PIPES Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5301

Last Updated: June 10, 2026

PIPES Act of 2025

HR. 5301, 119th Congress — read as touching Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure.

The sponsor

Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$215,569 raised

28 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "19" section, p. 655-657 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

September 16, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 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

Summary Style:

**Analysis of the PIPES Act of 2025 (HR 5301)**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of innovation, efficiency, and profit potential.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The PIPES Act aims to enhance pipeline safety by updating regulations, improving workforce development, and promoting research on new technologies. The primary objective is to reduce pipeline-related incidents and ensure a more efficient transportation system for gas and hazardous liquids.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

This bill introduces several key provisions:

1. **Authorization of Appropriations**: Increased funding for pipeline safety initiatives, including grants for workforce development and research on new technologies. 2. **Regulatory Updates**: Revised definitions, updated inspection requirements, and enhanced reporting mechanisms for pipeline operators. 3. **Workforce Development**: New programs to support training and education for pipeline workers. 4. **Research and Development**: Studies on composite materials, geohazard mitigation, and hydrogen infrastructure.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. **Pipeline Operators**: Companies like Kinder Morgan, Enterprise Products Partners, and TransCanada will be impacted by the updated regulations and increased funding requirements. 2. **Industry Associations**: Organizations like the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) will need to adapt to new standards and guidelines. 3. **State Governments**: States with significant pipeline infrastructure will receive increased funding for safety initiatives, but may also face additional regulatory burdens.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

1. **Increased Costs**: Pipeline operators will likely incur higher costs due to updated regulations, workforce development programs, and research requirements. 2. **Improved Safety**: Enhanced safety measures could lead to reduced incidents and improved public perception of the industry. 3. **Innovation Opportunities**: Research funding for new technologies like composite materials and hydrogen infrastructure may create opportunities for innovative companies to disrupt the market. 4. **Consolidation**: Smaller pipeline operators might struggle to comply with updated regulations, potentially leading to consolidation in the industry.

**Conclusion**

The PIPES Act of 2025 presents a mixed bag of opportunities and challenges for stakeholders. While it aims to improve safety and promote innovation, it also introduces new regulatory burdens and costs for pipeline operators. As a visionary entrepreneur, I see potential for growth and disruption in this space, particularly for companies that can adapt quickly to changing regulations and capitalize on emerging technologies.

**Recommendations**

1. **Monitor Regulatory Developments**: Pipeline operators should closely track updates to regulations and guidelines. 2. **Invest in Workforce Development**: Companies should prioritize training and education programs to ensure compliance with new standards. 3. **Explore Innovation Opportunities**: Entrepreneurs and innovators should focus on developing new technologies that address emerging challenges in the pipeline industry.

By staying ahead of the curve, we can unlock new opportunities for growth, efficiency, and profit in this critical sector.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$215,569

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$10,269

Committees

Individuals

$205,300

No PAC contributions found

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

2 transactions

$2,500

VOLUME TRANSPORTATION

1 transaction

$2,000

NORTHWEST MISSOURI CELLULAR

1 transaction

$1,000

MIDWEST DATA CENTER

2 transactions

$1,000

DEMOCRACY ENGINE LLC

1 transaction

$469

No committee contributions found

BUSCH, AUGUST

3 transactions

$140,900

MALMSTROM, JULIE

1 transaction

$11,600

LAGER, BRAD

2 transactions

$6,600

LAGER, STEPHANIE

2 transactions

$6,600

BOHLIN, TIFFANY

1 transaction

$3,300

HILL, JARED

1 transaction

$3,300

ADDISON, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

BRUDER, ERIC

1 transaction

$3,300

CHRISTIAN, LAURA

1 transaction

$3,300

DAVISON, JEFF

1 transaction

$3,300

EBERSOLD, CRAIG

1 transaction

$3,300

GEORGE, BRET A.

1 transaction

$3,300

HAGUE, KALI M

1 transaction

$3,300

HAPTONSTALL, DERON

1 transaction

$3,300

JACKSON, KENT

1 transaction

$3,300

NORMAN, SCOTT

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 37 nodes and 28 connections (43 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $215,569

Top Donors - Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

6 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 8 helped.

