[Senate Hearing 118-759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-759
EXAMINING EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSI-
BILITY POLICIES FOR CONSUMER PACKAGING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-429 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 6, 2024
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
Johnson, H. Fisk, Ph.D., Chairman and CEO, S.C. Johnson & Son,
Inc............................................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 12
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 14
Senator Sullivan......................................... 16
Simon, Erin, Vice President, Plastic Waste and Business, World
Wildlife Fund.................................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 33
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 38
Senator Sullivan......................................... 39
Felton, Dan, Executive Director, Ameripen........................ 43
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Carper........................................... 64
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 68
Senator Sullivan......................................... 69
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters to Senator Carper and Senator Capito from:
Walmart...................................................... 91
Tysons Foods................................................. 93
Can Manufacture Institute (CMI).............................. 98
American Beverage............................................ 103
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA).................. 105
Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR)....................... 109
Consumer Brands Association.................................. 112
Amcor and 11 additional organizations........................ 115
Paper Recycling Coalition (PRC).............................. 117
ISRI......................................................... 123
The Recycling Partnership.................................... 125
Statements for the record from:
American Chemistry Council (ACC)............................. 129
Molson Coors................................................. 136
Letter from The Aluminum Association............................. 138
EXAMINING EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY POLICIES FOR CONSUMER
PACKAGING
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Kelly, Padilla, Ricketts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. Today, we are here
to discuss a sustainability policy called Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) and how these programs can improve
recycling infrastructure and recycling practices.
What exactly is Extended Producer Responsibility? Extended
Producer Responsibility establishes a system in which the
financial responsibility for products through the end of their
lives is shifted upstream to producers of those products.
How do Extended Producer Responsibility policies work?
Well, States or countries adopt policies that may require
producers to pay a fee that is associated with their goods to a
producer responsibility organization, and then these
organizations can use the revenues for the expansion of
recycling infrastructure and for consumer education.
Consumer packaging materials, like plastic, like cardboard,
or aluminum, as we know, vary greatly with respect to their
recyclability. Some materials, such as paper, have more viable
markets for repurposing than others. We are pretty good in this
Country at recycling paper. Extended Producer Responsibility
policies can consider these differences in materials in their
fee structures, which can incentivize producers to make more
packaging sustainable.
For example, in Colorado they are working to establish a
program where fees will be assigned to goods based on their
environmental impact. Products that are more easily reused or
recycled may have a lower associated fee for the producer to
pay.
Difficult to recycle packaging, like plastic films, may
have a higher associated fee. In order to pay a lower fee into
the system, in Colorado, producers can make packaging that has
a lower environmental cost.
Programs in several other States have also shown real
potential. Among them, California, Oregon, and Maine have
recently established Extended Producer Responsibility policies
for packaging, regardless of the material type. As more States
adopt these policies, it is critical that the Federal
Government understands how to support Extended Producer
Responsibility efforts moving forward.
We are hoping that today's discussion sheds light onto some
of the activity going on in our States and what the proper role
of the Federal Government should be.
Extended Producer Responsibility Policies can also help
drive recycling rates up, since Producer Responsibility
Organizations and governments can use the revenue they generate
to improve recycling infrastructure for hard to recycle
materials and to expand access to recycling in communities,
including rural communities.
Right now, consumer packaging makes up approximately a
third of all plastics produced. I will say that again: consumer
packaging makes up approximately a third of all plastics
produced. Sadly, as we know, plastics are not commonly recycled
in America.
According to the EPA, in 2018, less than 9 percent of
plastics were recycled in the U.S. Let me just say that again:
less than 9 percent of plastics were recycled in the U.S., just
a couple of years ago. To put that figure into perspective, it
is even smaller than the national recycling rate for all
materials, which is roughly 32 percent.
As the members of this committee have heard me say more
times than they want to remember, I like to say find out what
works; do more of that. These policies actually can work. For
example, the Extended Producer Responsibility Program in
British Columbia was able to achieve an impressive residential
recycling material rate of 86 percent in 2022, up from 37
percent in 2004, pretty amazing, before the program was
implanted in that country.
As we will hear today, there has also been a surge in
private sector support for Extended Producer Responsibility
policies. Why is that? We know that most Americans want to make
sustainable purchasing choices, and that number is growing.
According to a 2020 survey conducted by McKinsey, more than 60
percent of respondents said they would pay more for a product
with sustainable packaging.
Large consumer brands have noticed. Many companies, for
example, have established ambitious sustainability goals, such
as using a minimum amount of recycled content in their
packaging, and Extended Producer Responsibility policies can
help producers meet those goals.
However, it is worth noting that the Extended Producer
Responsibility policies on their own will not fix our waste
management system. These policies must work in tandem with
other investments in infrastructure and education and data
collection. Fortunately, Congress has a track record of success
in making such investments.
As you may recall, a part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, which was actually written in this committee, and managed
on the floor by this lady right here and yours truly, and
became law in November 2021, our committee worked to secure
$350 million to strengthen recycling infrastructure and provide
recycling education grants across the USA.
Our bipartisan work to strengthen our Nation's recycling
systems doesn't stop there. Last year, this committee adopted
two other pieces of bipartisan recycling legislation at the
urging of Senator Capito, Senator Boozman, and myself,
legislation which would help gather much-needed data about our
recycling system and improve access to recycling infrastructure
in rural and disadvantaged communities.
This Congress, Senator Capito, Senator Boozman, and I are
committed to seeing both of these bills move across the finish
line.
In closing, let me just say that we know that recycling is
a win-win. It benefits our environment, and it can also
benefit, at the same time, our economy. That is the kind of
win-win situation that I think we all look for. That is why our
committee continues to consider further opportunities to
support better recycling practices.
We are looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
Before we do, and we welcome you all, thank you for joining us.
It looks like you brought your family. That is SRO, they are in
the EPW committee.
Let me turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Capito, and
thank her for her efforts and leadership. We look forward to
your remarks. Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator Carper, and good morning
to all of you. It is nice to be here this morning.
This committee's continued focus on sustainability and
waste management have underscored the fact that we have a waste
problem, both here in this Country and around the world.
Like any complex issue, it is kind of easy to sit here and
list out all the problems, but it is very, very difficult to
start finding realistic solutions. We have one crowd saying we
need to end all plastic production tomorrow. That position just
doesn't make sense.
Acknowledging our continued reliance on plastic and working
to prevent plastic pollution are not mutually exclusive.
Private sector sustainability goals and international
regulatory developments, like the global plastic treaty
currently under negotiation, indicate the waste management
policy landscape is very much in flux. U.S.-based companies
with global footprints are staring down an uncertain regulatory
and economic future.
My primary focus in evaluating Extended Producer
Responsibility policies under consideration is making sure that
they are grounded in reality and consider the downstream
impacts to everyday consumers, including regressive costs that
could be passed down, but especially in rural areas, where
current recycling programs are more limited and the cost of
standing up ones are more expensive.
Companies cannot operate efficiently if they must conform
to international standards that do not have American interests
in mind or if they have to conform with 50 different packaging
and disposal requirements to sell their products if every State
had their own provisions.
