[Senate Hearing 117-102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-102

   THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY AS A CONCEPT FOR CREATING A MORE SUSTAINABLE 
                                 FUTURE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 22, 2021

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
  
  
  
		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
  


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
        
        			__________
        		
        	        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

46-184			      WASHINGTON : 2021
        		
        
                
                
                COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
               
               
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Biser, Hon. Elizabeth, Secretary, North Carolina Department of 
  Environmental Quality..........................................    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    28
Elias, Roberta, Director, Policy and Government Affairs, World 
  Wildlife Fund..................................................    31
    Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    42
Hawkinson, Brian, Executive Director, Recovered Fiber, American 
  Forest and Paper Association...................................    45
    Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe.......    51
Johnson, William ``Billy,'' Chief Lobbyist, Institute of Scrap 
  Recycling Industries...........................................    54
    Prepared statement...........................................    56

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

The Need to Examine the Life Cycles of All Energy Sources: A 
  Closer Look at Renewable-Energy Disposal, The Heritage 
  Foundation, September 20, 2021.................................     7
Letter to:
    Senator Carper from the Association of Plastic Recyclers, 
      October 5, 2021............................................   126
    Senators Carper and Capito from The RealReal, October 18, 
      2021.......................................................   129
    Senators Carper and Capito from the Solid Waste Association 
      of North America, September 27, 2021.......................   133
    Senators Carper and Capito from the Can Manufacturers 
      Institute, October 14, 2021................................   136
    Senators Carper and Capito from the Paper Recycling 
      Coalition, September 22, 2021..............................   138
Statement for the Record, the American Chemistry Council, 
  September 22, 2021.............................................   146

 
   THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY AS A CONCEPT FOR CREATING A MORE SUSTAINABLE 
                                 FUTURE

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse, 
Merkley, Stabenow, Inhofe, Lummis, and Sullivan.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. I am about to call this hearing to order. 
In fact, I will call this hearing to order, and I am going to 
invite our guests, our witnesses, as appropriate, to join us at 
the table with your nameplate.
    I would like to start this morning by thanking this 
distinguished panel of witnesses for their willingness to join 
us today as we discuss an issue, and I think, an opportunity, 
of great importance: That is the transition to a circular 
economy. A warm welcome to Elizabeth Biser, Roberta Elias, 
Brian Hawkinson, and Billy Johnson. We look forward to hearing 
from each of you this morning.
    I have to confess I love the idea of a circular economy. I 
studied a little economics at Ohio State as a Navy ROTC 
midshipman, not very much, but enough to get through and on to 
the Navy. But I love the idea of a circular economy. I love 
trying to figure out how to use market forces to get things 
done. I like the idea of considering the things and the 
materials that help constitute and make a circular economy 
possible, materials that can be reused over and over again 
instead of ending up in a landfill somewhere.
    As an avid recycler and composter, I have always believed 
in environmental stewardship since my days growing up as a Boy 
Scout in Danville, Virginia, where we moved from Beckley, West 
Virginia. Over the years, I have come to feel even more 
strongly that it is our moral duty to leave behind a cleaner, 
healthier planet for our children and for the generations that 
follow.
    Let me make one thing clear: Driving toward a circular 
economy is not just doing something about the disdain or 
disgust we feel in seeing the trash that litters too many of 
our highways and our streams. It is an essential part of the 
solution to a series of crises facing our Nation and our globe 
today: Escalating climate change, overflowing landfills, and 
oceans that are choked with a mass of plastic greater than the 
weight of all the fish in the sea.
    The actions that put us in this mess are not the fault of 
any one person. That is why it is up to all of us to work 
together on finding solutions. This is what we call in the Navy 
an all hands on deck moment.
    Over the past few weeks, several of our Senate colleagues 
and I, including Senator Capito, Senator Boozman, Senator 
Whitehouse, Senator Merkley, and others have joined us in 
engaging with a host of stakeholders in a series of roundtable 
discussions on the concept of a circular economy, and what that 
concept looks like in practice across a multitude of industries 
and levels of government. What we heard was, in part, sobering, 
but also, I am happy to report, it was encouraging.
    We heard from solid waste workers about the challenges they 
face with contaminated recycling streams and the impact of 
China's National Sword Policy on their ability to effectively 
manage domestic waste, especially plastic.
    We heard about the need for better product design and 
infrastructure upgrades so that companies can have their 
products returned to them in good condition to be reused.
    And we heard about the devastating impact of the fashion 
industry on our environment. Did you know that every second, 
almost a dump truck's worth of textiles goes into our 
landfills, every second, and that the fashion industry is 
responsible for something like 10 percent of global emissions, 
more that the aviation sector and the maritime shipping sector 
combined? I didn't know those things. My guess is that most of 
our colleagues and their staff, our staffs, didn't know them, 
either.
    Fortunately, we also discovered that with awareness and 
motivation, we can do a great deal to address the obvious need 
and change that these damaging behaviors provide.
    One of those products that stood out for me was aluminum. 
Few of us realize, for example, that 75 percent of aluminum 
ever mined is still in use today. I am going to say that again: 
75 percent of aluminum ever mined is still in use today. That 
is important because aluminum products made from recycled 
materials use 95 percent less energy than it would take to 
create them from first use materials, 95 percent less energy. 
Indeed, in most cases, recycled products are more energy 
efficient, which translates directly into reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions, something we all know we need to do.
    That is the power of a circular economy.
    The roundtables also taught us more about the potential we 
have to recapture and recycle the critical minerals found in 
lithium-ion batteries. Of course, that capacity helps our 
Nation in many ways, driving us and our transportation fleet to 
a carbon neutral future and relieving us from uncertain and 
oftentimes hostile foreign sources for those critical minerals.
    Finally, we also heard great success stories from 
industries that have stepped up to take more responsibility for 
the full life cycle of their products. I am glad to see Mr. 
Hawkinson from the paper industry here today.
    Welcome, especially.
    With a national recycling rate for all products, I believe 
it is right around 35 percent across the country, the paper 
industry's recycling rate of over 60 percent, almost twice the 
national rate, really does stand out. The paper industry shows 
how companies can and should help the cause by ensuring that 
their products can live on by being recycled into new products.
    Thank you for that example. I can say we lead by our 
example.
    Companies must step up and take greater responsibility for 
reducing, reusing, and recycling their products. While we can't 
make industry successful in this effort, we can help make it 
possible for industries to succeed. We know that if industry, 
along with environmental advocates, and all levels of 
government join forces to reach these inspiring and essential 
goals, the return on our investment will be exponential.
    And that is our challenge to our witnesses before us today, 
and frankly, to all of us. Please tell us what our Government 
needs to do to better ensure that you succeed in your efforts 
to establish a circular economy, one that helps bring our solid 
waste problems under control, reins in unsustainable greenhouse 
gas emissions, reduces our overall consumption, and meets this 
critical moment in our Nation's history.
    Someday, I expect to be asked in the future by our three 
sons and their children this question: ``What did you do to 
stop climate change and help save our planet when you had the 
chance? What did you do, Dad?'' And I want to be able to look 
them in the eye and tell them that we did everything we could, 
everything we could. To me, today's hearing is an important 
step in enabling this country of ours to do just that.
    Let us seize the opportunity. Let us convey a strong sense 
of urgency and embrace the chance to create a circular economy 
that allows us to be our better selves, respecting our planet, 
taking care of each other, and not wasting the precious 
resources that our creator has bestowed upon us.
    Each of you as witnesses here today bear a larger than 
average share of the responsibility to get us to that better 
place. You have the knowledge, you have the skill, and I 
believe the will to do so. With apologies to the late Jim 
Morrison, I believe you have the will to do so, to help us 
today to light your fire so that together, we can prevent many 
of the wildfires that have been engulfing large swaths of our 
country throughout much of this year and last.
    With that, I have said enough. I turn it over to Senator 
Capito, our Ranking Member, for any comments that she might 
like to make.
    Senator Capito, great to be with you.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interesting 
reference to Jim Morrison.
    Senator Carper. You just never know when he will pop up.
    Senator Capito. He has a West Virginia connection, too.
    Senator Carper. I am anxious to hear about it later.
    Senator Capito. Thank you for calling today's hearing 
today.
    Senator Carper. Would that connection be wild and 
wonderful?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Capito. Probably.
    Both Chairman Carper and I are members of the Senate 
Recycling Caucus, as are a few of our other EPW colleagues. We 
see recycling as a win-win solution that presents significant 
environmental and economic benefits.
    Recycling can reduce waste going to landfills and the 
incinerators, conserve natural resources like timber and water, 
and save energy. In fact, many recent developments in waste 
management are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 
contributing to an all of the above strategy to address climate 
change.
    Hand in hand with those environmental benefits, recycling 
creates domestic jobs and supports American manufacturing. We 
have seen significant bipartisan progress on this issue in 
recent years when we passed our Save Our Seas Act and Save Our 
Seas Act 2.0, which help improve our ability to clean up waste 
and combat marine debris.
    But marine debris is only one piece of the puzzle. There is 
also significant funding in the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act that the Senate passed last month, and we hope the 
House passes as well, for recycling infrastructure and 
education to reduce contamination in the recycling stream.
    While these investments will help us to reach EPA's 
ambitious National Recycling Goal of recycling 50 percent of 
waste by 2030, other challenges do remain. I want to highlight 
two of the challenges today. One is the need to expand 
materials processing and manufacturing here in our own country, 
and No. 2 is a lack of demand for recycled materials.
    The issues with China taking, or more recently, not taking 
our recycling materials and the issues with supply lines laid 
bare by the pandemic made clear we need to do more of the 
material processing and manufacturing right here in America.
    The investments in our Nation's roads and bridges that are 
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would help expand 
American manufacturing. Reliable infrastructure is critical for 
economic development and creating job opportunities.
    When China stopped importing our trash, the economies of 
municipal recycling changed dramatically. Cities must incur 
significant costs to collect recyclables, and in some 
instances, the cost of paying businesses to accept those 
recyclables if they can no longer be profitably sold.
    Some municipal systems have taken on the costs and burden 
of storing bales of recyclables waiting for an improvement to 
the market. This is all due to a lack of domestic demand for 
our recycled materials.
    Market demand for these materials can create the incentives 
to invest in the recycling system and expand access to 
recycling across the country, especially in rural areas like my 
State of West Virginia.
    While some of my colleagues in Congress have proposed 
various policies, regulations, and mandates, they don't create 
effective long term markets. Falsely inflating that market for 
recycled goods with Federal dollars doesn't help, either. It 
simply prolongs the unviability of the sector, which could end 
up right back where we are today when the funding is gone.
    The best way to address the depressed demand for recycled 
materials is to develop new innovative markets and 
technologies. Today, we will learn about one example from Mr. 
Hawkinson--and he was on our roundtable, we appreciate that--
which is Georgia-Pacific's new Juno Technology that is rescuing 
recyclable materials from trash.
    Last week, Chairman Carper and I hosted a roundtable that 
the Chairman talked about, where we had the opportunity to 
learn about some of the technological advances in the recycling 
sector. For example, one company has successfully recycled over 
2 million pounds of post-use polystyrene at their facility in 
Oregon through chemical recycling. Developing and deploying 
this technology could not have come at a better time, as this 
material was used in the COVID-19 vaccine production for 
everything from testing kits to the cooler shipment boxes that 
kept the vaccine at the needed temperature during delivery and 
storage.
    Now, what would otherwise have been considered trash can be 
safely recycled into new products like medical grade and food 
grade plastic, while reducing waste that ends up in our 
landfills. The supply chain challenges that emerged and are 
still with us were among the most significant realizations that 
struck us, I think, during COVID-19, especially our reliance on 
other countries to produce essential products. I hope these 
realities won't quickly be forgotten and that we can use those 
experiences as motivation to retain and bring back 
manufacturing jobs in this country.
    One way we can accomplish this is fostering innovation and 
not stifling it. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 
today on the best way to accomplish that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks for a wonderful 
statement, and thanks even more for your leadership on this 
issue. We are working on a lot of issues together, and I am 
delighted this is one of them. It is certainly an important 
one.
    I just want to give a shout out to Senator John Boozman, 
who is the co-chair of the Senate Recycling Caucus, and his 
team for all of the work that they do.
    I think Taylor Meredith deserves a special shout out from 
your team, Senator Capito, and from Senator Boozman's office, I 
want to mention Andrew Kelly and Joe Brown with a special 
thanks.
    We have on our own team here on the majority side of the 
Committee, in addition, Annie, who is sitting over my left 
shoulder; Mary Frances Repko, who is our staff director; John 
Kane, and Trevor Malone. I am grateful to all of you and more, 
all of you and more.
    One of my favorite sayings is from the King Sisters from 
Kent County, Delaware, Dover, members of my team have been 
forever, teamwork makes the dream work, and we have got some 
pretty good teamwork on this Committee, and we are going to try 
to get some dreams accomplished as a result.
    Thanks again, Senator Capito, for your statement and for 
everyone who has worked to help make today possible.
    I want to briefly introduce our witnesses, starting with 
Elizabeth Biser. She is the Secretary of the Department of 
Environmental Quality for the State of North Carolina, my 
wife's native State.
    She sends her best to you today.
    Secretary Biser oversees the State agency, whose mission is 
to protect North Carolina's environment and natural resources.
    I understand that you live not far from where my wife's two 
sisters live, in the Greater Raleigh area. We thank you for 
joining us today.
    We are also joined by Roberta Elias, the Director of Policy 
and Government Affairs at the World Wildlife Fund.
    Welcome, Ms. Elias. Great to see you.
    Brian Hawkinson, again, of the American Forest and Paper 
Association, will be testifying today. Mr. Hawkinson is the 
Executive Director for Recovered Fiber at the AF&PA, and we 
want to thank you for joining us today.
    Good to see you, Mr. Hawkinson.
    Our final witness, no stranger to these parts, Billy 
Johnson, Chief Lobbyist of the Institute of Scrap Recycling 
Industries, where he works with industry to advance recycling 
policies.
    Great to see you, Billy. Welcome today.
    Why don't we start with Secretary Biser?
    You may begin when you are ready.
    Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, please.
    Senator Carper. Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized for 
unanimous consent request in that, this may go longer than I 
anticipated it would. I do ask unanimous consent that the 
article I referred to earlier by Andrew Wheeler be made a part 
of the record of today's deliberations, particularly during the 
deliberations of Mr. Johnson.
    Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    
    Senator Carper. OK, with that, I think we are ready for our 
first witness, Ms. Biser.

 STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH BISER, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA 
              DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

    Ms. Biser. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak with you today about North Carolina's approach to 
creating a circular economy.
    The term circular economy means transitioning from a make-
take-waste society to one in which we treat end of life 
materials as commodities that can be put to good economic use, 
creating jobs and economic investment in our communities.
    North Carolina has long been on the path of creating a 
circular economy. In sharing our lessons learned with you, I am 
going to harken back to how we all learned about environmental 
stewardship, the three Rs of reduce, reuse, and recycle.
    I will begin with reduce. One of the best ways to reduce 
waste is to prevent it from happening in the first place. 
Nineteen years ago, my agency launched a program called the 
Environmental Stewardship Initiative. This free and voluntary 
program is open to any entity in North Carolina that wants to 
go above and beyond the minimum regulatory requirements for 
their management of waste, air, water, and energy.
    In the past 15 years, our partners have saved over $95 
million and have experienced similarly impressive environmental 
results. For example, they have reduced their collective 
CO2 emissions by over 32 million metric tons, which 
is the equivalent to the CO2 from the energy used by 
3.8 million homes for a year. The Environmental Stewardship 
Initiative shows the power of public-private partnerships in 
creating a more circular economy.
    Next, let us talk reuse. Traditionally, reuse is seen in 
programs such as the refillable glass milk containers that my 
family gets at the grocery store. Nationwide, this is a policy 
that is still developing.
    For today's purposes, I want to examine the ways we 
prioritize keeping materials within the circular economy by 
recruiting industries to our State who can use the end of life 
materials as manufacturing feedstock. In North Carolina, 
companies like Owens-Illinois and Ardagh use recycled glass to 
create new bottles. Within 30 days, the bottle that you are 
holding today can be back on the shelf with a new life.
    This is a great example of a circular economy, and I am 
proud to say that the entire process from the resident placing 
their bottle in the recycling bin to the sortation at the 
material recovery facility to the glass processor to the bottle 
manufacturer all takes place within the State of North 
Carolina.
    To have material to feed these businesses, though, we need 
to look at the last R: Recycle. Recycling alone isn't a 
circular economy, but a circular economy can't exist without 
recycling. Having a strong State recycling program, one that 
supports local recycling programs and coordinates regional and 
statewide solutions, is a key component for success.
    In the early 2000s, a combination of policy changes led to 
significant improvements in our recycling rates. The State 
established a disposal surcharge, a portion of which supported 
grant dollars for recycling infrastructure. North Carolina also 
enacted a number of landfill disposal bans for readily 
recyclable materials, such as aluminum cans and plastic 
bottles, recognizing that these materials are not waste, but 
commodities that were needed as vital feedstock by North 
Carolina manufacturers.
    To complement these policy changes, North Carolina led a 
robust economic development effort to recruit industry and 
strengthen market demand for recycled materials. Now, more than 
15,000 North Carolinians are directly employed by the recycling 
sector, with a total payroll of $759 million.
    While North Carolina is making great progress, like every 
State, we have a way to go before we have a truly circular 
economy. We have a lot of work to do to decrease the amount of 
wasted food ending up in our landfills. According to the EPA, 
wasted food is the largest segment of our waste stream. The 
USDA estimates that 30 percent to 40 percent of our Nation's 
food supply is wasted each year. This waste occurs even as 13.8 
million households are experiencing food insecurity. It is not 
just a waste problem. It is also a climate problem. 
Approximately 15 percent of total U.S. methane emissions come 
from landfills.
    While our work is not done, I appreciate the opportunity 
today to share North Carolina's journey with you. With programs 
that encourage a source reduction of waste, a robust economic 
development effort to support infrastructure and businesses 
that reuse materials, and a strong State recycling program, we 
can make real progress toward creating a truly circular 
economy.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Biser follows:]
    
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Elias.