+Pipelines & Energy Infrastructureconfidence 0.95
The bill enhances pipeline safety regulations, provides grants for natural gas distribution system upgrades (Sec. 2(i)), and authorizes appropriations for pipeline safety programs, directly benefiting midstream operators and pipeline companies involved in oil, gas, and hazardous liquid transport.
+Oil & Gasconfidence 0.90
Sec. 25 amends definitions and requirements for carbon dioxide pipelines, which are used in oil and gas operations for enhanced oil recovery and carbon capture, providing regulatory clarity and potential market expansion for CO2 transport infrastructure.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Sec. 13 (Rights-of-way management) includes provisions for alternative methods of maintaining rights-of-way, such as integrated vegetation management, habitat development, and maintenance strategies, which would benefit construction and engineering firms involved in pipeline right-of-way work.
+Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.80
Sec. 2(i) provides grants for publicly owned natural gas distribution pipeline systems, which are often operated by or affiliated with electric utilities that also distribute gas, reducing their monetary losses and improving system reliability.
+Labor Unionsconfidence 0.80
Sec. 4 (Workforce development) authorizes additional FTE positions and recruitment/retention incentives for PHMSA, which could increase demand for skilled labor and potentially benefit labor unions representing technical and inspection workers.
+Renewable Energyconfidence 0.70
Sec. 14 studies composite materials for pipelines transporting hydrogen and hydrogen-blended natural gas, supporting future renewable hydrogen infrastructure and potentially benefiting renewable energy producers seeking to use existing pipeline networks for green hydrogen transport.

+ 2 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Construction & Engineering$2,250
from 4 contributions
- BASS, STANLEY$1,000
- CHRISTIANSON, JAMES$500
- SANDHERR, STEPHEN$500
- BENDER, DAVID$250
Pipelines & Energy Infrastructure$2,000
from 1 contribution
- KEAN, STEVEN$2,000
Renewable Energy$1,000
from 1 contribution
- SHIELD, JAMES$1,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

19

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 655-657AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PIPES Act focuses on pipeline safety regulations, workforce development, and funding, whereas the Project 2025 DOT section emphasizes public‑private partnerships, loan program transparency, and cost‑benefit analysis; there is only a tangential connection through general infrastructure funding and DOT oversight."

Key themes:infrastructure fundingDepartment of Transportation oversightsafety standards