Past experience in other environmental areas has shown us
that States with the biggest populations and the most stringent
restrictions will become the regulatory floor. Those States'
policies can then unfairly dictate the national market to
States like mine that have structural impediments to recycling
access and limited resources to funding that necessary
infrastructure.
Preventing this outcome, and a recurrence of the state-on-
State fight over vehicle emissions standards and its market
uncertainties, is why we need to bring these types of
conversations about nationwide impacts of EPR policies.
As sustainability shifts from marketing buzzword to a
potential revenue driver and a competitive advantage, industry,
government, and the environmental community must work together
to achieve outcomes that protect both the environment and grow
the economy.
For that outcome to become achievable, we must be, in my
opinion, technology-agnostic and avoid mandates around EPR or
circularity that may have some unintended consequences.
If draconian Federal standards are imposed, it may chill
growth in any emerging sector. We see this happening in how IRS
guidelines, for instance, on hydrogen tax credits, with no
basis in law, are stifling the development of that market that
is particularly hitting my State and my hydrogen hub. That is
why I bring it up.
The same cannot be allowed to happen in the recycling and
waste management spaces. During today's hearing, we are likely
to hear statements such as, ``the devil is in the details,''
or, ``if done correctly.'' These precautionary labels will
frequently arise in our EPR discussions. They emphasize the
need to discuss all the potential consequences, both intended
and unintended.
Done correctly, EPR could significantly improve domestic
recycling, the rates, reduce the waste, and provide new
opportunities economically. Equally so, a poorly crafted EPR
scheme could laden regressive financial burdens on consumers,
privilege large companies over smaller companies, and open the
door for targeted bans for materials out of favor, such as
plastic.
While I can understand the rationale behind EPR, I have yet
to see a proposal that adequately is addressing all of these
concerns. That is why we are here today.
To start, any EPR scheme that fails to recognize the
importance of chemical recycling will never meaningfully
improve recycling rates. We must carefully consider what
stakeholders should have a role in decisionmaking, such as the
waste management industry, who is often left out.
We also need to think about the appropriate role of
government. The last thing U.S. companies need is another layer
of bureaucracy to navigate, so I look forward to hearing the
panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Now, we are going to hear from each of our three witnesses.
We are pleased to welcome each of you to our committee today. I
think we are going to hear first from Dr. H. Fisk Johnson. What
does the ``H'' stand for?
Mr. Johnson. Herbert.
Senator Carper. OK. Mr. Johnson is the Chairman and CEO of
S.C. Johnson and Son. S.C. Johnson makes products many of us
have in our homes and households, including Mrs. Meyer's hand
soap, and Windex cleaner, which I have not used since
yesterday.
Senator Capito. I told him I used it last weekend.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. They also have ambitious sustainability
goals to make their products more recyclable and reusable.
Dr. Johnson, thank you for joining us today. You are
welcome to begin your testimony at this time.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF H. FISK JOHNSON, PH.D., CHAIRMAN AND CEO, S.C.
JOHNSON AND SON, INC.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Well, thank you, Chairman Carper
and Ranking Member Capito, and the distinguished members of the
committee for the opportunity to talk today.
This is an incredibly important topic. I am a scientist by
education, but I have spent the last 37 years of my career in
the packaged goods industry. As a CEO of a large, global
consumer goods company that is a big user of plastic, I see
plastic in two very different ways.
On one hand, I see it as one of the most useful, versatile,
and cost-effective materials developed in the last century that
has brought extraordinary benefits to human life and well-being
on this planet. On the other hand, as a lifelong
conservationist, I am also seeing how plastic has become one of
the most profound emerging global pollutants that is affecting
planetary, animal, and human health.
The challenge is reconciling those two perspectives. How we
as a society can and should and most practically, most
economically, and least disruptively preserve many of the
benefits that plastic has brought to humanity while preventing
the vast amounts of plastic that end up in landfills, or even
worse, end up in the environment where it can affect animal and
human health.
Our company has a long history of environmental leadership,
and I have long seen our company's plastic and packaging waste
as one of our top environmental issues. It is something that we
have been working on for a very long time. We launched our
first 100 percent recycled plastic bottle 33 years ago, back in
1990. We have continued to take numerous actions and launch
many other initiatives to reduce our plastic footprint, and we
are going to continue to do so, whether that is improving PCR,
Post-Consumer Recycled, content in our products, providing
reuse-refill options, or other initiatives.
However, for all of our company's work and ambition on
plastic, I can't say I can raise my hand and say I feel good
about the progress that we have made. No matter how many
innovations one company can try, or efforts we can take,
individual voluntary actions can only go so far.
It is incredibly difficult for an individual business, or
even businesses as a whole, to make unilateral progress on
plastic waste. It takes everyone in the plastic ecosystem
working collectively together, from plastic manufacturers,
packaged goods companies like ourselves, retailers, recyclers,
waste haulers, to individual users of plastic products all
coming together, working collectively, because scale matters.
Scale at retail, scale in recycling infrastructure, scale and
supply, scale and education programs, scale through everyone in
the package and value chain working together holistically.
Without scale, we tend to get expensive, ineffective piecemeal
approaches.
That is why I believe the only way to have an effective
program is through a government regulatory framework. We
believe Federal EPR is the way to go for several reasons. For
one, as you said, Americans want the government to lead on
plastic waste.
Two, there is a complex web of State regulations emerging,
which are going to drive significant complexity, cost, and
dysfunction unless there is Federal regulation that creates a
national approach.
We need Federal regulation to avoid overregulation.
Efficiencies of scale matter and can only come through a
National regulatory framework, and continuing to accumulate
landfill waste is unsustainable.
We also believe there is some urgency to get started. It is
important to get ahead of emerging State regulation. But the
sooner regulation is enacted and clear goals are set, and the
more time that is given to achieve those goals, the less
disruption there will be to business, the economy, and
consumers. Time allows for product innovation; it allows for
recycling technology innovation. It allows for education
programs; it allows for investment and capacity and recycling
infrastructure and many other things.
Many organizations have been working to support EPR. I
think what the World Wildlife Fund has done, in particular, has
created some excellent work to educate on EPR and how it is
workable.
In closing, I would just like to say that I believe plastic
waste is a critical issue that needs to be addressed in a
practical, good way to make substantive progresses through a
National regulatory framework, where you can achieve scale with
producers taking responsibility for the life cycle of their
products. I think the sooner clear goals and expectations are
set for industry and time is given to meet those goals, the
better.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Dr. Johnson, thank you for leading us off.
We will now turn to Erin Simon for her comments. She is
Vice President and head of Plastic Waste and Business at the
World Wildlife Fund. Ms. Simon has been with the World Wildlife
Fund since 2011, leading efforts to engage with the private
sector to reduce plastic pollution.
Ms. Simon, welcome. You are recognized for the next 5
minutes or so. Thanks so much for joining us.
STATEMENT OF ERIN SIMON, VICE PRESIDENT, PLASTIC WASTE AND
BUSINESS, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Ms. Simon. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Carper and
Ranking Member Capito and other distinguished members of the
committee for the opportunity to testify today.
