce capital costs (~ $2 billion) for new disposal sites to accelerate cleanup and reduce local post-cleanup environmental liability at multiple sites. l Revisit the Hanford cleanup’s regulatory framework. Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals. l Establish more direct leadership and accountability to the Deputy Secretary consistent with Government Accountability Office recommendations.91 l Change Environmental Management’s culture to promote innovation and completion. Budget Environmental Management received slightly less than $7.6 billion in FY 2021, and its budget request for FY 2023 is approximately $8.06 billion.92 The additional funding necessary to accelerate closure of the program will need to be considered as part of a broader government-wide discussion about yearly appropriations. OFFICE OF CIVILIAN RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT (OCRWM) (CURRENTLY OFFICE OF SPENT FUEL AND WASTE DISPOSITION) Mission/Overview The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 conferred the responsibility for commercial nuclear waste disposal on the federal government,93 and in 2002, Congress designated a single repository located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the national repository site. The act also established the Office of Civilian Radio- active Waste Management (OCRWM).94 The Obama Administration shut down OCRWM in 2010. The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, which is headed by a non-confirmed Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Nuclear Energy, is currently responsible for the management of nuclear waste, and interim disposal is taking place on various sites. Providing a plan for the proper disposal of civilian nuclear waste is essential to the promotion of nuclear power in the United States. — 397 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions Needed Reforms l Work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for Yucca Mountain. According to both the scientific community and global experience, deep geologic storage is critical to any plan for the proper disposal of more than 75 years of defense waste and 80,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel.95 Yucca Mountain remains a viable option for waste management, and DOE should recommit to working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as it reviews DOE’s permit application for a repository. Finishing the review does not mean that Yucca Mountain will be completed and operational; it merely presents all the information for the State of Nevada, Congress, the nuclear industry, and the Administration to use as the basis for informed decisions. l Reform the licensing process. The reactor licensing process is inadequate. Fixing nuclear waste management will require wholesale reform that realigns responsibilities, resets incentives, and introduces market forces without creating chaos within the current nuclear industry that has been built around the current system. l Produce concrete outcomes from consent-based siting. Beginning in the Obama Administration and resurrected during the Biden Administration, consent-based siting for a civilian waste nuclear repository has been a way to delay any politically painful decisions about siting a permanent civilian nuclear waste facility. In 2022, DOE announced $16 million to support local communities in consent-based siting.96 The next Administration should use the consent-based-siting process to identify and build temporary or permanent sites for a civilian waste nuclear repository (or repositories). New Policies l Restart Yucca Mountain licensing. DOE should restart the Yucca Mountain licensing process. Any continuation of interim storage facilities should be made part of an integrated waste management system that includes geologic storage. Further, building on the consent-based siting process already underway, DOE should find a second repository site. l Fix the policy and cost drivers that are preventing nuclear storage. The federal government continues to hold $46 billion97 in the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF),98 funded by utilities and their ratepayers for permanent disposal of nuclear waste. However, no such storage exists, and spent nuclear fuel remains on site at most nuclear plants. Meanwhile, Congress uses those funds to finance unrelated spending. Moreover, DOE’s
Introduction
— 417 — 13 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Mandy M. Gunasekara MISSION STATEMENT Creating a better environmental tomorrow with clean air, safe water, healthy soil, and thriving communities. A conservative U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will take a more supportive role toward local and state efforts, building them up so that they may lead in a meaningful fashion. This will include the sharing of federal resources and agency expertise. Creating environmental standards from the ground up is con- sistent with the concept of cooperative federalism embedded within many of the agency’s authorizing statutes and will create earnest relationships among local offi- cials and regulated stakeholders. This in turn will promote a culture of compliance. A conservative EPA will track success by measured progress as opposed to the current perpetual process and will convey this progress to the public in clear, con- cise terms. True transparency will be a defining characteristic of a conservative EPA. This will be reflected in all agency work, including the establishment of open- source science, to build not only transparency and awareness among the public, but also trust. The challenge of creating a conservative EPA will be to balance justified skep- ticism toward an agency that has long been amenable to being coopted by the Left for political ends against the need to implement the agency’s true function: pro- tecting public health and the environment in cooperation with states. Further, the EPA needs to be realigned away from attempts to