    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        BEYOND THE BLUE BIN: FORGING A FEDERAL
                         LANDSCAPE FOR RECYCLING INNOVATION AND
                         ECONOMIC GROWTH

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 16, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-32

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-539 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida, Vice          PAUL TONKO, New York
        Chairman                         YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  RAUL RUIZ, California
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
                          Subcommittee on Environment

                            GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
                                     Chairman
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas, Vice Chairman   PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    RAUL RUIZ, California
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota        FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex              officio)
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Gary J. Palmer, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Alabama, opening statement..................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      New York, opening statement....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16

                                   Witnesses

    Ross Eisenberg, President, America's Plastics Makers, American
      Chemistry Council..............................................    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   160
    Matt Bedingfield, Global President, Mint Innovation..............    36
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Keefe Harrison, Chief Executive Officer, The Recycling
      Partnership....................................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................    51
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   163
    Dan Felton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Flexible
      Packaging Association..........................................    58
        Prepared statement...........................................    60
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   165

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................   106
    Letter of July 15, 2025, from Kate Bailey, Chief Policy Officer,
      Association of Plastic Recyclers, to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Pallone   108
    Fact sheet, ``E-Waste recycling for critical minerals and
      economic growth,'' Mint Innovation.............................   115
    Letter of July 15, 2025, from Chris Lamond, Executive Director,
      Coalition to Protect American Small Sellers, to Mr. Palmer.....   116
    Letter of July 16, 2025, from Brian McPheely, Chairman, Paper
      Recycling Coalition, Inc., et al., to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Tonko.   118
    Letter of July 16, 2025, from Sarah Venuto, Executive Director,
      American Critical Minerals Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et al..   125
    Letter of July 15, 2025, from Robin Wiener,President, Recycled
      Materials Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et al...................   127
    Letter of July 15, 2025, from Lynn Dyer, Executive Director,
      AMERIPEN, to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Tonko..........................   130
    Letter of July 16, 2025, from Kristyn Oldendorf, Senior Director
      of Public Policy and Communications, Solid Waste Association of
      North America, to Mr. Guthrie, et al...........................   133
    Letter of July 16, 2025, from the American Forest & Paper
      Association, to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Pallone.....................   135
    Letter of July 16, 2025, from Laura Stewart, Executive Director,
      NAPCOR. to Mr. Palmer and Mr. Tonko............................   138
    Fact sheet, ``Chemical Recycling 101,'' Moms Clean Air Force,
      November 2023..................................................   140
    Brief, ``More Recycling Lies: What the Plastics Industry Isn't
      Telling You About `Chemical Recycling,''' by Renee Sharp, et
      al., National Resources Defense Council, March 2025............   142
    Article of April 24, 2025, ``Trump admin opts for tighter air
      rules on plastics recycling,'' by Sean Reilly and Ellie Borst,
      Politico Pro...................................................   151
    Fact sheet, ``Extended Producer Repsonsibiliy (EPR) for
      Packaging,'' Product Stewardship Institute.....................   153
    Fact sheet, ``Packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR):
      Rethinking Packaging Waste,'' Product Stewardship Institute....   155
    Report of the Product Stewardship Institute, ``Making Sense of
      `Chemical Recycling': Criteria for Assessing Plastics-to-
      Plastics and Plastics-to-Fuel Technologies,'' November 17, 2022
      1A\1\
    Article of June 2, 2025, ``Trump's DOE Nixes $375M Eastman
      Grant,'' by Norbert Sparrow, Plastics Today....................   157

    ----------

    \1\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
    included in the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/
    meetings/IF/IF18/20250716/118510/HHRG-119-IF18-20250716-SD879.pdf.

        BEYOND THE BLUE BIN: FORGING A FEDERAL LANDSCAPE FOR RECYCLING
                         INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                           Subcommittee on Environment,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary J. Palmer
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Palmer, Crenshaw, Latta,
    Griffith, Carter of Georgia, Joyce, Weber, Pfluger, Miller-
    Meeks, Lee, Evans, Fedorchak, Guthrie (ex officio), Tonko
    (subcommittee ranking member), Schakowsky, Ruiz, Peters,
    Barragan, Soto, Carter of Louisiana, Menendez, Landsman, and
    Pallone (ex officio).
        Also present: Representative Harshbarger.
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Byron
    Brown, Chief Counsel, Environment; Christian Calvert, Press
    Assistant; Sydney Greene, Director of Finance and Logistics;
    Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel, Environment; Calvin Huggins,
    Clerk, Energy and Environment; Joel Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben
    Mullaney, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn Peterson, Policy Analyst,
    Environment; Chris Sarley, Member Services/Stakeholder
    Director; Katharine Willey, Senior Counsel, Environment;
    Giancarlo Ceja, Minority Environment Fellow; Tiffany Guarascio,
    Minority Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez, Minority
    Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Staff
    Director, Environment; Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant;
    and Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GARY J. PALMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