Before I came to WWF, World Wildlife Fund, I was a
packaging engineer and material scientist working at Hewlett-
Packard for 10 years.
Senator Carper. Really?
Ms. Simon. Yes. I spent a lot of time designing packaging
for products both that were large format and went to copy rooms
and stuff that ended up on Walmart shelves. When we talk about
this topic today, not only am I passionate about it, but I can
talk about it from a few different perspectives.
Senator Carper. Good, good. I think that is maybe why we
invited you to come.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Simon. World Wildlife Fund is one of the world's
leading science-based conservation organizations. We have been
around for over 60 years, and our mission is really to protect
the world's resources for future generations and to help
address some of the biggest challenges facing our planet today,
like plastic pollution.
Plastics are essential to modern life. They have helped us
to overcome some insurmountable challenges. But the cost of
that innovation has been quite extreme.
The U.S. is generating most of the plastic waste in the
world. It is ending up in our rivers, our coastlines, and our
communities. It is estimated that globally, there is 11 million
metric tons of plastic pollution entering our oceans every
year. Just a little bit of perspective, that is a dump truck
per minute. Just in the hour we might be talking, that will be
60 dump trucks heading into our oceans.
Those plastics are ending up everywhere, from these
essential ecosystems we are trying to protect to our city
sidewalks, disproportionately impacting local communities and
economies, and of course, leading to the growing health crisis
of microplastics in our food and water.
To be clear, WWF is not anti-plastic. We believe plastics
can be a cornerstone to many of the innovations that frame
life, but they don't have any place in nature where they are
ending up. Currently, we depend too heavily on the linear,
single-use economy, where we make, use, and get rid of
plastics. We need to turn this system, this linear economy,
into a circular economy. That is going to require a
multifaceted approach that protects the communities, protects
the environment, and our economies.
We see this, and our partners, some big consumer brands, as
a huge untapped opportunity for the U.S. in the form of
leadership so massive that if we were to start today to
transform our plastic linear economy into a circular one, we
could save more than $4 trillion in direct environmental and
social costs by 2040.
Policies like Extended Producer Responsibility can be a
critical part of that solution. We know EPR is responsible for
robust recycling rates in other parts of the world. It creates
powerful incentives for companies to reduce their plastic
footprint and design for recyclability and mitigate the risk of
that leaking into the environment.
EPR shifts that responsibility of end of life to the
producer, and the objective is really for this physical,
organizational, and financial structure to be shared between
the producer and the government. It creates a more effective
structure that increases the end of life collection, allows for
better environmentally sound treatment of collected products
and waste, and provides incentives to manufacturers to design
more resource efficiently and invest in infrastructure.
WWF has EPR principles that are broadly supported by
industry and other NGO's and really include an industry-led
governance model. This flexible framework is sensitive to
regional differences but would ideally be established at the
Federal level.
In this type of model, governments have the oversight over
the system, but hand the day-to-day management and funding
obligations to an industry-led producer responsibility
organization, or PRO. In my written testimony, I provide more
details of that and our recommended parameters for a successful
EPR system.
WWF hopes that the conversation this committee is leading
today will help pave the way for Congress to develop and enact
EPR legislation. We are not alone in that. We have a proven
track record working with companies to improve their footprints
and advocate for policy.
In my written testimony, I elaborate on our work with
companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, and Walmart. These companies
support well-designed Federal EPR, as well as corporations
further up the line, like Dow.
Policymakers can also act knowing the American public is
firmly behind you. I know there were some stats listed, but
soon to be released from WWF some public polling will show that
85 percent of the public agree that plastic waste pollution is
a serious and concerning problem that requires immediate
political action to solve.
This issue is one we can all agree on, and ultimately, a
circular economy is the only sustainable way forward. EPR can
help us to get there, and both government and industry align on
the need for the best-in-class system.
Here in Congress, we have seen the passage of Save Our
Seas, and members of this committee have introduced the
Recycling and Compostability Accountability Act and the
Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act and the Break
Free from Plastic Act. These efforts demonstrate the bipartisan
recognition of this growing problem and the keen interest in
addressing it. We believe well-designed Federal EPR provides
another opportunity for Congress to pass bipartisan
legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and thank
you for the committee's leadership.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Thank you for, it sounds like, a lifetime of leadership in
the private sector and again in the nonprofit sector. Thank
you.
Finally, we are going to hear from Dan Felton. My sister
and I grew up in Danville, West Virginia. One of my favorite
places in Delaware is Felton, Delaware, just south of Dover.
They have a fire company there. We have a lot of volunteer fire
companies. I am sure my colleagues have in their States.
People ask me, they say, where should I go to dinner in
Kent County, Delaware, which is greater Dover? I always say,
the Felton Fire Hall. I just want you to know where your name
is revered in our State. We are honored that you are here with
us today. I understand that you are Executive Director at, how
do you pronounce that?
Mr. Felton. AMERIPEN.
Senator Carper. AMERIPEN. AMERIPEN represents a wide range
of stakeholders in America's packaging supply chain, and we are
delighted that you are here. Thanks, please proceed.
Let me just say, our witnesses can't see this, but we are
having an interesting movement of people that keeps coming into
this committee hearing room, the likes of which I have not seen
in a long time. A lot of them are young people. It looks like
they may be college or high school age.
I think they are interested in recycling. That is a sight,
that is a beautiful thing. We are happy to see this. By their
presence, they are saying that this is good stuff, and we
agree. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAN FELTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERIPEN
Mr. Felton. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Capito, and members of the committee. I am Dan Felton,
Executive Director of AMERIPEN, the American Institute for
Packaging in the Environment.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today on this important topic of Extended Producer
Responsibility for consumer packaging. This is a core issue for
AMERIPEN, and it is a core issue right now for the U.S.
packaging industry. All stakeholders must work together to
craft and implement effective shared responsibility solutions
for packaging recovery and recycling. AMERIPEN supports that.
AMERIPEN is the only material-inclusive trade association
representing the entire packaging value chain in the U.S. That
is material suppliers, packaging manufacturers, brand owners
who use that packaging, retailers, and end of life material
managers. Our membership also includes a broad array of
industry, product, and material-specific trade associations who
are essential to the fabric of AMERIPEN.
We focus on science and data to support our public policy
positions, and our advocacy and engagement is based on rigorous
research rooted in our deep commitment to achieve sustainable
packaging policies.
Packaging plays a vital role in the United States, ensuring
the quality of consumer goods as they are manufactured,
shipped, stored, and used, protecting the health and safety of
the Americans who handle and use those products.
Packaging has value throughout its life cycle, and none of
it belongs in roadways, waterways, or landfills. We know how to
recover it and be recycled and reused, and no one knows better
how to do that than the AMERIPEN members who design, supply,
produce, distribute, collect, and reprocess that packaging.
They are driving innovation, designing packaging for better
environmental performance to boost recovery and recycling and
evolve the existing infrastructure.
