HR-2145-119
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 48 - 0.
Sponsored by Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would direct the EPA to create a competitive pilot grant program within 18 months of enactment. States, local governments, Tribes, and public-private partnerships could receive $500,000 to $15 million each for transfer stations, expanded curbside collection, and partnerships that lower collection and transport costs. It would authorize $30 million per year for fiscal years 2025 through 2029, cap the federal share at 90 percent (waivable for hardship), set aside at least 70 percent for underserved communities, bar use of funds for recycling education, and require a report to Congress.
Who benefits
Residents of rural, remote, and unincorporated communities without full recycling service, particularly areas with no more than one materials recovery facility within 75 miles. Local governments, states, and Tribes that could receive grants for transfer stations and curbside programs. Private waste and recycling haulers and facility operators that join public-private partnerships. Recycled-material buyers and manufacturers who may gain a larger supply of sorted commodities.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers would bear the cost of up to $150 million in authorized spending, subject to future appropriations. Communities that already have recycling service, or that lack the staff or matching funds to apply, may be less competitive for grants. Recycling education groups and programs could not use grant money for outreach, which may limit gains in participation or reduce contamination. Local governments must cover up to 10 percent of project costs plus ongoing operating costs after the pilot ends. Private firms outside a partnership may face competition from subsidized projects.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that many rural and remote communities have no practical way to recycle because the nearest sorting facility is too far away or too full. They contend a hub-and-spoke model with transfer stations, a 90 percent federal share, and a 70 percent set-aside for underserved areas targets that gap efficiently. They note the 48-0 committee vote shows broad bipartisan support. They add that the required report to Congress would show whether the pilot works before any larger commitment.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that recycling collection and processing are local responsibilities, and that federal grants may not create lasting service once funding ends. They contend the bar on education spending ignores contamination, a major driver of recycling costs, and that weak commodity markets may leave new collection undermined. They also point to the $150 million in authorized spending as an added federal cost without proof that the hub-and-spoke model raises recycling rates.
Constitutional context
Congress relies on its Spending Clause power (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) to fund grants to states, localities, and Tribes, with conditions that are clearly stated and related to the program's purpose, as South Dakota v. Dole (1987) requires. The voluntary, competitive grants do not commandeer states, so New York v. United States (1992) is not implicated. No significant constitutional question arises.
Checks and balances
Congress authorizes the program and its funding, but the EPA Administrator gains discretion over grant selection. Checks include annual appropriations, the required report to Congress, and congressional oversight.
Historical precedent
The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (2020) and the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021) similarly funded federal grants for recycling and waste infrastructure.