— 623 — Department of Transportation l Policymakers should maintain awareness and promote transparency regarding the continued existence of this loan program and whether private financiers are being disintermediated by the subsidized BAB lending that the private sector simply cannot match. l A cost-benefit analysis of the federal government’s potential replacement and disintermediation of the private financing sector regarding infrastructure loans, which is not currently performed, should be conducted on a regular basis. PUBLIC–PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Much infrastructure could be funded through public–private partnerships (P3s), a procurement method that uses private financing to construct infrastructure. In exchange for providing the financing, the private partner typically retains the right to operate the asset under requirements specified by the government in a contract called a concession agreement. In addition, the private partner is given the right either to collect fees from the users of the asset or to receive a periodic payment from the government conditioned on the asset’s availability: If a highway is not open to traffic when it should be, for example, the government’s payment to the private concessionaire is reduced. The best practice for a government that is interested in using a P3 to deliver a project is for the government first to perform a value-for-money study, which compares the costs and benefits of procuring the asset under a typical procurement against the costs and benefits of utilizing a P3. Since private equity is involved, the financing costs for P3s are higher, but they also are frequently more than offset by the private sector’s ability to generate efficiencies and cost savings in the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the asset. If the value-for-money study finds that the efficiencies of a P3 and the value of risk shifted to the private sector exceed the additional financing costs, then utilizing a P3 is good public policy because Americans have better infrastructure at a lower cost. As well as providing better transportation facilities for Americans, P3s offer a number of benefits to governments. Specifically, they: l Provide access to some of the world’s best talent with vast experience in delivering infrastructure, l Create incentives for innovation and creativity, l Shift unique project risks to companies that are familiar with those risks, and — 624 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Allow designers, contractors, and maintenance teams to work together through the delivery of the process to focus on lifecycle costs as opposed to just initial design and construction costs. It should be noted that project funding and P3s are not synonymous. Policy- makers and government leaders frequently mistake the financing that P3s provide for funding. A P3 allows the government to obtain equity from the private sector, but that equity has to be paid back with interest. Like a loan, a P3 can be used to accelerate revenues and provide needed capital to help pay the upfront costs of a project, but also like a loan, the private P3 investors must be paid back for investors to realize a financial return. Some mistakenly think that using a P3 would allow a road or bridge to be deliv- ered without increases in tolls or taxes. It is important to remember that all funding for governmental infrastructure comes from either taxes or user fees. P3 financing can be used to make those funding sources more efficient, but it cannot replace the need for taxes or user fees to provide the funding for the project. In addition, a poorly managed P3 procurement process (the process govern- ment uses to identify the best private P3 partner) can result in excessive consultant costs and years-long delays in delivery. While P3s can offer efficiencies in delivering the project, the P3 procurement process itself can be significantly longer and more expensive than traditional procurement processes. Finally, and possibly most important, a P3 gives a private party the ability to collect fees or payments over decades (a period well beyond the length of the careers of the political appointees who sign contracts with private parties). Thus, P3s create an opportunity for current governmental leaders to obtain a higher upfront payment from the private party in exchange for greater user fees paid by future generations who will use the asset. In other words, a governmental CEO (governor, mayor, head of an authority) can use a P3 to impose unnecessarily high costs on users decades in the future in exchange for upfront cash. It is important that contracts be transparent in order to minimize this possibility. A P3’s greatest public value is realized when the procurement model is used for a project that is unusually risky or a type of project with which the government has limited experience such as a tunnel or light rail line. P3s are an excellent tool for transferring risk from the public sector to the private sector and can create considerable value for the taxpaying public. However, a high degree of expertise is required to ensure that the risk transfer warrants the higher financing and pro- curement costs that P3s impose. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES As private companies develop a future of new, emerging technologies, one role for DOT is driving clarity in the government’s role and setting standards for safety,

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 467-469AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PIPES Act centers on pipeline safety, workforce development, and infrastructure funding, whereas the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on chemical risk assessments, pesticide regulation, and related EPA program reforms. There is only tangential overlap in general themes of regulatory updates and safety, but no direct alignment with the EPA-specific objectives outlined."

Key themes:regulatory updatesworkforce developmentfunding authorizationsafety standards

— 434 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Ensure that new chemical evaluations are conducted in a timely manner, consistent with statutory requirements, to ensure the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. l For new chemicals, reset the program to ensure that reviews are completed on a timeline that is consistent with the statute. This includes revising the regulations governing the reviews of new chemicals. l Ensure that risk evaluations and risk management rules presume that workplaces are following all OSHA requirements, including requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE). l Apply real-world use of chemicals when assessing conditions of use for risk evaluations. l Transition the Safer Choice program to the private sector. l Right-size the TSCA fee’s rule so that it is consistent with the tasks that the agency is actually completing within the timelines of the statute and is not covering the costs of EPA inefficiency or overreach. l Revise existing policies to address the requirements of the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to the TSCA.41 l Develop a framework rule for risk management approaches that will be used under TSCA for existing chemicals. Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPP (Pesticides) l OPP should rely on Department of Agriculture and state usage data that reflect actual pesticide use in registration reviews and Endangered Species Act (ESA)42 analyses. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service should rely on similar data in their ESA analyses. l OPP has rigorous testing requirements that registrants must meet before pesticides are allowed on the market. However, when pesticides undergo registration review every 15 years, EPA relies on publicly available data with differing levels of quality and transparency. Data standards are needed to ensure that information relied on by EPA is made available to the agency at a similar level as the original testing data conducted by registrants to ensure that EPA can conduct a robust review and analysis of the data. — 435 — Environmental Protection Agency l ESA reform for pesticides is necessary. When approving pesticides, FIFRA allows for cost-benefit balancing, recognizing that pesticides are effective precisely because they harm pests. However, the ESA does not allow for any consideration of the beneficial effects of pesticides. In order to meet ESA obligations, pesticide uses are severely restricted, leaving growers with limited tools for crop protection. l New policies are needed to ensure that other program offices (such as ORD, OW, and OLEM) will defer to OPP on toxicity issues. OPP has rigorous testing requirements for pesticide ingredients and products to ensure before they go to market that their use will not harm human health and the environment. Assessments by other offices are redundant. l While individual pesticide registrations are considered adjudications and not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), consistent with a 1993 OMB guidance, when pesticide tolerances and registrations are withdrawn by the agency (as opposed to being withdrawn voluntarily by registrants), these actions should undergo coordinated interagency review managed by OMB. Budget The Biden Administration has expanded the scope and breadth of regulatory actions with respect to OPPT and OPP, but both programs continue to maintain that resources are insufficient. OPPT (chemicals) suffers from a lack of leadership and an inability to complete the most basic requirements efficiently and in a timely fashion. While EPA has asked for more resources, including higher industry fees, it is not clear that it has the capacity to use additional dollars efficiently. With regard to OPP (pesticides), pesticide manufacturers feel that the program is underfunded and would like its budget to be increased so that pesticide actions can be reviewed more quickly. Manufacturers are also willing to pay higher fees to the fee-based portion of the program. However, grower groups have been dis- appointed by EPA’s actions and have significant concerns about EPA’s ability to conduct science-based risk assessments and take risk management actions that appropriately balance benefits and risks as required by FIFRA. Guardrails and third-party audits should be part of any funding increases through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)43 or other mechanisms. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) AND RELATED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES While much of this work has not been authorized by law, EPA conducts a wide variety of intramural and extramural research, development, regulatory science,