AMERIPEN supports public policy positions that are results-
based, effective and efficient, and equitable and fair. This
has been the bedrock of our advocacy work as four States have
now enacted full packaging EPR laws, and two additional States
have enacted groundwork laws.
We will support thoughtful packaging EPR proposals that
properly balance the needs of all stakeholders. We will not
support poorly designed packaging EPR proposals that we believe
are not based in reality and will not result in positive
environmental change and greater packaging recovery and
recycling.
We were deeply involved in the legislative process for each
of the States that have now enacted EPR packaging laws, and we
are now deeply engaged in their implementation. There is,
unfortunately, a lack of consistency between these emerging
laws and the additional proposals we are seeing come forth in
the U.S., causing concern for many, including brand owners who
will be the primary responsible party for funding those
programs. More detail on this is included in my full written
testimony submitted for the record today.
A deeper discussion is now merited on how uniformity may be
achieved if packaging EPR continues to expand in the U.S., and
whether something could or should be done at the Federal level.
To that end, AMERIPEN would be pleased to work with Federal
policymakers and other stakeholders to explore the potential
need and design for any Federal framework or program.
While AMERIPEN is not currently suggesting there is an
immediate need for a Federal program or framework, any
consideration must balance multiple public policy priorities
and stakeholder needs to effectively improve packaging recovery
and recycling throughout the U.S., alongside the need to keep
existing systems and infrastructure operational and profitable.
A national nonprofit producer responsibility organization,
a PRO, would likely be needed to manage the organizational
structure for any program that moves forward for producers to
develop a national program plan, pool resources, and provide
program funding. A Federal Government entity, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, will likely need to have
oversight of the PRO and the organizational mechanisms to
coordinate with States and their existing management of solid
waste and recycling.
Phasing in interested States through an opt-in process to
receive Federal support might also be appropriate to allow the
continued planning and management of solid waste and recycling
at the State and local levels. Such an opt-in process should
establish national standards for terms, data, measurement, and
reporting and the use of producer funds to which in-State
stakeholders must adhere in order to receive that funding.
This type of framework that retains State and local
planning, while also providing greater funding, consistency,
and efficiency through national standards, could provide a
workable approach to integrating aspects of packaging EPR
across the Country without creating a national takeover of
local recovery and recycling programs.
I hope these thoughts from AMERIPEN offer some perspective
today on any national packaging framework or program that might
be considered. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the committee today, and I would welcome any questions
you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Felton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Again, we welcome each of you today. Thanks
for your life's work. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with
us and our colleagues and our guests.
We are going to provide 5 minutes per member for
questioning. I will try to keep us close to that, but offer
opportunities for multiple rounds, I hope.
I would just say to Ms. Simon and Dr. Johnson, with respect
to fee setting, we have heard in your testimoneys that a system
that assigns fees based upon the environmental impact of a
product is an important aspect of an Extended Producer
Responsibility policy.
For example, difficult to recycle plastic films may have a
higher fee than a recyclable cereal box. We will start with Ms.
Simon, if you would. Would you expand for us, please, on how
this fee setting process can work as a tool and Extended
Producer Responsibility policies to support both a downstream
and upstream changes in our recycling system?
Ms. Simon. Absolutely. When we talk about this fee setting,
the term that is being used often today is called eco-
modulation.
Senator Carper. What is it called?
Ms. Simon. Eco-modulation. I don't know if it is a real
word.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I have words like that, too.
Ms. Simon. Spell-check does not like it. What it
essentially is about is sort of a fee modulation around
criteria for the packaging. So, if we want to improve our
recycling system, we need to start by making sure that we are
standardizing the design of those materials to match the
technology and the infrastructure.
By doing that, you get better efficiency on the back end,
higher quality materials. They will have a higher value to have
longer term contracts. So to incentivize that, to incentivize
design for that, you can create a fee modulation system or an
eco-modulation, where you incentivize producers to design for
that system or design above that, use recycled content. Use
less.
And it can also disincentivize. You can disincentivize
problematic materials, problematic colorants, labels,
additives, so that they pay a higher fee. That way, they are no
longer, if they are degrading the quality of that feedstock,
they are paying to degrade it.
Additionally, it can create the need for transparency in
the system, which can help avoid some of the concerns around
toxic chemicals in recycling. There is better transparency; the
material recycling facility will have the ability to opt out of
those materials, and it will give us the opportunity to have
better visibility of how we improve upon reducing those
problematic chemicals in the future.
Fee modulation is a way to take a tool that could be just
for financing recycling and use it for a bit more than that.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Dr. Johnson, would you please share with us any views that
you have regarding the same topic?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I would just simply say that I would
support as a key tenet of EPR this kind of eco-modulation. What
we have seen in some EPR schemes is they create a pollution
prevention hierarchy, the worst being plastic going into
landfill, wasted energy, downcycling to recycling, to reuse-
refill, and fees are based on where the end of life of your
product is relative to that hierarchy.
I think it is a good incentive system for companies like
ourselves to make our products more recyclable, to improve our
PCR content, and just have continuous improvement in the
system. A number of EPR schemes don't have that, but we would
certainly promote having that kind of system in EPR.
Senator Carper. Great, thanks.
Senator Capito?
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you all for being here.
There is a fundamental chicken-and-the-egg issue here that is
preventing us from moving on. Insufficient collection
infrastructure hampers our recycling efforts, and the low
demand for recycled materials discourages investment. That is
why I think Extended Producer Responsibility could really be
viewed as a potential solution here, which is good.
Ms. Simon just mentioned something that I mentioned in my
opening statement. Mr. Felton, I would like to ask you, is it
even feasible for producers to comply with anticipated
recycling content mandates without the integration of some
chemical recycling? Where does chemical recycling fit into
this? Because obviously, it is a major part of the materials
that are produced?
Mr. Felton. Yes, thank you, Senator. It is a great
question. While AMERIPEN doesn't have an official public policy
position on advanced recycling, chemical recycling, molecular
recycling, we will say it is a tool in the toolbox. We would
not want any program at the State or the Federal level to move
forward that would take a tool that is able to increase
packaging recycling and recovery. That would include new
emerging technologies for mechanical recycling. As well, we
believe that would include these new technologies, newer
technologies, to support advanced or chemical recycling.
Senator Capito. Dr. Johnson, do you have an opinion on that
as well?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. I would support the fact that it is an
important tool in the toolbox, especially for hard-to-recycle
plastics. You would hope, over time, that as EPR works, you get
out of those hard-to-recycle plastics, and you put more into
the recycling loop and maybe there is less of a need for that
kind of tool. But it is certainly an important tool, in my
opinion, in an interim period.
Senator Capito. Ms. Simon, do you have an opinion? You
mentioned that in your opening statement.
Ms. Simon. Overall, I think we are cautious about chemical
recycling today, as it hasn't quite been proven. However, I
don't think we need to define the how. I think we define
outcomes in the process. We don't want to close off innovation.
But we say that any technology that is used to process and
provide us secondary markets has to meet certain environmental,
social, and economic bars. If we set a system up to be about
outcomes, about improving the benefits of this system, then we
don't have to put barriers up around what those tools can be.