make it an all-powerful energy and land use policymaker and returned to its congressionally sanctioned role as environmental regulator. — 418 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise OVERVIEW The Status Quo. Not surprisingly, the EPA under the Biden Administration has returned to the same top-down, coercive approach that defined the Obama Administration. There has been a reinstitution of unachievable standards designed to aid in the “transition” away from politically disfavored industries and technolo- gies and toward the Biden Administration’s preferred alternatives. This approach is most obvious in the Biden Administration’s assault on the energy sector as the Administration uses its regulatory might to make coal, oil, and natural gas opera- tions very expensive and increasingly inaccessible while forcing the economy to build out and rely on unreliable renewables.1 This approach has also been applied to pesticides and chemicals as the Biden Administration pushes the “greening” of agriculture and manufacturing among other industrial activities. As a consequence of this approach, we see the return of costly, job-killing regulations that serve to depress the economy and grow the bureaucracy but do little to address, much less resolve, complex environmental problems. In some instances, these actions even work to undermine environmental efforts as they push industries overseas to countries whose enforcement of pollution-control requirements is seriously deficient—if indeed they have any meaningful require- ments at all. Meanwhile, agency costs and staffing have increased significantly. The EPA’s fiscal year (FY) 2023 request included a 28.8 percent increase in fund- ing and a 13.3 percent increase in staffing, making it the “highest funding ever” in EPA’s history.2 Compared to the Obama Administration, there is one key difference in the Biden Administration’s approach: In a concerted effort to diminish congressio- nal oversight, the position of EPA Administrator has been overshadowed by the creation of multiple “Climate Czars” at the Biden White House. In effect, current EPA Administrator Michael Regan, who has a reputation as a well-meaning, gen- erally capable former state official, has been left out of the political loop, serving mostly as a pleasant distraction from EPA’s expansive, costly, and economy-de- stroying agenda. A Coopted Mission. The EPA has been a breeding ground for expansion of the federal government’s influence and control across the economy. Embedded activists have sought to evade legal restraints in pursuit of a global, climate-themed agenda, aiming to achieve that agenda by implementing costly policies that oth- erwise have failed to gain the requisite political traction in Congress. Many EPA actions in liberal Administrations have simply ignored the will of Congress, align- ing instead with the goals and wants of politically connected activists. Pursuit of this globally focused agenda has distracted the agency from fulfilling its core mission, thereby creating a backlog of missed statutory deadlines,3 and at times has even led to preventable environmental disasters. During the Obama Administration, for example, the U.S. experienced two of the worst environmental
Introduction
— 622 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise long-term maintenance costs. At a bare minimum, the number of grants should be consolidated. DOT would also reduce unnecessary burdens by returning to the Trump Admin- istration’s “rule on rules” approach to regulations, implemented in late 2019 as RIN 2105-AE84.4 This rule strengthened the Administration’s effort to remove outdated regulations, find cost-saving reforms, and clarify that guidance documents are in fact guidance rather than mandatory impositions. The Biden Administration unwisely moved away from this reform, and the next Administration should revive it without delay. BUILD AMERICA BUREAU The Build America Bureau (BAB) resides within the Office of the Secretary and describes itself as “responsible for driving transportation infrastructure develop- ment projects in the United States.”5 This lofty-sounding goal in practice means that the Bureau serves as the point of contact for distributing funds for transpor- tation projects in the form of subsidized 30-year loans. For higher-quality projects and in certain circumstances, these government loans may disintermediate the private sector from providing similar financing, albeit at higher costs. At certain times in the economic cycle, and for many lower-quality projects with more dubious economic return, similar loans from the private sector are simply not available. Should the BAB continue to exist and potentially disintermediate the private financing sector, it must maintain underwriting discipline and continue best practices of requiring rigorous financial modeling and cushion for repayment of loans in a variety of economic scenarios. In addition: l The BAB should ensure that these loans do not become grants in another form by maintaining the requirement that all project borrowers be rated at least investment grade by the major ratings agencies and that project sponsors remain liable to ensure that all financing is repaid, even in periods of financial stress and economic downturns. l Project sponsors should be required to show that projects have positive economic value to taxpayers, and sponsors should guarantee that all federal financing will be repaid through properly structured loan terms, including a minimum equity commitment from all project sponsors. l All projects should also be required to show repayment ability in various interest rate environments, and the BAB should ensure that long-term loans are structured appropriately with regard to the fixing of interest rates and hedging of interest rate risk on the part of the borrowers to avoid financial stress or default driven solely by rising interest rates.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.