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PIPES Act focuses on pipeline safety, funding, and workforce development, which only tangentially relates to EPA's greenhouse gas and regulatory reform objectives by potentially reducing methane leaks, but it does not directly address the specific EPA policies outlined in Project 2025."

Key themes:greenhouse gas emissionsregulatory oversightemissions reductioninfrastructure safety

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PIPES Act focuses on pipeline safety, workforce development, and regulatory updates for hazardous materials transport, while the Project 2025 EPA policy section centers on Clean Water Act reforms, WOTUS definitions, nutrient trading, and water infrastructure funding. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address water quality, wetlands regulation, or EPA-led water programs."

Key themes:regulatory reforminfrastructure safety

— 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey. — 430 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l An executive order requiring EPA to find avenues and expedite the process for states obtaining primacy in available CWA and SDWA programs. This order would require coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior. l Implementation of additional policies to address challenges in water workforce, issues surrounding timely actions on primacy applications, and cybersecurity. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government spending, there is one very targeted area where increased spending would be in the nation’s interest. The Clean Water Act needs survey is the entire basis for how congressionally appro- priated funds directed to state revolving funds—standard annual appropriations that are the true underpinning of all infrastructure funding for drinking water and clean water—are distributed by EPA across the country. Because this program is currently underfunded, money is being thrown at untargeted locations while water infrastructure is crumbling at other locations. Increased targeted funding would greatly benefit water systems across the country at a time when intervention is crucial, leaving fewer communities with significant water service challenges. Personnel OW would benefit greatly from the reshifting of SES employees to different programs and from headquarters out to regional offices. OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM) OLEM’s mission is to partner with other federal agencies, states, tribes, local governments, and communities to clean up legacy pollution and revitalize land for reuse. OLEM executes this mission by protecting human health and the envi- ronment while leveraging economic opportunities and creating jobs. OLEM also oversees the agency’s emergency response. The main statutes that OLEM exe- cutes are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)34 to regulate waste management; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)35 to clean up Superfund sites and provide resources for cleaning up brownfields sites; and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act36 to reduce the likelihood of accidental chemical releases. Needed Reforms OLEM’s main function is to oversee the execution of cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA; therefore, it is critical that OLEM staff focus on project management more than policy creation. Emphasizing productivity more than process and policies

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 467-469AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The PIPES Act focuses on pipeline safety, workforce development, and funding for pipeline infrastructure, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses pesticide regulation, ESA reform, OPP/ORD restructuring, and budget/personnel reforms. There is no substantive thematic or policy overlap between the two."