Senator Capito. So, one of the frustrations that I think
the Chairman and I have, if I can speak for him briefly, I
think, is that we can't even get our small recycling bills
through Congress. So how in the world are we going to be able
to do something on a Federal level at the scale at which we are
talking about here, which would be, I think, beneficial,
fundamentally, to everybody in the Country and all the States
would be able to comply?
But the two downsides that I mentioned were possible
regressiveness in terms of cost of product as you further
recycle. What does that do to the cost to the general consumer?
And the other thing is the rural America, sort of inability to
access recycling now, but in the future. I don't know.
Mr. Felton, do you have any helpful hints here for
Congress?
Mr. Felton. Included in my written testimony are some more
examples of this, but yes, I think there are things that are
moving forward that Congress can help with. The acts that we
have heard of today, the Recycling Infrastructure and
Accessibility Act, the Recycling and Composting Accountability
Act, understanding they are currently facing challenges as
well. But those are steps in the right direction.
I think another thing that could be helpful, and I don't
think it is impossible to do, is to get some more harmonization
or uniformity, if you will, around the definitions. I would
agree with Ms. Simon's discussion about what is the end goal,
what is the end game here. But if we are all operating from a
different definitional standard, that is something to think
about.
One other thing I would highlight that I think is very
important that I do see an opportunity, potentially, for
Federal Government to support is the re-emergence of State
recycling market development. So we want markets for these
materials at the end of the day. Producers want that, to get to
the recycled content, either self-imposed or mandates States
are putting forward.
Recycling market development is another tool, and I think
there is a role here for the Federal Government to potentially
help in that regard.
Senator Capito. You mentioned in your statement that, I
think you said four States has already put in----
Mr. Felton. That have full EPR laws in place right now,
yes.
Senator Capito. OK. What four States are those?
Mr. Felton. They are Oregon, Maine, Colorado, and
California.
Senator Capito. And then, what were the other two you
mentioned, you mentioned two other States?
Mr. Felton. Illinois and Maryland have passed what I am
referring to as a groundwork law. It will do a needs
assessment.
Senator Capito. Are these in conflict with one another, or
are they similar?
Mr. Felton. I would say that generally speaking, none of
these six laws in place now are quite like each other. They are
definitely----
Senator Capito. So Mr. Johnson's products, are they going
to be impacted? How are they impacted by the State laws?
Mr. Johnson. There is some conflict between the State laws.
I will give you an example. The labeling laws, as part of EPR
in California, will prevent the chasing arrows symbol in most
cases, whereas 30 other States have laws that mandate the
chasing arrows. Our products flow pretty freely across State
borders, so it would be impossible for us to comply with the
law when you have that kind of labeling conflict. That is just
one example.
Senator Capito. Well, that is a good example. That is a
good example of why harmonization would really be where we need
to go, here.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Capito. Just on something that sounds pretty simple
can complicate things. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Thanks. Thank you very much.
I would just say to our colleagues, two of us that are
sitting here on this side of the dais are former Governors and
very much involved in the National Governor's Association.
There is an entity within the National Governor's Association,
which is a mechanism that enables States to share ideas with
one another, what is working, what is not working. They
actually have a name for the committee that does that. I used
to chair that committee.
I would remind us that this is not just a Federal issue;
this is not just a private sector issue. States have a real dog
in this fight. We welcome that.
Senator Capito, her father was Governor of West Virginia
when I was born, and rumor has it that she has a son who might
end up being Governor of West Virginia in the future. Those
Governors, we want to keep an eye on them and make sure they
are part of what needs to be done.
Senator Ricketts. He and I are recovering Governors.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much, Chairman
Carper and Ranking Member Capito. I appreciate the opportunity.
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
EPR is a relatively new approach to address our plastic
waste infrastructure. I have some concerns that relate to
something that, frankly, none of the witnesses addressed
directly, which is the financial burden this could place on
complying with that regulation, and what it is going to do to
the price of goods.
A study from the State of New York showed the adoption of
EPR could increase grocery bills $36 to $57 per month for a
family of four. This is at a time, of course, when inflation is
already impacting families across this Nation. Grocery prices
are up 21 percent since Joe Biden has taken office.
Of course, who does this harm the most? Well, it is our
lowest income families who are the ones that are the least able
to handle these price increases. We see this in a lot of areas.
In low-income households, they consume almost 20 percent of the
prepackaged goods, more than other households.
We have all sorts of examples where regulation comes in
place and it drives up costs for consumers, and of course, that
impacts our consumers all across the board. For example, when
California passed some of their animal cruelty laws, it drove
up the price of eggs 33 percent. If you look right now in
California, on Proposition 12 as well, eggs consistently cost
85 cents more in California, or 85 cents to a dollar more in
California than they do in the Midwest.
If you look at, for example, the EPA's proposed tailpipe
regulations that would require two-thirds of all vehicles to be
sold in the United States by 2032 to be electric vehicles,
electric vehicles generally cost $65,000. That is significantly
more than a regular internal combustion engine, and the average
low-income household spends $12,000 dollars on their vehicle.
So, again, a huge impact on low-income families when you have
regulations come in place.
So, this overregulation can have a big impact on our
families that are the least able to do it, especially when you
are talking about basic necessities, like food and
transportation. They are really the most vulnerable.
In Nebraska, we actually have innovation that can also help
with this. It is development of mild plastics. Nebraska is the
leader in the development of production of these types of
chemistries. The previous Farm Bill expanded the definition of
bio-based products to include renewable chemicals.
Renewable chemicals are produced from renewable biomass,
allowing sustainable materials to be mixed with conventional
materials and existing industrial processes and supply chains.
It is widely used internationally, and the USDA has been slow
to adopt these improvements.
Mr. Felton, can you talk a little bit about the importance
of innovation and provide some examples of important
innovations that are happening in the packaging supply chain?
Mr. Felton. Yes, thank you, Senator, for that question.
There is a lot of innovation happening, bioplastics is one
example. There are other innovations happening that we are able
to incorporate. For instance, more recycled content.
What I would say is, I want to try to answer both parts of
your comments. One is the innovation happening. It is important
to remember that packaging is designed for a particular reason,
a particular purpose, and I would even suggest, in some
instances, that would be more true in your State with more
rural communities, people may go to the store a distance and
maybe once a week, once every 10 days. So there is packaging
designed expressly for that purpose, for them to be able to
purchase products and have it last longer, quite frankly.
So, innovation, whether it be bioplastics or other types of
materials, packaging being produced really is meaningful when
we have this more holistic discussion about Extended Producer
Responsibility, which then goes to the cost issue.
You referenced a study. There are studies sort of on both
sides of the aisle. Does EPR increase cost to consumers, does
it not? I think economics would argue there may be some
incremental, at least, small cost to consumers at the end of
the day.
I would suggest that consumers may have some of that cost
impact. Companies may be willing to internalize some of that
cost as well, if it gets to what they are trying to do as a
company. I am sure Mr. Johnson can speak further to that. It is
definitely a consideration.