  STATEMENT OF ROBERTA ELIAS, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND GOVERNMENT 
                  AFFAIRS, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

    Ms. Elias. Thanks.
    Again, my name is Roberta Elias, and I am the Director of 
Policy and Government Affairs at World Wildlife Fund. Thank you 
for the invitation to join today.
    Fast moving consumer goods and packaging have become a 
fixture in all of our lives. Unfortunately, as the quantity of 
non-durable items has grown, so have production impacts and the 
presence of waste. Governance needs to catch up with changing 
realities.
    The Nation's solid waste management laws were enacted 
before disposable items became so prevalent and before we fully 
understood the potential of recycling. Currently, 20,000 
different municipalities govern the Nation's recycling 
programs, all with different requirements and outcomes. This 
creates too much uncertainty for industry and confusion for the 
public.
    In fact, the No. 1 thing we have heard in conversations 
with industry is they want clear and consistent rules of the 
road. They also want assurances that there will be sufficient 
high quality recycled content to deliver on promises already 
made to consumers. The No. 1 thing we have heard in talking to 
the public, including conversations with many of you, is that 
the Nation's recycling system is inaccessible and way too 
confusing.
    There are important challenges associated with production 
and disposal of all materials; however, I will focus the 
remainder of my framing remarks on plastics. This is because 
plastics constitute the newest and fastest growing material 
type. They have also so clearly captured the attention of the 
American public across demographics and party affiliations and 
of government leaders.
    Mass production of plastics began in many of our lifetimes, 
only about 60 years ago. In that time, 8.3 billion metric tons 
of plastics have been generated. The vast majority of that 8.3 
billion, or 75 percent, has become waste, and if we have a big 
challenge now, we will have a much bigger one very soon.
    Global plastic production is expected to more than triple 
by 2050. This growth will account for a full 20 percent of all 
oil consumption or 10 percent to 13 percent of the entire 
carbon budget. The current recycling system, which is, again, 
disjointed across 20,000 municipalities, functions without 
clear goal posts at an economic disadvantage to landfills. It 
simply cannot process the sheer volume of stuff.
    In the United States, only 34 percent of all municipal 
solid waste is recycled, and only 13 percent of plastic 
packaging. Only 2 percent of plastic packaging eschews 
circularity, where an old product becomes a new one again. The 
remaining 87 percent of all plastic packaging, our drinks, our 
snacks, the wrapping around the items shipped to our homes, is 
either landfilled, incinerated, or leaked into nature. Our 
favorite brands litter America's iconic landscapes. Eleven 
million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, or 
about one dump truck per minute, 24/7, all year long.
    Fortunately, there is real reason for hope. We have seen 
increasing information about the dramatic gains in efficiency 
and to conservation and health outcomes that can be achieved by 
shifting in use from virgin materials to recycled content.
    Reduction and circularity are also good for business. The 
Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that the comparative cost of 
plastic leakage to the global economy between a business as 
usual scenario and a systems change scenario is over $2 
trillion. They also concluded that if implemented 
appropriately, extended producer responsibility could generate 
over $12 million and save government $70 billion.
    We commend both chambers, and particularly Senators 
Whitehouse, Menendez, and Sullivan, for the strong action 
already taken. It is time for the next step.
    WWF and the American Beverage Association have drafted 
joint principles, submitted for the record, which outline key 
Federal policy priorities. Related concepts are also supported 
by our OneSource Coalition, including ABA and the beverages, 
plus Danone, Mars, Unilever, Closed Loop Partners, the National 
Recycling Coalition, and many others. Almost 900,000 WWF 
supporters have echoed this call for change.
    The WWF and ABA principles reflect the very same concepts 
that you, Chairman Carper, and others have elevated many times 
in comments both to the EPA and at previous EPW hearings. The 
key concepts of the system, known as Extended Producer 
Responsibility, are phase outs of truly unnecessary and 
problematic materials, public-private funding mechanisms, 
accountability, and oversight tied to circular economy 
objectives, and provisions to achieve public health and 
environmental justice goals. We also hope a national deposit 
return system will be included in that system.
    The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act introduced by 
Senator Merkley--thank you, Senator Merkley--is the high water 
mark for EPR as articulated above. WWF, ABA, and many others 
support Break Free concepts. We hope that stand alone EPR 
legislation will ultimately pass.
    We also hope that this chamber will make the most of moving 
vehicles, including to secure public-private investments in 
infrastructure, a national deposit return system, and a virgin 
plastic fee, such as that articulated in Senator Whitehouse's 
REDUCE Act.
    Thank you for your leadership in moving this conversation 
forward. We are happy to assist in any way that we can as the 
dialogue continues.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Elias follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    Senator Carper. Thank you for your testimony. Thanks very 
much for your efforts and those of those you represent here 
today.
    Next, we are going to hear from Brian Hawkinson.
    Brian, please proceed. Thank you.

  STATEMENT OF BRIAN HAWKINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RECOVERED 
          FIBER, AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Hawkinson. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you very much for 
the opportunity to talk with you about this important issue 
today.
    I am pleased to share some thoughts on the pulp paper and 
paper packaging industry's commitment to sustainable practices 
and share an example of an innovative technology that is 
increasing the use of recovered paper in manufacturing new 
products.
    To provide some context for my remarks, I would like to 
tell you a little bit about the U.S. paper pulp and wood 
products industry. In the U.S., the industry employs 
approximately 950,000 men and women, operates 335 paper and 
paper board mills, more than 4,000 converting facilities, more 
than a hundred recycling facilities, manufactures nearly $300 
billion in products annually, and represents approximately 4 
percent of the total U.S. GDP.
    We have long been responsible stewards of our planet's 
resources. AF&PA's sustainability initiative, Better Practices, 
Better Planet 2030, comprises one of the most extensive, 
quantifiable sets of sustainability goals for a U.S. 
manufacturing industry, and is the latest example of our 
members' proactive commitment to the long term success of our 
industry, our communities, and the environment.
    Sustainable practices and innovative technologies are in 
the industry's DNA. Chairman Carper, I appreciate your 
recognition that about two-thirds of all the paper used in the 
U.S. is recycled annually. That turned out to be about 47 
million tons in 2020. That is recycled to make new, sustainable 
paper and paper based packaging products people use every day.
    The industry aims to advance a circular value chain and 
continue to improve the sustainability of our products to meet 
evolving customer needs. This includes innovating manufacturing 
processes, products, and packaging and increasing utilization 
of recovered fiber and wood residuals in manufacturing across 
the industry to 50 percent by 2030.
    The industry has announced approximately $500 billion in 
manufacturing infrastructure investments by 2023 to continue 
the best use of recovered fiber in manufacturing products. That 
is about $2.5 million per day, and those investments are going 
to enable the industry to use approximately 8 million 
additional tons of recovered fiber in manufacturing throughout 
that period and going forward.
    This morning, I would like to share an example of an 
innovative technology. Ranking Member Capito, thanks for 
pointing that out. It is called Juno, from one of our members, 
Georgia-Pacific, and it enables them to recover paper that 
would otherwise go to landfills and use it to manufacture new 
products.
    More than 10 years ago, a team at GP considered the paper 
that ends up in U.S. landfills and started looking for a way to 
capture more of that for use. The initial focus was on paper 
cups, which have traditionally been harder to recycle because 
of the poly lining that keeps the contents from leaking. The 
team was able to successfully recover paper fiber from those 
cups but realized there are some supply chain challenges to 
collecting only paper cups.
    So, they expanded the scope of the project to collect more 
paper based waste from fast food restaurants and amusement 
parks, other facilities, things like cups, napkins, food 
wrappers, et cetera. A pilot plant was built in Savannah, 
Georgia, in 2013. That plant has successfully processed waste 
generated in all those facilities: Fast food restaurants, 
airports, et cetera.
    From there, the team designed and engineered a commercial 
skill unit and secured permits to build the first processing 
unit in Toledo, Oregon. The Toledo facility began startup 
operations this past May and is currently processing waste from 
the region.
    The Juno technology process starts with collecting waste 
from those kinds of commercial resources that typically have 
the highest concentration of paper based material. It is 
important to note that the material collected for this doesn't 
pull recycling away from other streams. This is waste that 
would otherwise be destined to a landfill or an incinerator.
    The material is baled and transported and fed into the Juno 
processing unit. The unit is an autoclave that uses steam and 
pressure to sanitize the material. It is essentially the same 
kind of technology that is commonly used in the medical 
industry. The proprietary Juno process sanitizes the waste and 
separates the paper fiber.
    The fiber recovered through the Juno process is currently 
being used to make paper for corrugated boxes in GP's Toledo 
containerboard mill and has also been made to use napkins and 
paper towels in other company facilities. Other recyclable 
materials processed are able to go back into their respective 
recycling markets. Anything that cannot be recycled then goes 
to the landfill. Based on the work so far, GP expects about 90 
percent of what is processed can be diverted from landfills.
    As you would expect with a new technology, the team has 
planned a slow start to allow for adjustments from operating a 
small pilot plant to a large commercial unit that will process 
about 100,000 tons per year. Early in the phased start up, the 
diversion rate, and this is from July this year, for locally 
sourced waste tripled from about 18 percent to 54 percent. 
These results are early estimates. They are going to be 
audited, but it gives you a sense for the ability for this to 
scale up and perform better.
    This first commercial scale unit in Toledo is expected to 
be fully operational by the end of the year. Conversations are 
underway for licensing other units in the U.S. and globally.
    Georgia-Pacific and the industry are excited about the new 
technology's ability to recover more paper from the waste 
stream and use it in manufacturing new paper and paper based 
products.
    Thank you very much, and I look forward to the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkinson follows:]
        
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for a very encouraging 
presentation. Thank you.
    Next, we are going to hear from Mr. Billy Johnson.
    Billy, you are recognized, please.

