A bill to encourage reduction of disposable plastic products in units of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
ID: M001176
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Hearings held.
December 9, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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 "feel-good" bill from the esteemed members of Congress, designed to make them look like they care about the environment while actually doing nothing substantial. Let's dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Reducing Waste in National Parks Act (S 1926) aims to reduce disposable plastic products in national parks by establishing a program for their reduction and elimination. The bill's sponsors, led by Senator Merkley, claim it will help mitigate the environmental impact of single-use plastics.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the National Park Service (NPS) to establish a program to reduce disposable plastic products in national parks within 180 days. Regional directors must implement this plan, considering factors like costs, waste reduction, and visitor education. The bill also mandates biennial evaluations of the program's effectiveness.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The NPS, concessioners, cooperating associations, and visitors to national parks will be affected by this bill. However, let's not forget the real stakeholders: the plastic industry lobbyists who will likely find ways to water down (pun intended) any meaningful regulations.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a token effort, designed to appease environmentalists while maintaining the status quo. The program's success relies on vague "feasibility" considerations and input from concessioners, which will likely prioritize profits over sustainability. Expect minimal impact on reducing plastic waste, as the bill doesn't address the root causes of the problem.
Now, let's follow the money trail:
* Senator Merkley has received significant campaign contributions from environmental groups and organizations that benefit from "green" initiatives. * The National Park Service has a history of cozy relationships with concessioners and cooperating associations, which may influence the program's implementation. * Plastic industry lobbyists will likely find ways to undermine any meaningful regulations, as they have done in the past.
In conclusion, this bill is a prime example of legislative theater, designed to create the illusion of action while maintaining business-as-usual. It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, and we should expect little to no real change in reducing plastic waste in national parks.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 22 nodes and 28 connections
Total contributions: $87,300
Top Donors - Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Showing top 21 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
— 420 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Subsequently, especially during the Obama Administration, EPA experienced massive growth as it was used to pursue far-reaching political goals to the point where its current activities and staffing levels far exceeded its congressional man- dates and purpose. This expansive status is entirely unnecessary: It has nothing to do with improving either the environment or public health. The EPA’s initial success was driven by clear mandates, a streamlined structure, recognition of the states’ prominent role, and built-in accountability. Fulfilling the agency’s mis- sion in a manner consistent with a limited-government approach proved to be extremely effective during the agency’s infancy. Back to Basics. EPA’s structure and mission should be greatly circumscribed to reflect the principles of cooperative federalism and limited government. This will require significant restructuring and streamlining of the agency to reflect the following: l State Leadership. EPA should build earnest relationships with state and local officials and assume a more supportive role by sharing resources and expertise, recognizing that the primary role in making choices about the environment belongs to the people who live in it. l Accountable Progress. Regulatory efforts should focus on addressing tangible environmental problems with practical, cost-beneficial, affordable solutions to clean up the air, water, and soil, and the results should be measured and tracked by simple metrics that are available to the public. l Streamlined Process. Duplicative, wasteful, or superfluous programs that do not tangibly support the agency’s mission should be eliminated, and a structured management program should be designed to assist state and local governments in protecting public health and the environment. l Healthy, Thriving Communities. EPA should consider and reduce as much as possible the economic costs of its actions on local communities to help them thrive and prosper. l Compliance Before Enforcement. EPA should foster cooperative relationships with the regulated community, especially small businesses, that encourage compliance over enforcement. l Transparent Science and Regulatory Analysis. EPA should make public and take comment on all scientific studies and analyses that support regulatory decision-making. — 421 — Environmental Protection Agency ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE AND REORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY The Office of the Administrator (AO) is intended to provide executive and logistical support for the EPA Administrator. Its stated purpose is to support EPA leadership and activities. To implement policies that are consistent with a conservative EPA, the agency will have to undergo a major reorganization. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy position within the Administrator’s office should be renamed the Deputy Chief of Staff for Regulatory Improvement. This position would oversee a reorganization effort that includes the following actions: l Returning the environmental justice function to the AO, eliminating the stand-alone Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. l Returning the enforcement and compliance function to the media offices (air, water, land, and emergency management, etc.) and eliminating the stand-alone Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, which has created a mismatch between standard-setting and implementation. l Using enforcement to ensure compliance, not to achieve extrastatutory objectives. l Developing a plan for relocating regional offices so that they are more accessible to the areas they serve and deliver cost savings to the American people. l Restructuring the Office of International and Tribal Affairs into the American Indian Environmental Office and returning the international liaison function to media offices where appropriate. l Eliminating the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education as a stand-alone entity and reabsorbing substantive elements into the Office of Public Affairs. l Relocating the Office of Children’s Health Protection and the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization from the AO and reabsorbing those functions within the media offices (air, water, land, and emergency management, etc.). l Reviewing the grants program to ensure that taxpayer funds go to organizations focused on tangible environmental improvements free from political affiliation.
Introduction
— 419 — Environmental Protection Agency disasters in decades, including the Flint, Michigan, water crisis in 20144 and the Gold King Mine spill in 2015.5 Beyond creating such immediate and tangible harm in various communities, an EPA led by activism and a disregard for the law has generated uncertainty in the regulated community, vendetta-driven6 enforcement, weighted analytics, increased costs, and diminished trust in final agency actions. Although the U.S. environmental story is very positive, there has been a return to fear-based rhetoric within the agency, especially as it pertains to the perceived threat of climate change. Mischaracterizing the state of our environment generally and the actual harms reasonably attributable to climate change specifically is a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ineffective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs. In effect, the Biden EPA has once again presented a false choice to the American people: that they have to choose between a healthy environment and a strong, growing economy. Historical Role and Purpose. For many decades, rapid industrial activity with an unorganized approach to environmental standards significantly degraded the country’s environment. Particle pollution in the form of a thick, fog-like haze that at times was laced with harmful metals was a frequent occurrence across the country.7 More than 40 percent of communities failed to meet basic water quality standards, and in 1969, the Cuyahoga River infamously caught fire after sparks from a passing train ignited debris in the water, which was filled with heavy indus- trial waste.8 EPA was established on December 2, 1970, following a call by President Rich- ard Nixon to “rationally and systematically” organize existing piecemeal efforts to clean up and protect the environment.9 Under Reorganization Plan No. 3, the EPA was to initiate a “coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food.”10 Numerous authorities were consolidated and given to the EPA including research, monitor- ing, standard-setting, and enforcement activities. The mission to protect public health and the environment was born, and the first Administrator was sworn in on December 4, 1970. Congress followed suit with the landmark Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA)11 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.12 The subsequent Clean Air Act Amendments of 199013 played a significant role in the expansion of EPA’s responsi- bilities and legal authority with the agency then being tasked with the development of new regulatory mechanisms that included, among other things, cap-and-trade programs for the control of sulfur dioxide and technological standards for nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, a vastly expanded hazardous air pollutant program, a federal operating permit program, and new regulations gov- erning phaseout of the production of ozone-depleting substances in conjunction with U.S. ratification of the Montreal Protocol in 1988.14
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.