My members are very concerned about potential cost
increase. But I think if they can find paths forward to meet
their goals, whether it be environmental or to sell more
products, if they can internalize some of that cost, the impact
will be less, quite frankly.
Senator Ricketts. Mr. Johnson, can you talk a little bit
about innovation in the packaging industry?
Mr. Johnson. Certainly. Just to comment on the cost piece,
I share your concern about its impacts, especially on people
that can't afford these kinds of cost increases.
But I would make a couple of points. One is, if we let this
emerging round of State regulation happen, that is going to
drive costs a lot faster than if we had Federal regulation.
The second thing that I would say, and this is one of the
things I am promoting, is that the sooner we get Federal
regulation and the more time given to meet goals, the more
innovation can happen; the more you get economies of scale, and
you can mitigate the costs and inconvenience to the people that
buy our products. I advocate for time to meet these hurdles.
But there are a lot of innovations happening, particularly
on recyclability of products and recycled content. I think
those, and reuse-refill kinds of innovations, those are, I
think, the three big things that will be promoted in EPR
regulation.
Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, and thank you for always showing
up. This guy, I think his attendance is as good as mine. It is
a joy to continue to work with you.
Senator Padilla has joined us. Senator Padilla represents a
big State, California, and does it extraordinarily well.
As you know, I used to be a Naval flight officer. We were
stationed, when we weren't in southeast Asia in the Vietnam
War, our squadron was housed at Moffett Field Naval Air
Station. I lived very close to there in Palo Alto.
When we weren't overseas, I would recycle. I found the
warehouse about a mile from the apartment that some of my
buddies and I lived in. We would go there pretty regularly
every month. I have never, never stopped. It is a good habit
that I learned a long time ago in your State. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
convening this hearing.
As we explore the role of Extended Producer Responsibility,
I think it is helpful to remind ourselves that it is just one
aspect of the circular economy for plastic. These policies
should, obviously, work in tandem with other areas like
recycling infrastructure investments, which we have talked
about, improved data collection, because that can help inform
future decisions and policymaking, and any other strategies
that would leverage public-private partnerships and investments
to achieve our goals.
As the Chairman said, I am proud to represent California,
which I believe has paved the way toward a circular economy for
the benefit of both consumers and the environment. Thanks to
California's leadership on recycling over the years, we have
collected over 491 billion bottles and cans, including the ones
that you recycled, Mr. Chairman, and a billion pounds of
carpet. Maybe a lot of people prefer the cans and bottles, but
it is not just that.
Carpet, 2.6 billion pounds of e-waste, because of
electronics and its disproportionately impactful environmental
damage, if not disposed of properly, 2.2 billion gallons of
used oil, and 9.6 million mattresses for recycling. We are
going to take recycling and reuse everywhere we can find it.
California is also one of the first States to enact
Extended Producer Responsibility legislation with its landmark
passage of SB 54 in 2022. This law requires producers to reduce
single use plastic packaging by 25 percent and make 100 percent
of their packaging either recyclable or compostable by 2032.
Reports estimate that the targets in the law would result in 23
million tons less of single use plastics over the next 10
years.
That sounds like a big figure. Let us try to envision what
23 million tons is. You are familiar with the Golden Gate
Bridge? Twenty-three Golden Gate Bridges is what we are talking
about, or 150,000 blue whales.
Dr. Johnson, how can Congress best advance Extended
Producer Responsibility policies while also protecting States'
abilities to act?
Mr. Johnson. I do think there is an important role for
States. What we would like to see is harmonization of product
labeling and product characteristics so that, because our
products flow freely across State borders, so that we don't
have conflicts of laws, and we can capture good economies of
scale.
To me, those are the two most important things that we need
from a Federal level. But States obviously should have a lot of
capability to design these systems to meet their State's
particular needs.
Senator Padilla. Right. I think, in addition, this is my
position, for the record here, I think we in Congress can learn
what has worked at the State level and try to broaden that
across the Country while not preempting those States that can
and want to be even more aggressive. It is an important balance
and policy relationship to have.
In my time remaining, I wanted to try at least one other
topic. California was one of the first States to pass a
beverage container deposit law, which established what
Californians know as California's redemption value, the CRV on
beverage containers.
This fee, or deposit, as it is referred to, is either
returned to consumers when they recycle their bottles and cans
or given to a curbside operator or nonprofit recycler. Thanks
to California's bottle bill, our beverage container recycling
rate is at 70 percent. We have had higher marks at some point,
but 70 percent is pretty successful.
Ms. Simon, what other complementary recycling systems
should be considered and incorporated into Federal Extended
Producer Responsibility policies?
Ms. Simon. Thank you so much for the question, and thanks
for your leadership.
I think it is really important that we learn from what the
States have been doing and what really creates sustainable
secondary markets for all materials, because we do know that we
are way outpacing the world's ability to produce all of the
things we depend on, and we need to figure out how to get them
back.
There are a lot of elements that we would build into a
system like EPR that could extend beyond single use products.
You can learn from DRS to create and how the incentives work in
that to enact incentives for reuse systems and recovery in the
shared community. You can create better harmonization and
design standards across a whole host of different product
categories.
We are primarily talking about municipal solid waste here
and single use materials, but there is apparel, there is
electronics. There are a lot of other industries that are going
to learn from what is happening in this space, and we should be
considering those as we look at what types of mechanisms could
be successful in helping us to recover those unneeded resources
in one place and provide them for other industries in another.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I will just remind us that recycling is the
third of the three Rs: reduce, reuse, and then recycle. Back to
you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Carper. The three Rs. Can't get away from that.
You mentioned the Golden Gate Bridge, which a lot of us are
familiar with. There is also a Golden Gate Park, and when we
were not deployed overseas, my squadron was back in California.
I got to go to the very first Earth Day in Golden Gate
Park. The speaker that day was Ralph Nader. He had written a
best-selling book, some of you may recall, called Unsafe At Any
Speed. It was written about my car, the Chevrolet Corvair. It
had an air-cooled engine in back, and it had a way of going
around a curve, you go down to a sharp curve, it would change
directions, and you find yourself going the opposite direction.
The other thing we found out is that in the winter, when
you turned on the heater, carbon monoxide would come out of the
heater. When I was at Ohio State, I bought it when I was a
senior at Ohio State. When young women at Ohio State found out
that my car was a Corvair, it was hard to get dates in the
winter.
I lived to make it to Pensacola, Florida and sold it for a
dollar and bought myself a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia, which I
think I ended up with like, 200,000 miles on it. But it started
with the Corvair. Lots of great memories.
I want to say thank you for your leadership in California
and thank you very much for your leadership here.
We have a bunch of other, all of us serve on a number of
committees. I serve on about three or four others, and so my
colleagues do, and a lot of those committees are meeting right
now. Members are going to kind of try to pop in to the extent
that they can, but until they do, I am going to proceed to just
ask questions.
My next question would be of you, Dr. Johnson. Several
countries, as we may know, including, I think, including
Canada, and I think France is one of them, have established
Extended Producer Responsibility laws. Recently, I think we
have had some mention here of Colorado, Maine, California, and
Oregon have passed their own laws for consumer packaging.