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``BILLY'' JOHNSON, CHIEF LOBBYIST, 
            INSTITUTE OF SCRAP RECYCLING INDUSTRIES

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
    Good morning, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito and 
members of the Committee.
    My name is Billy Johnson, and I am the Chief Lobbyist for 
the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, or ISRI, as we are 
better known around Washington.
    It is an honor to be before you today to discuss the 
important role of recycling, since recycling is an essential 
solution to supply our domestic and global supply chains with 
sustainable raw material feedstocks that help combat climate 
change, conserve our natural resources, and save energy, while 
employing hundreds of thousands of American workers.
    ISRI is the voice of the recycling industry. We promote 
safe, economically sustainable, and environmentally responsible 
recycling, with over 1,300 members domestically as well as 
internationally, with over 4,000 facilities in the United 
States. We are referred to sometimes, we could be thought of as 
we are the ants at the picnic. We are everywhere.
    Recycling in the United States is an important economic 
engine and job creator. The recycling industry directly employs 
more than 164,000 Americans while generating over $110 billion 
in economic activity. These numbers tell the story of a strong 
U.S. recycling industry, but not one without challenges in key 
segments. To understand these challenges, it is important to 
first understand what makes for successful recycling.
    First, successful recycling requires market demand. If 
there is no end market to utilize recyclable materials that are 
collected, they will not be recycled and used again in 
manufacturing, regardless of the volume of material collected. 
Collection without market consumption is just not recycling.
    Second, successful recycling requires minimal 
contamination, as recyclables are products sold by 
specification grade with a corresponding value and 
marketability directly related to quality.
    Recycling in the U.S. involves far more than what is placed 
in the blue bin or cart at the end of the driveway. The 
recycling infrastructure in the U.S. touches almost every part 
of our economy, from retail stores, office complexes, 
residential neighborhoods, schools, factories, and even 
military bases.
    The vast majority of the recycled material that flows 
through the recycling infrastructure does so without any 
problems and is transformed by recyclers into clean, high 
quality, commodity grade product used throughout the world as a 
substitute for virgin materials.
    Specifically, what makes the residential stream so 
different is that while it is subject to the same demand driven 
end markets, it is saddled with an ever changing mix of 
materials on the supply side, and that material flows into the 
stream, whether there is a market for it or not. This sets the 
residential recycling infrastructure apart from commercial and 
industrial recycling in the U.S., and that is why it demands a 
unique approach.
    Because of the visibility of the challenges being 
experienced in the residential recycling infrastructure, we 
have seen a growing loss of confidence in recycling on the part 
of the general public, which is of great concern to all of us 
in the recycling and manufacturing industries. I think everyone 
here would agree.
    So, in any given year, our country's recycling 
infrastructure processes more than 130 million metric tons of 
recyclables; however, residential recycling represents only 
about 20 percent of the material that works its way through 
that infrastructure. The other 80 percent comes from recycling 
of commercial and industrial materials, that tends to be 
cleaner.
    Second, there is no one, singular solution to the 
challenges we are experiencing in the residential recycling 
infrastructure. The residential recycling chain and associated 
infrastructure in the U.S. is a complex system, which is driven 
by market demand, but saddled with a supply chain that is 
generally not linked to the current market conditions.
    We think of it as four major pressure points in the current 
residential recycling infrastructure, and the first one is 
right before the material enters the recycling stream, when the 
decision is made whether to put the item in the bin and in what 
condition to do so. That is where education efforts can play an 
important role, like the RECYCLE Act.
    The second pressure point is between the municipality and 
the materials recovery facility or MRF, where there is a need 
for contracting policies and procedures that provide 
flexibility for market fluctuations.
    The third pressure point is processing, where, despite 
investments that are already being made, there is a need for 
additional upgrading of equipment and facilities.
    The fourth pressure point is the point following the 
processing, when the recyclables enter the end market. That is 
where market development is needed.
    At ISRI, we believe that all stakeholders must come 
together to develop a common understanding of the weaknesses 
affecting the residential recycling stream and then work 
together to develop a menu of solutions that need to be put 
into place.
    Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the 
complexities of the recycling systems, and I look forward to 
taking some of your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    Senator Carper. We look forward to asking those questions. 
Thank you for that statement.
    Senator Inhofe has another obligation that requires his 
attention. He has asked to go first. I am happy to do that. He 
will be followed by Senator Whitehouse, and then I think 
Senator Capito, and then onto Senator Merkley and Senator 
Stabenow. I will go late in the game.
    Senator Inhofe, thank you.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper and Senator 
Capito, for your courtesy.
    My first question references the article I have already 
made part of the record by Andrew Wheeler, and it goes to Mr. 
Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson, I continue to be concerned about the 
challenges associated with recycling renewable technologies 
like solar panels and wind turbines. I am reminded of a 
Bloomberg article from last year titled Wind Turbine Blades 
Can't Be Recycled, So They're Piling Up in Landfills. Mr. 
Johnson, are you aware of any technologies that exist today 
that can reliably recycle solar panels or wind turbines, 
particularly the wind turbine blades?
    Mr. Johnson. Well, first let me compliment Andy Wheeler, 
who was a phenomenal spokesperson for the recycling industry. 
He spoke at our meetings, as well as many of our friends' 
meetings. What a terrific advocate for that, as well as his 
public service announcements for getting the cardboard back 
during the COVID crisis. He deserves a lot of credit.
    Senator Inhofe. And he endured working for me for 14 years.
    Mr. Johnson. I was going to get to that, but not quite the 
same way.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Johnson. But to your question, at this point, those are 
terrific challenges. Right now, we are not able to recycle 
those materials.
    Senator Inhofe. What is out there? How optimistic are you 
that something is going to work?
    Mr. Johnson. Well, as I mentioned, market demand. If there 
is a market demand, my members figure out how to do it. We are 
businesspeople, and if there is a way, we will figure it out. 
Right now, we haven't quite figured it out. Let us just say 
that.
    Senator Inhofe. OK. The second question is also for Mr. 
Johnson. The electric vehicle batteries face similar recycling 
challenges. While conventional lead acid car batteries are 
highly recyclable, lithium-ion batteries used for EVs are very 
difficult to recycle.
    Mr. Johnson, are you concerned that if we don't adequately 
plan for and prepare for the disposal of spent electric vehicle 
batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines, that we are 
potentially creating a new Superfund site? Could you 
characterize it that way?
    Mr. Johnson. The definition of Superfund site I might 
quibble with you, but yes, there is a very large concern with 
recycling electric vehicle batteries. I would first start with 
the safety issues. Even while fully discharged, they can be 
quite dangerous and harm, if not kill, the people trying to 
remove them from the cars.
    After that, there is a number of problems with the fact 
that the electric vehicle batteries right now, there are four, 
five, six different chemistries that are not compatible with 
one another. So it is sort of a VHS-Betamax situation, where we 
are waiting for the standard of one of those to sort of win 
out.
    In the meantime, for actually processing or recycling the 
batteries themselves, there is a lot of investment going into 
it right now to try to take care of what is coming in at this 
point. Cars usually last around 12 years on average, so we are 
starting to see some of these electric vehicles come into our 
facilities now. So we are trying to respond to that.
    There is a lot of investment going into it, but right now, 
I do not believe that we have the capacity to handle it, and it 
is going to have to ramp up very quickly, especially with the 
projections from the Administration to try to get many more 
electrical vehicles on the road.
    Senator Inhofe. OK, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate that very 
much. You might separately send me a document as to where we 
quibble, OK?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much to the Chairman and the 
Ranking Member for giving me this time.
    Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you.
    Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairwoman.
    Ms. Elias, I would like to talk about plastic waste 
recycling and where we are on that. We have put considerable 
effort into plastic waste recycling. A great many Americans 
have a blue bin that they fill with recyclables to take out 
there. There is a lot of noise and talk about recycling, and 
the industry loves to talk up recycling, I think, to help 
create the general apprehension or the general appearance that 
plastic gets recycled.
    But the information that I have is that on the input side, 
when, particularly single use plastics are being manufactured, 
98 percent or 99 percent of the input is virgin plastic, 
leaving less than 2 percent, maybe only 1 percent, one in a 
hundred, to be sourced as recycled plastic. I mean, that rounds 
basically to zero.
    So, when the plastics industry is manufacturing plastics 
products, and in this case, particularly single use plastics, 
the disposable stuff, it is basically entirely new plastic 
going in. There is essentially no meaningful recycled 
contribution. So, to me, that is kind of a significant 
measurement.
    Now, if you go to the take up side, the so called recycling 
side, the statistics I have are that less than 10 percent of 
what actually goes into that blue bin ever gets recycled. It 
may not be recyclable in the first place because there is not a 
very clear marking as to what plastics are and are not 
recyclable. It may very well just end up in a landfill, or end 
up on a container ship, smashed together and packed off to some 
place in Asia, where it ends up in a landfill there, and maybe 
after time, washed down creeks and into rivers, and ultimately 
into the sea.
    And at the same time that we have essentially zero 
recycling input into plastics manufacturing and less than 10 
percent of real recycling and what we consider to be our 
recycling stream, we are dumping, as a world, so much plastic 
into the ocean that we are headed for, as the Chairman 
suggested, if things don't change, there is going to be more 
waste plastic floating around in the ocean than there are fish 
swimming around in the ocean, by mass.
    And that is just a rotten thing to do to the planet, and it 
is a horrible legacy for our grandchildren. It is kind of on us 
to do something about that, I would think.
    So I would like your comment on whether you think, first of 