        Mr. Palmer. Good morning, and welcome to today's
    subcommittee hearing entitled ``Beyond the Blue Bin: Forging a
    Federal Landscape for Recycling, Innovation, and Economic
    Growth.''
        Before I begin, I would like to thank Chairman Guthrie for
    the opportunity to lead the Environment Subcommittee. I would
    also like to thank Chairman Griffith for his excellent
    leadership of the subcommittee and wish him the best as the new
    chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.
        And to my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Mr. Tonko, I
    look forward to working with you.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Likewise.
        Mr. Palmer. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations, I focused on the importance of critical
    minerals to our national security and holding the Environmental
    Protection Agency accountable. I look forward to continuing
    that important work in this new role.
        Waste and recycling are generally considered to be regional
    issues regulated at the State and local level. However, we will
    hear testimony today about the national and economic security
    implications of recycling policy. In his first days in office,
    President Trump emphasized the need to secure our critical
    mineral and rare earth supply chains. We must use an all-of-
    the-above approach when it comes to ensuring our ability to
    access these critical minerals and elements, which is why
    electronic waste, e-waste, is so important for our future.
        With the growth of data centers and the use of technology,
    e-waste is accumulating higher rates every year, with billions
    of dollars in losses as this technology reaches its end life.
    E-waste is a commodity that can be repurposed in our fight to
    not only be energy independent but energy dominant.
        Let me be clear: We will not recycle our way out of these
    issues. However, as we look to build out our mining capacities,
    our processing and refining capacities, e-waste recycling
    innovation provides vital short and long-term support for our
    needs as a nation.
        The President also issued an Executive order on the
    importance of putting America first in international
    environmental agreements. As part of the negotiations for the
    Global Plastics Treaty, the Biden-Harris administration
    announced support for bans on plastics and a cap on plastic
    production. That would not be in America's interest.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the role
    that American businesses can play in innovating and developing
    technologies to take advantage of the opportunities in the
    recycling industry. The threat China poses to the United States
    and our allies cannot be overstated. We will hear from our
    witnesses today on how we can use recycling as a tool to
    compete with China and to protect our communities.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. It is my
    understanding we have not had a hearing on this topic in some
    time, and I appreciate my colleagues engaging on this important
    issue.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Palmer. I look forward to our discussion, and now
    recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the
    distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for his
    opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That sounds good.
        Let me start by congratulating you on taking over
    leadership of the subcommittee. I look forward to working
    together in striking progress.
        The United States leads the world in many things.
    Unfortunately, this includes the amount of waste we generate,
    and most of this waste ends up landfilled, incinerated, or
    littered. In recognition of this, we have spent more than 50
    years promoting a waste management hierarchy. Every kid learns
    the three Rs: reduce, reuse, and recycle. So while today's
    discussion will focus primarily on that third R, I would be
    remiss if I didn't remind everyone of the needs to similarly
    focus on reduction and reuse as critical components to our
    national waste strategy.
        Today's hearing will cover a wide range of recycling
    challenges facing our country, each of which could be its own
    hearing. But across each of these challenges I believe we will
    see a common thread: The status quo is untenable, often
    creating environmental issues while letting billions of dollars
    of valuable materials go unrecovered.
        I understand the desire to promote innovation to overcome
    these challenges, as suggested by the hearing's title. But in
    reality, our recycling system needs some very basic
    foundational improvements before we can even begin to suggest
    that new technologies will save us.
        More than one quarter of Americans do not have access to
    recycling, and less than one half recycle at home. There are
    glaring needs for better data, accessibility, labeling, and
    education to enable people to feel confident that when they use
    the blue bin correctly, their efforts will actually result in
    real recycling--by which I mean products are ending up in a
    responsible end market and not being diverted to a landfill or
    downcycled.
        In recent years Congress has tried to address these basic
    needs of our recycling system. The Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act included significant funding for State, local, and
    Tribal governments to implement EPA's national recycling
    strategy. Other bipartisan bills like the RIAA and RCAA seek to
    further support these recycling basics. These proposals will
    not single-handedly fix our system, but they do represent good
    first steps to improve data and promote accessibility, and I do
    hope that the coalition-building and policy development that
    went into these bills will make it easier for us to work
    together toward bigger and more ambitious policies in the
    future.
        Because of the absence of Federal leadership, several
    States have already begun to create such policies. This
    includes extended producer responsibility, or EPR, laws to