We have heard both pros and cons to these laws. One concern
that we have heard from stakeholders is about the challenges we
have heard here today, the challenges of patchwork State-by-
State approaches to recycling policies, such as differing
labeling requirements.
I mentioned the National Governors' Association (NGA)
actually has an entity that is in place to actually share good
ideas with one another and to find out what works and do more
of that. It is called the Center for Best Practices within the
NGA. That is a great organization and still very active. We try
to work with them in ways that are helpful to the Federal
Government, to Congress, and also to State and local
governments.
Dr. Johnson, a followup question for you. Would you please
share some of your experiences as a global business working
with national and international Extended Producer
Responsibility laws? What are some of the challenges that S.C.
Johnson has faced in complying with these laws, and how might
regulatory entities address those challenges?
Mr. Johnson. I think there are some good models of EPR
legislation out there. I would hold British Columbia up as an
excellent example. You shared that as an example earlier,
Senator, where they have been able to achieve high recovery
rates and very high access to recycling for the population in
British Columbia.
Some of the challenges that we have had revolve more around
transparency of fees. The one thing that I would like to see
more of in an Extended Producer Responsibility regulation is
more of a push on reuse and refill. That is probably one of the
best approaches to minimizing environmental impact.
I would just like to share an example, if I could. Twelve
years ago, we launched a concentrate which you could put in
this Windex bottle and fill it with water so you can reuse this
trigger bottle a hundred times, if you wanted. That is the best
environmental footprint for this kind of product, but it
doesn't sell very well.
Most consumers, plastic is just not top of mind enough for
them to want to go through the inconvenience of putting a
concentrate in here and refilling this bottle. It just comes
back to, it is very hard for an individual company to make
progress with these kinds of innovations.
But if we have things in the regulation that could help
incentivize these kinds of things and bring scale at retail, if
retailers had 30 percent of their space devoted to refill-reuse
options, if many companies created those options for their
brand, if we had education programs, if we had subsidies, that
could help this kind of innovation.
France has put in their regulation a minimum amount of
retail space that you have to devote to these options. The
United Kingdom is giving subsidies for refill stations in
Europe. We have over 700 refill stations for our laundry
detergent brand in Europe, and those kinds of things work.
I would love to see that kind of thing added to a
regulation that we can have federally here in the United
States.
Senator Carper. OK. Well, thank you for that.
Ms. Simon, and again, probably, Dr. Johnson, but we will
start off with you. Ms. Simon, as I mentioned I think in my
opening statement, some materials have more viable markets for
repurchasing than others, as you know. It is known as end
markets. I believe that is what they call end markets.
For example, paper is recycled at almost 70 percent, and
recycled paper is often put back into products for resale, but
plastic products do not have the same recovery rate or value as
recycled paper. Question for you and maybe for Dr. Johnson, as
well. How can Extended Producer Responsibility policies
establish new end markets for recycled materials? Ms. Simon?
Ms. Simon. Every single one of the materials that we depend
on for single use today, whether it is paper, aluminum, glass,
or plastic, comes from a resource and comes with impact. We
should be making our best effort to make sure all of those
materials are getting recycled. They all end up in the same
blue bin.
So when we are talking about an Extended Producer
Responsibility scheme at the Federal level, we need to be
considering all of those materials at once and how we can
create design standards and eco-modulation to enhance and
improve the way those materials are designed for recycling and
for the infrastructure and technologies needed to most
efficiently recycle them so that we have high value materials
on the back end for all of that.
So, maybe the improvement from paper is not as high as it
would be because we have a much lower starting point for other
materials. But that improvement is still needed. Because paper
and paperboard are the materials within that blue bin that
absorb most of the contaminants. Because they are on the lower
end of the amount of times you can recycle them, those
contaminants actually have a bigger impact on the strength of
those fibers when they are being recycled.
I think there is mutual benefit that can happen across all
materials for those secondary markets.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Dr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I would just say that a key tenet of Extended
Producer Responsibility regulation and a key responsibility of
that producer organization is to help create those end of life
markets. If you look at the British Columbia example, today,
over 99 percent of what they collect goes into an end market.
That has been improved over time.
Again, I think eco-modulation is an important tenet as
well. You create a plastic pollution hierarchy, and you create
an incentive system to move products from going into landfill
or waste energy up to higher value, more circular markets. To
me, that is a very helpful and important principle in Extended
Producer Responsibility regulation.
Senator Carper. Let me just followup with that. How
important are viable end markets for a company like yours that
is trying to use more recycled content in your packaging
materials?
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
Senator Carper. Yes. How important are viable end markets
for a company like yours that is trying to use more recycled
content in packaging materials?
Mr. Johnson. It is extremely important. What regulation
does is it creates scale. It creates scale and supply of post-
consumer recycled plastic, which is important to us, because we
are meeting our own internal goals of using recycled plastic.
It is important for us to see that even today, some of the
hard to recycle things get into even down-cycled markets. To
me, it is a critical part of regulation.
Senator Carper. Good, thank you. I think those are my
questions.
I want to mention a couple of things, if I can. Senator
Capito, Senator Boozman, and I have provided the leadership in
introducing two significant pieces of legislation dealing with
recycling. We have talked about it many times in this room.
Some of you are familiar with them.
We have actually, they passed out of committee, I think,
unanimously. They have very broad support within the Senate. In
an effort to try to find, to reconcile our legislation with
what is going on in the House, we have stumbled over something
that is called, in the Senate, it is called a hold. A member of
the Senate, Democrat or Republican, can put a hold, in some
cases, on legislation that he or she has concerns about.
One of our colleagues, Senator Lee of Utah, has lifted his
hold. He has lifted his hold, we learned this morning, on the
two recycling bills that this committee has moved earlier in
this Congress that we talked about here, even today. Senator
Capito has provided a lot of leadership on that, along with
Senator Boozman, and our staffs, great staff work on that. We
appreciate very much the decision by Senator Lee to lift his
hold.
Senator Capito and I are going to be working and our staffs
are going to be working with the floor. I don't know how you
work with the floor in the Senate, but the folks who work the
floor, for Democratic and Republican leadership, to see if we
can't move these two recycling bills as soon as possible so we
can work with the House to get them to President Biden's desk.
A piece of good news. We don't always have good news, but that
is good news, and we are really happy and grateful to Senator
Lee for what he has done.
Before we wrap it up, one of the things I like to do, I am
always looking for consensus, how do we build consensus. How do
we build consensus here across political lines; how do we build
consensus between the House and the Senate? How do we build
consensus with States and Governors and other levels of
government?
I am going to ask you, in closing, if you would, just to
maybe close with, each of you, with a thought or two in terms
of actually taking us closer to consensus on something, an
issue of significance relating to recycling. It could be what
we are talking about today. It could be something else that is
related to what we are talking about today, and maybe we might
have asked a question that triggered a response.
What else do you think you what to kind of leave us? You
had a chance to give an opening statement. I want you to give
us just a short closing statement, with some real wisdom. You
have given us a lot of that already. I am going to ask Mr.