all, my facts are right, that we are essentially zero on input, 
that we are under 10 percent on real recycling and the rest of 
it is kind of performance art to stand up a relatively fake 
narrative that recycling is real, and at the end of the day, 
most of this stuff ends up in regular waste streams, and some 
of that is very irresponsibly done in foreign countries and 
ends up in oceans.
    Pretty fair description, and what should we do about it?
    Ms. Elias. Yes, that is absolutely a fair description, and 
very much----
    Senator Whitehouse. Are you mic'd?
    Ms. Elias. Am I mic'd now?
    Senator Whitehouse. There we go, yes. You are good to go.
    Ms. Elias. Is that good?
    Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
    Ms. Elias. Thank you. Technology is not my strong suit.
    But your facts are absolutely right, and very much 
consistent with what we have heard in the past in conversations 
with various experts.
    Again, to reiterate, thank you so much, you and Senator 
Sullivan, in so many ways, started this conversation in the 
Senate with Save Our Seas and Save Our Seas 2.0. Your staff has 
been absolutely amazing.
    I think we are at a point now where we need to take that 
next step because of the performance art that you discussed. I 
think we really need a system like extended producer 
responsibility, as proposed in Senator Merkley's Break Free 
From Plastic Pollution Act.
    You are right, there is so much stuff now coming into our 
homes, and the vast majority of it, 87 percent of our plastic 
packaging is either being landfilled, burned, or leaked into 
nature. And because of the artificially low prices on virgin 
plastic materials, we are just going back to the earth to 
create that next set of materials, and instead of having a 
circle, the life span is actually a line: Taking petrochemicals 
from the earth, turning it into some product, using it, and 
disposing of it.
    While any number of these materials are absolutely 
essential, I think about our masks, I think about our medical 
equipment, I think about all of the important food grade 
plastics that address some of our food insecurity and food 
waste issues that Secretary Biser brought up, a lot of it is 
stuff that we don't want and we don't need, and that is being 
seen as a growth industry for some of our friends in the 
plastics industry.
    We actually commissioned public opinion polling by a great 
firm, Corona Insights. What they heard in their conversations 
with people around the world, it was something like 86 percent 
of the public feel like there is just too much stuff coming 
into their lives, and it has become unavoidable. If you want to 
buy something, it is going to come in that packaging. You are 
going to put it in your blue bin, hoping that it will be 
recycled, hoping that it will achieve circularity, and very 
much knowing that it will not.
    What is good about the Break Free From Plastics Pollution 
Act, and I hope will become a discussion topic, this is why it 
is supported by the American Beverage Association, similar 
concepts, again, by Danone, Unilever, and Mars, a number of our 
other friends, is it sets real standards for recyclability, 
recovery, and use of recycled content. And then market signals 
through eco-modulation to shift production and use from 
materials that can't be recycled, that have a big impact on the 
environment and on public health to materials that can feasibly 
be recycled and really put dollars toward the kind of 
innovation we need to see to make recycling actually work.
    I think it is a win-win. There is broad support for it. 
Industry, when ABA came to us and said we want every bottle 
back, we want old bottles to become new bottles, I think they 
really meant it, and industry is willing to put dollars into 
the system to have some assurances that they will have 
consistent, high quality access to recycled content going 
forward. So when you buy your beverage, you buy your snack, you 
feel good about what is inside of it and what is outside of it.
    Thank you for the question, and thank you for your 
incredible leadership.
    Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired, but I would just 
add as a chemistry note, that this stuff doesn't break down 
back into natural things. It just lives on as plastic 
indefinitely. Natural stuff breaks down into natural things, 
and that is part of the cycle of life. Plastic is new to this 
world, and it doesn't break down in the way the good Lord set 
up the Earth to be able to cycle things.
    Thank you.
    Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you, Sheldon. Thanks for 
your leadership, and that of our colleague from Alaska, very, 
very much.
    Senator Capito has graciously agreed to just yield to 
others that are here. I think Senator Merkley is next, followed 
by Senator Stabenow, and we will take it from there. Thank you.
    Jeff, thank you.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I was just looking at a chart put together by Eunomia to 
compare all 50 States and their recycling rates, and 
particularly looking at the plastic bottle challenge. There are 
four States, five actually, that have hit over 50 percent: 
Maine at 78 percent, Oregon at 69, Vermont 51, California and 
New York at 57 percent. Then, the vast bulk of States are under 
20 percent.
    Ms. Biser, I was wondering about North Carolina, because of 
the important work you are doing in many sectors, but in this 
category of PET bottles, plastic bottles, 8 percent on North 
Carolina. It is pretty far down there.
    Has North Carolina considered how to really focus on this 
problem of plastic bottles? I know that the expression that was 
in the testimony of reduce, reuse, recycle. But with plastic 
bottles, the truth is, it is burned, buried, or borne out to 
sea, all three of which create significant environmental 
challenges.
    As we wrestle with it State by State, Oregon was the first 
one to have a bottle bill. I am disappointed to see that Maine 
has a higher recycling rate than us, but at least we are 
hanging in there at second, hopefully to improve. But has North 
Carolina considered the possibility of doing something to boost 
themselves from the 8 percent level to the above 50 percent 
level through some sort of deposit strategy or other strategy?
    Ms. Biser. Thank you for that question, Senator. There has 
not been any bottle deposit legislation introduced recently. 
North Carolina has focused on its return of PET bottles, 
though. We have some important industries and some market 
demand in the State that is important that we find the material 
to feed. Unifi, which is located in Yadkin County, a rural 
county in our State, is a good example of that where, when we 
were losing textile jobs back in the 2000s, they found a way to 
convert PET to polyester yarn. But we need to find a way to 
help folks like Unifi get those bottles.
    We found significant, and I am not sure about the 8 percent 
number you referenced, but we have found success before and 
actually doubled our plastic bottle recycling rate about a 
decade ago. Again, not nearly where it needs to be, but by 
investing in curbside recycling programs, market development 
grants, and a lot of education for our residents, but we do 
have a long way to go.
    Senator Merkley. Well, the thing that those States that are 
over 50 percent and up have in common is a deposit system. So, 
Ms. Elias, essentially, no State has succeeded in having a 
significant amount of bottles recycled without a deposit 
system. As we look to best examples, is that kind of the best 
example we have or the best strategy we have right now, is to 
encourage recycling through a deposit?
    Ms. Elias. Yes, we absolutely think that a deposit return 
system needs to go hand in glove with an EPR system. We have 
absolutely seen that deposit return systems provide an 
incredible incentive for consumers to bring that product back, 
get it back into recycling system, have it pre-sorted so that 
products can become a product again.
    PET obviously has incredible ability to become a new 
product time and time again. PET only represents 7 percent of 
what is in the blue bin. So we are really looking for something 
that gets that material back, but also addresses the other 93 
percent and figures out a way for it to have continued value in 
the system. So we would like to see both.
    Senator Merkley. Great. Extended producer responsibility, I 
appreciate your focusing on it and highlighting it, because 
there are many different forms it can come in, but I think that 
is essential.
    Mr. Hawkinson, you noted kind of the growing skepticism of 
consumers. This weekend, I was up in Erie, Pennsylvania, and 
the hotel had paper plates, and the paper plates said 
recyclable and renewable in big print, and then they had 
asterisks, and they had little tiny print. I couldn't read the 
tiny print, so I took a picture of it and expanded it.
    I just thought about that as you were speaking, and I went 
back just now, and transcribed what it says. It says 
``Recyclable and renewable'' in big print. Then, it has a star 
by the recyclable, and it says ``May be recycled if you have 
access to a recycler that accepts paper products containing 
food residue. Such facilities may not exist in your area.''
    Then on renewable, it has two stars, two asterisks, and 
under the two asterisks it says, ``Contains a 91 percent 
renewable material,'' and then it goes on to define renewable 
material as ``new trees.'' So, it is not actually recycled 
content.
    It is really confusing, right, because you see recyclable 
and renewable and you think, oh, this means they are using 
existing fiber that has been recycled from other products, and 
yay for that, and also this is going to get recycled. But then 
you read the details, and it is like, no, this is coming from 
trees, and if you have food on it, it is probably not going to 
get reused.
    Do we need to really work at having terms or a system where 
people can kind of go, oh, well this product actually is 
recycled, or really is recyclable in most cases, and not kind 
of this kind of fine print, well, kind of pretend?
    Mr. Hawkinson. Thank you. First of all, paper products are 
made from a renewable resource. That is wood fiber from trees 
that are infinitely renewable, or recycled fiber that has been 
used once before and put into the plate. So, the paper plate 
that said it was made from renewable fiber is made from 
renewable fiber, whether that is new fiber or recycled fiber. 
It is recyclable, depending on the collection system in the 
jurisdiction that you are in.
    The Federal Trade Commission establishes the definitions 
for what marketing claims can be made around the title of 
recyclability. The threshold for being widely recyclable is at 
least 60 percent of U.S. population has access to an 
established----
    Senator Merkley. OK, I am going to cut you off there 
because my basic question is, aren't these terms confusing to 
people, and you are going into a long definition of yes, there 
are definition behind them. Great, but I have a better question 
for you, because my time is running out, and I want to ask a 
better question.
    Mr. Hawkinson. OK.
    Senator Merkley. Can you come up with a paper lid to 
replace this plastic lid on a McDonald's cup? Because the world 
would bless you. And I see you have one right in front of you, 
so here is, how do we replace these single use plastics with 
something like paper, which is so much more decomposable and 
recyclable than this plastic?
    Mr. Hawkinson. Right. Senator, I think there are members 
who are working on that right now, looking for applications of 
innovations in manufacturing processes, different kinds of 
packaging that will solve some of the problems that we are 
faced with in other packaging substrates.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying the problem with 
plastics has exploded. The plastics in the seas will soon be 
equal to the weight of all the fish.
    The microplastics are a big problem. We are now each 
consuming, it is estimated, a credit card of plastic every week 
in our food and our air and water. That is very unhealthy, 
especially for our children. Of course, the chemicals that are 