Key themes:unrelated topicsdifferent policy areas

— 435 — Environmental Protection Agency l ESA reform for pesticides is necessary. When approving pesticides, FIFRA allows for cost-benefit balancing, recognizing that pesticides are effective precisely because they harm pests. However, the ESA does not allow for any consideration of the beneficial effects of pesticides. In order to meet ESA obligations, pesticide uses are severely restricted, leaving growers with limited tools for crop protection. l New policies are needed to ensure that other program offices (such as ORD, OW, and OLEM) will defer to OPP on toxicity issues. OPP has rigorous testing requirements for pesticide ingredients and products to ensure before they go to market that their use will not harm human health and the environment. Assessments by other offices are redundant. l While individual pesticide registrations are considered adjudications and not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), consistent with a 1993 OMB guidance, when pesticide tolerances and registrations are withdrawn by the agency (as opposed to being withdrawn voluntarily by registrants), these actions should undergo coordinated interagency review managed by OMB. Budget The Biden Administration has expanded the scope and breadth of regulatory actions with respect to OPPT and OPP, but both programs continue to maintain that resources are insufficient. OPPT (chemicals) suffers from a lack of leadership and an inability to complete the most basic requirements efficiently and in a timely fashion. While EPA has asked for more resources, including higher industry fees, it is not clear that it has the capacity to use additional dollars efficiently. With regard to OPP (pesticides), pesticide manufacturers feel that the program is underfunded and would like its budget to be increased so that pesticide actions can be reviewed more quickly. Manufacturers are also willing to pay higher fees to the fee-based portion of the program. However, grower groups have been dis- appointed by EPA’s actions and have significant concerns about EPA’s ability to conduct science-based risk assessments and take risk management actions that appropriately balance benefits and risks as required by FIFRA. Guardrails and third-party audits should be part of any funding increases through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)43 or other mechanisms. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) AND RELATED SCIENCE ACTIVITIES While much of this work has not been authorized by law, EPA conducts a wide variety of intramural and extramural research, development, regulatory science, — 436 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise science advisory, peer review, risk assessment, and risk management activities. This enterprise includes the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the agency’s largest employer, as well as science activities across other key programs, regions, and cross-cutting parts of the Administrator’s office. EPA’s scientific enterprise, including ORD, has rightly been criticized for decades as precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals. Needed Reforms: Day One Priorities l Notify Congress that EPA will not conduct any ongoing or planned science activity for which there is not clear and current congressional authorization. This priority should be underscored in the President’s first budget request. l The new President’s Inauguration Day regulatory review/freeze directives should avoid exceptions for EPA actions. This freeze should explicitly include quasi-regulatory actions, including assessments, determinations, standards, and guidance, that have failed to go through the notice-and- comment process and may date back years. l Pause for review all contracts above $100,000 with a heavy focus on major external peer reviews and regulatory models. l Call for the public to identify areas where EPA has inconsistently assessed risk, failed to use the best science, or participated in research misconduct. l Eliminate the use of unauthorized regulatory inputs like the social cost of carbon, black box and proprietary models, and unrealistic climate scenarios, including those based on Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. Personnel l Quickly nominate a reform-minded Assistant Administrator for Research and Development. l Appoint and empower a Science Adviser reporting directly to the Administrator in addition to a substantial investment (no fewer than six senior political appointees) charged with overseeing and reforming EPA research and science activities. Qualifications for these positions should emphasize management, oversight, and execution skills (including in leading state environmental agencies) as opposed to personal scientific output.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Graves, Sam

BUILD America 250 Act

119/hr/8870

Water Resources Development Act of 2026

119/hr/9497

Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2025

119/hr/4275

Back to All Bills

PIPES Act of 2025

PIPES Act of 2025

Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

$215,569 raised

55% match to Project 2025

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

Bill Summary

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

Related Topics

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Donor Network - Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Top Donors - Rep. Graves, Sam [R-MO-6]

Industry Impact

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

Industries this bill HELPS

Project 2025 Policy Matches

19

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Protection Agency

About These Correlations

Full Policy Text

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Graves, Sam