Felton if you would just lead us off, and then we will wrap it
up with Ms. Simon.
Mr. Felton. Yes, thank you, Senator. Three quick thoughts.
One is, consensus is critical, and we need people at the table.
I am not suggesting the people here in the room today are not
at the table, but one thing AMERIPEN has discovered over the
last 4 years is, we are only going to solve these problems if
all stakeholders sit down together, and that is what consensus
is. So encourage those who are not currently engaged in this
issue to follow hearings like this, understand the complexities
of it, and move forward with us.
Two other things I want to say. I do want to mention that,
while we have, I believe, 40 countries around the world that
have EPR in place, many of those programs were set up 20 and 30
years ago for a different set of packaging and a different set
of technology. These programs are continuing to evolve.
So as we point toward other countries and what they are
doing right, I think we need to be mindful of that, and we need
to be mindful that I think we need a unique, United States
solution as well for the way that things are set up here in the
United States.
My last comment is data, data, data. We need data.
Senator Carper. Did you say data?
Mr. Felton. Data, yes. I did, three times. We need that
desperately. I think there is a role for the Federal Government
to help with that, so as we are looking to find consensus,
looking to drive industry interests and environmental interests
and State interests is we lack data that is desperately needed.
We need to work more on that.
Senator Carper. Good. I think one of the pieces of
legislation, one of the two pieces that I talked about, speaks
to that issue, which is good.
Mr. Felton. It does, yes.
Senator Carper. We have been responsive. Thank you for that
encouragement.
Mr. Felton. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Dr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I would just say, obviously, consensus is
important. Far be it from me to suggest what might help build
that. I would just say that, given the emerging State
regulations, that Federal regulation will help prevent
overregulation. I think that should be important for everybody.
I would also say that this is an important emerging issue.
I know you talked about microplastics last week. That, I think,
is becoming a very important human health issue that needs to
be solved. I think, if there is anything with urgency around
it, it is that.
I appreciate the opportunity today to share my views. Thank
you.
Senator Carper. We are delighted you could join us again.
Thank you for sharing your views with us.
Ms. Simon?
Ms. Simon. Thank you so much for the opportunity, once
again. When you talk about consensus, it makes me think about
the process that is happening in parallel to this in the United
Nations around the treaty, where it is the goal for all of
those member States to come together and find a common path
forward against a shared threat.
That is really hard to do in quite a divisive world, as it
can be to find paths forward in the U.S. But an interesting
thing has emerged in these negotiations and in the momentum in
the U.S. is that where we have common ground from more players
than ever before is on Extended Producer Responsibility.
We may have different reasons for why we want it, but
ultimately, we all need better, more harmonized standards. We
need better collection. We need better processing, and we need
better secondary materials. That is fairly common and, I think,
why you see more excitement and activity from the private
sector on this. They want that more than anything.
I want to add one thing. I didn't get a chance to comment
on the cost thing earlier, and I was hoping I could just add a
few thoughts.
Senator Carper. On the what?
Ms. Simon. On the cost to the consumer. I think the cost is
already on the consumer in the form of plastic waste today and
municipalities that are currently dealing with that. So I think
we need to make sure we are considering where these costs are
falling as we do the full balance sheet for what an EPR system
would do.
Mayors in the Midwest, part of the Mississippi River Cities
and Towns Initiative talk about cost as one of the challenges
they faced and how it is coming down to the local taxpayers.
Those mayors will be on the Hill tomorrow to talk about their
support of EPR also, and Washington has done some studies that
have shown that there are benefits to it, coming back in the
form of $600 to $300 a year by not having to pay for trash
services.
I think there is an opportunity to find that common ground
in where there could be those benefits to businesses, those
benefits to the government, and those benefits to the
communities who really need it.
Thank you again for the opportunity. I appreciate it.
Senator Carper. We thank you all. I hope your work provides
you as much joy and satisfaction as our work provides for us.
People who follow the news and follows what goes on in
Washington think that we don't like each other and can't stand
working with one another.
That could not be further from the truth, as least with
respect to many of the issues before this committee. We have a
lot of mutual respect. We have a great, I think, a great track
record in things like the Inflation Reduction Act, which we
were involved in helping to write and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Bill, which has huge climate provisions in it,
some of which we talked a little bit about here, too, today.
I was going to say Winston Churchill, but another great
leader was, there is a statue of him a couple of miles from
where we are gathered here today, and it is our former
President Abraham Lincoln. One of my favorite Lincoln quotes is
in response to the question, what is the role of government?
What is the role of government?
Lincoln used to say, the role of government is to do for
the people what they cannot do for themselves. The role of
government is to do for the people what they cannot do for
themselves. There is a lot of wisdom in that. One of the ways
that the government works best is when we do it in a
collaborative way and look for common ground, trying to find
ways to harness market forces where that works, and realize
that there is a moral imperative for this.
This is the only planet we are going to have. There is no
planet B. We have to take care of this planet if we care about
our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. I know, if we
are lucky enough to have those, we want to make sure they have
a wonderful place to inherit and to raise their own families
someday.
We appreciate your thoughtful insights into what can be a
complex topic. We look forward to remaining in touch with you
if we can find you, in a good way. We want to stay in touch
with you and with our committee so that we can really reach
some of the best and most thoughtful policies and advance these
and other shared goals.
I want to say a special thanks to Senator Capito and to her
staff, to our majority staff, and the staff of all of our
colleagues who participated in helping to select you to be our
witnesses and provided some of the questions that have been
asked here today.
I get to do a little bit of housekeeping here to close out
our hearing. This is my favorite part of the hearing. I want to
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.
When I ask unanimous consent and there is no other Senator
to object, then I can pretty much run the show. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Senators are going to be allowed to submit
questions for the record through the close of business on
Wednesday, March 20th, and we will compile those questions. We
will send them to our witnesses, and we will ask all of you to
respond, if you could, by Wednesday, April 3, 2024.
In a place where sometimes we don't have great news every
day, the news about our friend Senator Lee lifting his hold on
a recycling bill is a wonderful piece of news. I think folks
who might be tuned in across the Country are probably
encouraged by your testimony and what you have presented to us
today, and the questions that our members asked.
While you have been testifying here for the last almost an
hour and a half, we have just had a really impressive group of
young people coming into the hearing. There are seats for folks
who might be watching this on C-SPAN or television. We have a
number of people who can sit in the hearing room. We have seats
for maybe 50, 60, 70 people, but we have had probably 100 or
more young people, they look like they are in maybe, high
school, or maybe college, that are coming.
They could have gone to any hearing. We have a lot of
committees. They could have gone to any hearing. They could
have gone to see the House in order, or in session, or the
Senate over in the Capitol. They came here. They came here by
the dozens.
They came here because they know this is important. This is
important for them in their lives and the families that they
will raise someday. We don't want to let them down. We don't
want to let them down. I am proud to say that, I think, on this
committee, we are not letting them down. With your help, we
will continue to do that.
With that, this hearing is a wrap. Thank you all very much.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]