embedded in the plastic are very unhealthy, and so we really 
have to focus on this plastics challenge.
    Senator Carper. Amen.
    OK, I think Senator Stabenow is next.
    Senator Stabenow, thanks for getting here early and staying 
late. Thanks.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member. I just want to first just add my voice to the choir in 
terms of addressing plastics. Plastics resins are in 
everything, and that is the challenge. It isn't a natural 
fiber, and so it is important. It has been important to our 
economy; it is important in many ways, but we have to get our 
arms around this recycling regimen.
    I have to tell you, I am putting in a plug for a company. I 
wear shoes every day that are made from recycled plastics, Mr. 
Chairman. They are called Rothy's, and now I feel like I should 
be a salesman.
    Senator Carper. What are they called?
    Senator Stabenow. Rothy's. R-O-T-H-Y, and I feel like I 
should be a salesperson, because I converted several women in 
the Senate now to be wearing them. I will be talking to our 
Ranking Member about this. But we just need to be serious and 
aggressive in terms of what needs to happen.
    I did want to share one other thing, too, in talking 
earlier about EVs. I just wanted to let you know, there is 
really important work being done on recycling right now. A lot 
of industries, a lot of companies in Michigan are doing 
research and development, and now are actually recycling. There 
is more that needs to be done.
    Ford is partnering with a battery recycling startup, 
Redwood Materials, to reuse the raw materials from EV battery 
packs. They just announced it a few, actually, a couple days 
ago. General Motors is doing a major effort to educate the 
public on removing and recycling battery packs, and Nissan is 
reusing old batteries for automated vehicles. I know Toyota is 
working with folks in Michigan on taking batteries that aren't 
used in automobiles anymore, but using them for golf carts.
    There are all kinds of ways that we are looking at, and 
Volkswagen is doing the same thing on recycling and creating 
their first recycling plant in Germany. We would love to have 
it in the United States. That is another discussion, but the 
point is, there is a lot being done, and it needs to be done.
    I want to actually ask Mr. Hawkinson a question, because 
you want to talk about a success story; you are the success 
story. I am very excited that a lot of that success actually 
happens in Michigan around paper recycling, and the work that 
is being done and more that needs to be done.
    But when we are talking about a 2020 paper recycling rate 
of two-thirds, basically, with more than 47 million tons of 
paper recovered, that is very impressive. I wish we had the 
same in plastics and other materials. I know that there is more 
that we can do to support you, and I wanted you to respond.
    There is a bill I have introduced called the Protect 
America's Paper for Recycling, the PAPR Act, and the Chairman 
is a co-sponsor, and Senator Boozman is a co-sponsor, and 
others. It has good bipartisan support.
    But this would stop waste to energy facilities from earning 
a tax credit for burning recyclable paper. We don't want that 
burned. We want to recycle it. We want to use it again. So 
could you talk more about what you are doing, but also how this 
legislation could help you build on that success? We have 
policies right now that are going against what you are trying 
to do, and we need to fix it.
    Mr. Hawkinson. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, and thanks very 
much for your leadership on this issue.
    Paper and paper based packaging mills are looking for new 
fiber, sourcing all that they can to make new products. A big 
problem is government incentives or directives that might 
divert recovered paper for use in things other than 
manufacturing.
    We appreciate the work that you are doing in leadership and 
making sure that that doesn't happen. So, for example, someone 
might divert commonly recycled paper for use in combustion to 
generate energy, that would not count as recycling.
    We think it is very important to protect the recovered 
fiber stream for use in manufacturing. We support the 
legislation; we submitted a letter of support for that. I 
wholeheartedly thank you for the work that you are doing on 
that.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Well, hopefully, we can get 
this done.
    Secretary Biser, thank you for the work you are doing in 
North Carolina. In our bipartisan infrastructure bill that we 
passed, a bill of mine with Senator Portman, the RECYCLE Act, 
was included, as you know. And when you are talking about 
educating individuals as well as working with local governments 
and States and so on, I think this is so important.
    Could you talk a little bit more about assisting local 
governments in recycling education efforts, and how does 
improving these practices really reduce cross-contamination 
that lowers recycling rates? Right now, we have a problem if 
folks aren't doing it right. So could you speak a little bit 
more about that?
    Ms. Biser. Sure, and Senator, let me first of all thank you 
for your leadership on the RECYCLE Act. That is an important 
source of funding for States like mine to carry that message to 
our residents, who, poll after poll shows, are confused about 
how to recycle right.
    What those dollars could go to help support are programs 
like North Carolina recently completed, where we worked with 
material recovery facilities within the State and mapped out 
what was accepted by each of those programs.
    Then there are 18, we called it a MRF Shed map. There are 
18 MRF Sheds within the State. Our recycling program created 
customized education materials for each of those MRF Sheds and 
worked with local governments within each of those areas to do 
a targeted social media campaign, and social media, but also 
traditional education as well. So having additional funding to 
do that on a more recurring basis would be very useful.
    There is a lot of great traditional education methods that 
could be used, but there is also some innovative methods, such 
as cart tagging, where folks get actual feedback on what is in 
their bins. It is a program that can be done, where folks walk 
ahead of the recycling truck, look in it, get a little tag that 
says, hey, oops, you may have included plastic bags, for 
example. We will come back and re-collect.
    I kind of compare it to, if I tell my daughter not to leave 
her socks out, and have her do it, versus me kind of putting it 
back in for her. The more we can engage our residents and how 
they are recycling correctly, the less contamination, and that 
leads to lower cost for the local recycling programs in their 
MRF contracts, as well.
    Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Stabenow, thanks very much for your 
leadership on these issues. It is great. We share a friend who 
is passionate about these issues as well. We were discussing 
some of this over the weekend.
    All right, thanks.
    OK, Senator Capito, please.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Johnson, I mentioned in my opening statement that China 
had changed its policy toward accepting materials from our 
country. I am wondering, has the market already responded to 
this? What are you seeing in terms of how this is making our 
system more resilient, or what kind of impacts does it have?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you. Yes, I think some of the 
commodities have already made terrific adjustments, paper being 
really a fine example of that. The metals industry, which is a 
large portion of our membership, has also been able to improve 
their quality as well.
    One of the things that, as it looks like, most people look 
at this situation, and they say that China closed the door to 
all this material. I think it is also a wake up call. It is a 
wake up call to say that we can do a lot better with processing 
our materials and recycling them and reusing them here in this 
country, as well as other places. So many of the commodities 
have already adjusted pretty well.
    Senator Capito. Let me ask you another question. I am from 
a rural State, West Virginia. I live in the capital city. We 
have had recycling bins here and there, but it is unsustainable 
for the municipality. They just can't afford it. They don't 
have the manpower, but not just that, the funds to be able to 
transport and figure out what to do with this. I would imagine, 
in rural America, this is a huge problem.
    What kind of solutions have you seen? Is it a hub and spoke 
kind of solution, or Mr. Johnson, what are your members seeing? 
I am talking more residential, but it could be small business, 
small manufacturing recycling, as well.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes. In the traditional way that recycling 
works, with metals to all the other, the commercial, 
industrial, as well as residential, what we would turn them 
into more of the scrap side of the business as feeder yards. 
So, what you are doing is you are collecting in lots of places, 
and then based on the transportation costs, delivering it to 
more of a central location where you have the equipment, the 
machinery, the technology to be able to make it into a high 
grade commodity to then be reused again.
    Senator Capito. Yes. When you talk about education, I am 
sure you run into this in North Carolina. It is just so stop 
and start. Then when I heard Ms. Elias talk about deposit, I 
thought about when I was growing up, probably you too, Mr. 
Chairman, we had Coke bottles. You would have the empty ones, 
and you would take them back, they had value. It was just the 
way you did things. Then in the advent of plastics, that went 
by the wayside, so maybe that was a good technology. It was 
forward thinking.
    Mr. Hawkinson, I understand there is a burning question 
that my staff wanted me to ask: Are pizza boxes recyclable?
    Mr. Hawkinson. Yes, and thank you for asking that question. 
I think this is one of the remaining sort of urban legends 
around paper recycling.
    Pizza boxes are recyclable. We set out to put out an 
industry statement to try to raise awareness and eliminate 
confusion in the marketplace around this issue a couple of 
years ago. As we do with all of our issues, we gathered facts 
to make sure that we had the data right, and upon which to make 
the statement.
    So, we went out to our member mills who consume the two 
grades most likely to have pizza boxes, old corrugated 
containers and mixed paper. What we found is that 93.6 percent 
of all of that fiber consumed at our member mills, of those 
grades that contained pizza boxes, are accepted for recycling 
in the mills. So, overwhelmingly accepted; they are widely 
accepted in community recycling programs. We hope that any 
other community recycling programs that don't currently accept 
them do so.
    Senator Capito. Well, I think what we are going to see 
later this afternoon is a breaking news crawl: Pizza boxes are 
recyclable.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. Would the Ranking Member yield? What if the 
pizza is still inside the pizza box?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hawkinson. I am glad you brought that up, because one 
of the questions we asked in the research was, are they any 
things that preclude your ability to use these in 
manufacturing, and as you might imagine, pizza was the top 
answer, so probably the best way to think about think or 
remember it is: Pizza boxes are recyclable; pizza is not. Pizza 
boxes, not pizza.
    Senator Capito. Well, my pizza boxes are always empty.
    OK, so let me ask one other serious question here. You have 
obviously had great success in the Forest and Paper Association 
with recycling with your Juno technologies and others. We have 
heard a lot about the plastics and the low numbers. What 
lessons learned from what you have been able to do, and hearing 
the testimony today and concerns from the members, would you 
say could be correlated to a more efficient and successful 
plastics recycling?
    Mr. Hawkinson. As you recognized, the paper recycling rate 