    require packaging and paper producers to take financial and
    environmental responsibility for their products. While it is
    still too early to judge these State laws' effectiveness, we
    know the intent is to improve recycling services and
    infrastructure while encouraging greater market demand for
    recycled materials.
        These programs' fee structures often include a concept
    known as eco-modulation to further incentivize the use of
    products that are more sustainable, including products designed
    to be more easily recycled. Designing for recyclability is a
    commonsense innovation worth encouraging. Similarly, in recent
    years there have been major improvements in optical sorting,
    including the introduction of AI to improve recycling
    facilities' efficiency. But many industries have used the
    notion of innovation to promote a suite of new technologies
    commonly known as chemical or advanced recycling aimed at
    transforming hard-to-recycle materials. These are controversial
    technologies, and not without good reason.
        While we should not foreclose consideration of any tool to
    address the problems with our waste management system, we must
    ensure that these technologies actually displace virgin
    production and do not introduce environmental and public health
    risks. At this stage I have not seen much evidence that these
    technologies are succeeding by these metrics, with much of
    their output being used as fuels rather than new recycled
    products. So before we center the debate on these technologies
    for hard-to-recycle products, I want to reiterate my belief
    that we should prioritize our system's more fundamental
    shortcomings and consider why so many materials that rely upon
    proven, existing recycling technologies frequently fail to
    reach even 50 percent recycling rates.
        Finally, I am glad that members of the majority are
    beginning to recognize the tremendous opportunity for recovery
    and reuse of critical minerals. For years, Democrats on this
    committee have proposed policies to promote the development of
    secure domestic supply chains by recovering critical minerals
    in EV batteries and e-waste. In the IIJA we included funding
    support to support the development of battery recycling best
    practices and voluntary labeling to further this goal, and
    there is clearly much more that we can do. Moving forward, I
    would welcome the opportunity to work together to ensure we are
    maximizing this largely untapped resource.
        And again, my heartfelt congratulations, Mr. Chair. I look
    forward to working with you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Tonko. And with that, I thank you and yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. The Chair now recognizes
    the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
    Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
    members of the Subcommittee on the Environment and to our
    witnesses today. Congratulations, Chairman Palmer, on your new
    role as chairman of the subcommittee. I thank you for your
    leadership this Congress on Oversight, but you absolutely have
    been focused on the issues before this subcommittee, as well,
    and I really appreciate you taking the leadership of this, and
    I really look forward to working with you as we look at supply
    chains, critical minerals, investigating the Biden-Harris
    administration's implementation of the Green New Deal and other
    programs.
        Our world is constantly changing, and today we will hear
    whether our country's waste management policies will enable us
    to embrace the challenges of the future. For example, we are
    seeing incredible growth in data centers needed to support
    artificial intelligence infrastructure. But will our waste and
    recycling laws allow us to manage an expected uptick in
    electronic waste, and how we can recover valuable materials
    such as critical minerals from items that are discarded every
    day?
        Additionally, how do we keep the U.S. economy as a global
    leader in the face of international negotiations that could
    limit the production and use of plastics and chemicals and
    place U.S. companies at a disadvantage against Chinese and
    European competitors?
        I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses
    today, including Mr. Bedingfield from Louisville, on these
    important questions.
        While our country is constantly faced with new challenges,
    thanks to American entrepreneurship and the spirit of
    innovation we are also presented with new opportunities.
    Improving our recycling infrastructure could enhance our global
    economic competitiveness and national security. For example,
    according to the Recycled Materials Association, the recycled
    materials industry has a nearly $169 billion economic impact on
    the United States. New technologies involving artificial
    intelligence and robotics have improved sorting capabilities
    for recyclable products like paper. Advanced recycling
    technologies enable the conversion of difficult-to-recycle
    plastics into new products that improve our quality of life.
        Today's hearing will provide us with the chance to assess
    regulatory barriers to the proliferation of new technologies
    and strategies to grow our domestic manufacturing capabilities
    while keeping valuable materials out of landfills.
        And it just makes sense that we take valuable materials, we
    keep them out of--we take valuable materials, bury them
    underground, and have them stay there until some future
    civilization discovers them, or we can put them back in the
    stream of commerce and make it work today? And so that is
    important, it is certainly part of our green economy to make
    sure we recycle our--the materials that we use. And so I am
    really looking forward to this hearing, looking forward to
    working with the Chair and my friend from New York, Mr. Tonko,
    to see if we can find a pathway forward to make this work.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Guthrie. And I appreciate that, and I will yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