reached 65.7 percent in 2020. That is about double what it was 
in 1990, and it didn't get there by accident. It is the result 
of the industry's recognition that we wanted to recycle more of 
our products, made investments in collection infrastructure, 
made a commitment to recycle more. We are doing a lot of 
education for consumers about what is recyclable and how to 
recycle properly.
    And importantly, we are making investments in manufacturing 
technology to enable us to use more recycled fiber. I mentioned 
a number earlier, about $5 billion in manufacturing 
infrastructure to use recovered fiber that is going to come 
online. It began in 2018 and will come online through 2023. 
That sort of private sector investment is enabling us to use 
more fiber and increase the recycling rates for our products.
    Senator Capito. Yes, and I would imagine, too, it also 
increases, as you do that, it increases your end rate, your 
user rate at the other end of the recycling life. There is 
somebody there to buy your product, and use it, and have it be 
efficient and all that, and I think that is an issue.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    Now, while we know there is a whole suite of policy options 
that are available to us on this front, could each of you 
share, this is for the entire panel, could each of you share 
with us maybe the top one or two legislative actions that 
Congress could take, should take within the next year or so to 
really move the needle and help us move toward a more circular 
economy?
    I am going to ask Ms. Biser to go first, please. Just one 
or two that we just got to do items.
    Ms. Biser. Thank you. One of those items, Senator, I will 
have to thank the Committee for its work in working on 
infrastructure and education investment that can go down to 
States. Without the help of the Federal Government, we don't 
have the dollars available at the State level to sufficiently 
invest the level that we need to.
    Water and wastewater infrastructure is a great example of 
the money that is coming to the State that we are going to be 
able to deploy to communities. Similarly, recycling could 
benefit from that investment as well.
    The second thing I would say is grants and technical 
assistance to help grow State programs. States really have an 
important role to play in helping local governments and 
connecting with on the ground action, and the stronger the 
State program, the more regional and localized solutions we can 
develop to help support those communities who may not have the 
resources to address those issues otherwise.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Ms. Elias, same question.
    Ms. Elias. Thank you. You know, this issue is so teed up at 
this point, and there is such a broad consensus for really 
making significant action across communities by industry, by 
the public, from Tennessee to Maine, California to Alaska. So I 
would go for the whole thing at this point and kind of see how 
far we can get.
    My two things would be real policy signals to reduce truly 
unnecessary and problematic materials. Any system is not going 
to be able to handle the sheer volume of materials that are 
being used. The public doesn't want as many materials coming 
into their homes and into their lives.
    The second piece is really to get the conversation going on 
extended producer responsibility, including a national bottle 
bill to get the market signals to really deliver the results 
that people and industry want to see and to ensure equity and 
parity between industries like paper that have really been 
leading the charge, and other industries and really lift all 
boats.
    It is a big job, but I really appreciate you having the 
conversation and continuing to move the ball forward.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for being a part of that 
conversation.
    Mr. Hawkinson.
    Mr. Hawkinson. AF&PA supports the RECYCLE Act. We think 
that the funding, especially, that goes to EPA is important. 
There are a number of things that it can do. We think the most 
important thing is the funding that will go to States, Indian 
Tribes, and communities that will do things like enable them to 
conduct community needs assessments to understand gaps in their 
programs so that they can fill that, so that they can 
understand and adapt effective practices in the work that they 
are doing.
    Also funding to States so that they can provide technical 
assistance to the communities. We think that by being able to 
leverage those resources, communities are going to be able to 
make lasting improvements in their recycling programs.
    The second thing that the Government can do is to stay out 
of the supply chains for paper manufacturing. Things like EPR, 
which are well intentioned, are in place in the U.S. for things 
that are hard to recycle: Mattresses, batteries, paint, those 
sorts of things.
    For products like paper and paper based packaging, the 
collection system is well established and well participated in. 
We have a very high recycling rate. EPR is not going to 
appreciably increase the recycling rate for our products. It 
is, however, a tax on packaging, which will cause manufacturers 
to divert funds to paying that tax that could otherwise go to 
making investments in manufacturing. And that tax is going to 
disproportionately affect lower income Americans who spend a 
larger percentage of their funds on food and other necessities 
that come in paper based packaging.
    So not adopting EPR at the national level would be a great 
thing to do. Another great thing to do would be to not adopt 
higher recycled content mandates for products. Every time a 
paper mill makes a product, it balances the source of fiber it 
uses based on availability, cost, performance on the paper 
machine, and the finished product characteristics. Recycled 
content mandates force fiber from products where it is most 
efficiently used into products where it is less efficiently 
used, creating both economic and environmental negative 
impacts.
    Senator Carper. Great. That is a lot to digest. That is 
good, thanks. Thanks so much.
    Mr. Johnson, please. Same question, and then I am going to 
yield to our colleague from Alaska.
    Welcome, Dan.
    Senator Sullivan. Thanks, Tom.
    Senator Carper. Go ahead, please.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, Brian stole all my stuff.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. Repetition is a good thing. Actually, it 
is. Somebody told me the other day, we don't really absorb an 
idea until we have heard it about 15 times, so it is still 
early.
    Mr. Johnson. I agree with both of his, but they shouldn't 
count against mine, so I get to add some.
    The first is, and I will add into it, is policies that 
would encourage market development. Market development is the 
demand side. That is going to pull everything through the 
system. That is how the market works; that is why people pay in 
the recycling system.
    The other would be to encourage recycled content, but not 
mandates. We would want encouragement. It could come through 
all types of forms, from tax incentives, as well as just 
explaining to the people through the RECYCLE Act why it is so 
important. I would actually take you back to the World War II 
efforts, when we brought all of our old metal and things like 
that to the scrapyard to go back into being used in the war 
effort.
    The second one would be promoting design. You need to 
design the products at the very, very beginning of the system 
in order to make it easier to recycle, to get the better yield 
back out of those products, and that makes recycling much more 
efficient and effective.
    Since you gave me the option for three, I am going to throw 
one more in, and that is to actually change the nomenclature 
and actually the regulations in treating recyclables and 
recycling as a solid waste and a solid waste management system. 
We are--I think we both said this before, that recyclables are 
valuable commodities. They are being used in manufacturing. 
This is what manufacturers have done for a long time. By 
treating them as solid waste, it imposes a number of burdens 
and costs, as well as we talk about recyclables as waste, as 
trash, and it is certainly just the opposite of that.
    So, I would encourage the Committee to look at legislation 
to have EPA reform the RCRA for recycling. It is an act that 
was written a long time ago. Making those changes, I think, 
would make both an appearance as well as a technical and a 
legal pathway toward recycling being much more efficient.
    Senator Carper. Well, collectively, you have provided a 
great to do list for our colleagues, and we are grateful.
    Senator Sullivan, your name has been used not in vain 
earlier today.
    Senator Sullivan. Oh, good.
    Senator Carper. With some of the good work that you have 
done with Senator Whitehouse and others. Please proceed.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 
the witnesses here.
    I do want to talk just briefly about the Save Our Seas Act 
and the Save Our Seas 2.0. I think that is an example of 
Senator Whitehouse, and all of us really, working together 
where you get key stakeholders, a lot of you guys were critical 
and important in getting this over the goal line, and working 
on both the executive branch, the Congress, industry, key 
conservation and environmental groups all worked together on 
this. You don't get everything you want. That is just the 
nature of getting things done here, right?
    So, I think this issue, though, is really a unifying issue. 
You can get Democrats and Republicans and industry and 
environmental groups all on board, and I think we want to keep 
the momentum.
    Let me ask Ms. Elias and Mr. Johnson, you may have seen in 
the infrastructure bill, there were significant funds on the 
implementation of Save Our Seas 2.0 that has got a domestic, 
international component. What would you see as important steps 
that we can take, kind of on the implementation side of that 
legislation to make sure we continue this momentum?
    Ms. Elias. Thanks, Senator Sullivan, and thank you again 
for your leadership on Save Our Seas and Save Our Seas 2.0. I 
was in the room; you had a great event with Senator Whitehouse 
on the Alliance to End Plastic Waste that was about to be 
reintroduced. Those are fantastic bills, obviously. Thank you 
to Mary Eileen.
    There are any number of important pieces in that. I was on 
the phone with you a couple weeks ago with ABA and the CRS 
study, was it, that said the most comprehensive plastics 
legislation or materials legislation ever. I am not going to 
remember every provision that is in both of those bills, but we 
are very happy to see funding and full implementation going, 
and we will continue to keep an eye on that.
    Senator Sullivan. Good, thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, do you have a view at all, and maybe I am 
being too--I don't want to put you guys on the spot for quizzes 
on different sections, but just next steps in general on that? 
Because again, there is good momentum, and people want to see 
that, right? Who doesn't want to protect our oceans, clean up 
our oceans, keep sustainable oceans, sustainable fisheries?
    These are huge issues for my State. Over 60 percent of all 
the seafood harvested in America comes from Alaska. We have 
more coastline that the rest of the lower 48 combined. So these 
are big issues for my constituents, but I think they are big 
issues for all Americans.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes sir, and we fully support Save Our Seas 
1.0 and 2.0, and thank you very much for doing all of that.
    I completely agree with you. I would almost repeat some of 
the things I said to Senator Carper just now: Encouraging ways 
for my industry to be able to recycle all that plastic, to get 
that plastic out of the seas, and to find uses for it. That 
would be a great thing.
    Our members--when we get it, it is a contaminated source. 
So some of the improvements to technology could be great, 
research and development for that, as well as the markets for 
that material, that there is something, so instead of just 
pulling it out of the seas and burying it or burning it, to 
find some uses for it, even if they are low level uses. That 
would be great.
    Senator Sullivan. Good.
    Let me ask, this is really for all the witnesses. In my 
State, it is estimated that nearly 70 percent of households do 
not have access to curbside recycling. And any transition to a 
circular economy that leaves rural America out I think is going 
to fail.
    So, what do you recommend on how to address this issue? I 
have met many, many smaller communities throughout Alaska that 
are remote and have a difficult time accessing any of these 
programs. What are the best tools to increase access for 
recycling, particularly in remote communities?
    Maybe we will start with you, Ms. Biser.
    Ms. Biser. First of all, Senator Sullivan, thank you for 
your leadership on these issues.
    Rural recycling does present challenges. We have a fair 
amount of rural communities in North Carolina as well; 
particular challenges in Alaska.
    One of the things that you have to pay attention to is 
looking at how to make the economics of recycling work in rural 
communities, and one of the ways to do that is through hub and 
spoke systems. That is providing the central locations, where 
it may not be economical for small towns to have their own 
contracts for recycling pick up, but they can centralize their 
collection at a central place. Then it makes the economics work 
much better to have those types of accessibility.
    There is also--I know Alaska does not have a material 
recovery facility in this State, which adds to the challenges, 
but having processing close by is also helpful. And again, with 
the market demand of creating the industries or attracting 
industries that can use that material as feedstock.
    Last, I would say investing in curbside--after you take 
care of those first two, it is also just investing in the 
ability to bring carts to communities, making sure that they 
have the right education on how to use those carts in the right 
way, and to help create that circular economy in rural America.
    Senator Sullivan. Good, that is a really good answer.
    Anyone else wants to address this topic?
    Ms. Elias. Yes, please. I will also answer your previous 
question in some more detail. WWF supports and celebrates 
Alaska's fisheries. They are some of the absolute best managed 
in the world.
    As follow up, we would love to see further action on the 
Ghost Pier issues that represent such an amazing threat to well 
managed fisheries around the world. So that, and also U.S. 
accession, really having the U.S. have a seat at the table at 
the Basel Convention, so both really international issues.
    On your second question, WWF supports a Federal, flexible 
framework to kind of lift up all regions of the country in the 
recycling space, but that system is not going to work for 
different areas. It needs to be flexible enough that it can be 
implemented where people work and live, and really bring 
private dollars to the table to make that collection work.
    It is unrealistic to think that there will ever be enough 
Federal dollars, and it is not, at the end of the day, 
necessarily a Federal responsibility to make recycling work. 
But the good news is that the private industry really does want 
to invest.
    We would like to see all the 20,000 municipalities that are 
in charge of recycling right now have some sort of additional 
financial support, and real goal posts for what that system 
should look like. Hopefully some of those dollars would make it 
to the right place in Alaska and elsewhere.
    Senator Sullivan. Good, great answer. Thanks.
    Anyone else?
    Mr. Hawkinson. At AF&PA, we are big fans of public-private 
partnerships. We are an inaugural funder of the Recycling 
Partnership, which channels private funding and technical 
expertise into communities to help build out collection 
infrastructure, education, and the ability to help improve, 
start or improve recycling programs in those communities to put 
up matching funds. We think that is a great model that could be 
used in Alaska to improve recycling there.
    Senator Sullivan. Great, thank you.
    Last word.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, so the hub and spoke is probably a very 
good way. For Alaska, and some of the other large States like 
that, recycling is a local activity. So I think Alaska is going 
to need to think about how it works best for Alaska, versus how 
it would be best in another State. So I think it is going to be 
up to Alaska to figure that out for themselves in that.
    One of the things I would suggest though, with the hub and 
spoke, is making, with the education through the RECYCLE Act, 
is to have people understand with the recycling to get a better 
quality, and as that quality raises up, the value of the 
material increases. And when the value of the material 
increases, the costs for running the program, as well as the 
transportation, then can be included in the product. That may 
help make the program work a lot better.
    Senator Sullivan. Right, right. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Sullivan, thanks for joining us 
today. Thanks very much for partnering with our friend Senator 
Whitehouse in a great effort.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes. We are the Senate odd couple, but we 
get a lot done.
    Senator Carper. We need more odd couples. I understand, 
over your left shoulder is Mary Eileen Manning?
    Senator Sullivan. Yes, she has worked very hard on it.
    Senator Carper. For the record, I just want to say I can 
barely see her lips move when you spoke, and I want to thank 
her for her good work on this, as well. Thank you.
    Senator Sullivan. She does great work.
    Senator Carper. I have one last question, and then we are 
going to wrap and go vote and go to other hearings and so forth 
that are taking place.
    Quick question for Ms. Biser if I may. I think you 
mentioned that some 30, 40 percent of our Nation's food supply 
is wasted, while nearly 14 million Americans, a lot of whom are 
kids, experience food insecurity. What actions has the State of 
North Carolina taken to incentivize composting and food waste 
reduction efforts?
    Ms. Biser. Thank you for that question, Senator Carper. 
This is an important issue, and one that we have a ways to go.
    Where we have started in North Carolina is to help support 
local community programs who are doing drop offs for food waste 
donation. What we are seeing is that there has been great 
response from the residents in those communities when that 
option is made available. So we are currently exploring the 
opportunity to expand that within the State.
    If I may, Senator, I may, as we are looking at how we can 
expand this, I might make some suggestions for how you all can 
help support that effort, as well. Thinking about the EPA food 
waste hierarchy, the No. 1 thing to do is to prevent food waste 
from occurring in the first place.
    Having assistance, whether it is through grants to States, 
for example, for providing technical assistance to large 
generators of food waste would be very helpful. Programs like 
the Environmental Stewardship Initiative could be expanded to 
help provide that technical assistance and reduce it to start 
with.
    Second of all in that food hierarchy is feeding hungry 
people. As you mentioned, nearly 14 million households that are 
food insecure. There are items that could help States, 
especially like mine that have a lot of agriculture, such as 
transitioning from a food donation tax deduction to a tax 
credit. For those who don't have a lot of margin on their 
income, that could be a much more effective way to incentivize 
food donation, and further clarifying the food donation 
liability through the Emerson Act.
    Then last, organics recycling is a nascent recycling 
compared to things like aluminum cans or bottles or paper. So 
the more infrastructure and education help we can get to help 
support those markets, the more the Federal Government can help 
by supporting the purchasing of compost, for example, to help 
strengthen that market, all of those things would be hugely 
helpful as the States are looking at their approach to this 
important issue. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    As we prepare to close out, I just want to thank Senator 
Capito myself, and everyone on this Committee, the staffs as 
well who work really hard on this stuff. We want to thank you 
for really excellent testimony today. Excellent testimony, very 
helpful. You helped us appreciate that our waste and related 
climate challenges are vast, but not insurmountable.
    I am passionate, as you know, a lot of us are passionate 
about the promise of a circular economy to meet these 
challenges and allow us to have a more sustainable future. My 
hope, our hope, is that today's hearing will inspire and guide 
us all to strive together to achieve that more promising 
future.
    I love the issue of recycling. I have loved it forever. I 
know you do, too. It is part of my DNA, and I know I speak for 
Senator Capito and Senator Boozman, who provide great 
leadership on these issues, along with Sheldon and Dan Sullivan 
and others.
    But we are in a situation where we got a lot of people who 
are still looking for jobs. We will get a jobs report for 
labor, in about 10 days we will get one for the month of 
September. It will show how many people have found jobs, 
hopefully a lot, and also show how many people are still 
looking for work, and it will be a lot.
    And this is just a great way, these industries, this is a 
great way to put people to work, including people whose skills, 
they don't have Master's degrees, or Ph.D.s, in most cases. 
They may not even have gone to college. But they can work; they 
want to work, and we can put a lot of people to work here. We 
can strike a blow on behalf of climate change and help us 
address that.
    We can address blight. My wife and I took a road trip. 
Senator Capito knows that. When we had our week off back in the 
recess, we just drove around about four or five States, and too 
much blight, too much in Delaware and other places, as well. 
North Carolina looked pretty darn good if you will let me say 
that. But this is a great opportunity here for us just to knock 
the ball out of the park in so many different ways.
    You have helped us, I think, move the needle and inspired 
us with what can actually be done here. My staff says, and my 
wife says that I quote Albert Einstein way too much. Two things 
that Einstein said, I only know two quotes. One was the 
definition of insanity, you do the same thing over and over 
again and expect a different result, but the one I really love 
is, ``In adversity, lies opportunity.''
    There is huge adversity here, huge adversity here. We see 
it every day as we travel through our neighborhoods and our 
States. We see it in our rivers and what is in our oceans. 
Great adversity, real opportunity, too. Opportunity to strike a 
blow for our planet and opportunity to put a lot of people to 
work, and to leave this Earth a better place for our kids and 
grandchildren.
    That is our challenge; that is our opportunity. Thank you 
for helping us to realize that opportunity.
    With that, I think I need to say, some housekeeping. I 
would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a variety 
of materials that include letters from stakeholders and other 
materials that relate to today's hearing.
    Is there objection? I don't hear any.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    Senator Carper. Additionally, Senators will be allowed to 
submit questions for the record through the close of business 
on Wednesday, October 6th. We will compile those questions and 
send them to our witnesses, and ask our witnesses to reply by 
Wednesday, October the 20th.
    Anything else, Senator Capito?
    Senator Capito. No.
    Senator Carper. It was good being your wingman.
    Thank you all very, very much, and with that, this hearing 
is adjourned.
    I think we have votes on the floor, and I have to get to my 
other committee hearing before it breaks.
    Thank you all. We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]