    New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today the subcommittee is examining the important topic of
    recycling. Preventing ocean dumping off the Jersey shore was
    what initially inspired me to come to Congress, so I am pleased
    to be discussing ways we can reduce pollution and improve
    recycling in the United States.
        But today's hearing comes weeks after President Trump
    signed the Republican's Big Ugly Bill into law, and this bill
    doubles down on their unconditional support of polluters
    propping up the fossil fuel industry at the expense of clean
    energy, driving up costs for American families and worsening
    the climate crisis.
        And science tells us that, to combat the worst effects of
    climate change, we need to move away from polluting industries,
    including reducing our reliance on products derived from fossil
    fuels. And recycling is an essential tool in our environmental
    protection toolbox to reduce pollution in communities, boost
    local economies, combat the climate crisis, and strengthen
    domestic supply chains. However, with a national recycling and
    composting rate of just 32 percent, it is clear we still face
    major gaps in the recycling system that need to be addressed.
        That said, the story is not the same for all recyclable
    materials. For example, paper and cardboard saw a recycling
    rate of 68 percent in 2018. That is higher than any other
    material. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for plastic
    waste, where a staggering 76 percent was sent to the landfill.
    And I just think we have to do a lot better. These issues are
    all compounded by the fact that municipal solid waste recycling
    systems are severely underfunded across the country. Local
    governments face tight budgets. And with President Trump's
    outright assault on State funding, budgets will now be even
    tighter.
        We need to invest in our recycling system to see the
    improvements we so desperately need. Democrats recognized that
    need in passing the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the
    Inflation Reduction Act. Together, billions of dollars were
    invested to help fill gaps in the recycling system and to drive
    battery collection to grow our domestic circular economy for
    critical minerals. For example, the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law included $275 million for the Solid Waste Infrastructure
    for Recycling Grant program, or SWIFR, to bolster recycling
    infrastructure and help fund improvements in communities around
    the country.
        Beyond funding, we are also seeing promising developments
    in recycling policy at the State level. Maine, Oregon,
    Colorado, and others are leading the way by establishing
    extended producer responsibility, EPR, programs for packaging
    to help incentivize manufacturers to use recycled content over
    virgin material. New Jersey has minimum recycled content
    standards for the sale and distribution of certain products,
    and I hope this subcommittee will explain--will explore, I
    should say--policies like a national EPR framework to improve
    our recycling system and help provide certainty for
    manufacturers.
        There are two bipartisan recycling bills--H.R. 4109, the
    Recycling and Composting Accountability Act, and H.R. 2145, the
    Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act--that aim to
    strengthen recycling and composting systems, improve
    accessibility in underserved communities, and improve data
    measurement and reporting. We had a bipartisan and bicameral
    agreement to pass those bills last year in the end-of-the-year
    funding package, but as we know, House Speaker Johnson tanked
    that entire package because Elon Musk voiced his opposition to
    it. I believe these bills are still worth moving, and the
    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has already
    advanced them out of committee earlier this year. I believe
    this committee should do the same.
        And finally, while recycling is an important way to address
    plastic pollution, we must also focus on reducing our use of
    plastics overall. It is estimated that 8 million metric tons of
    plastic waste enters the world's oceans every year. That is the
    equivalent of dumping a garbage truck full of plastic waste
    into the ocean every minute. This plastic waste can break down
    into smaller pieces known as microplastics. This is a big deal
    for my constituents at home on the Jersey shore, as
    microplastics are polluting the Atlantic and impacting marine
    life. It is vital that any potential recycling solutions for
    addressing plastics are science-based, economically feasible,
    safe for communities, and ultimately make recycled products.
        And in 2015, I wanted to mention I led a president--with
    President Obama, who signed into law the bipartisan Microbead
    Free Waters Act, which prohibited manufacturers of rinse-off
    cosmetics from intentionally aiding plastic microbeads. And
    that law remains the only bill Congress has passed to limit
    microplastics in our environment. That was a decade ago, and we
    just have to do more.
        So like the climate crisis, pollution is a--plastic
    pollution is a global problem that warrants ambitious
    cooperation from the international community. The U.S.
    delegation must continue to be a strong voice at the Global
    Plastics Treaty negotiations next month. We should not take a
    back seat or accept weaker standards.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Pallone. So I look forward to the hearing, and I yield
    back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. We now conclude with
    Member opening statements.
        The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Member opening statements will be made
    part of the record.
        We want to thank our witnesses for being here today and
    taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. The
    witnesses will have the opportunity to give an opening
    statement, followed by a round of questions from Members.
        Our witnesses for today are Mr. Ross Eisenberg, president
    of America's Plastic Makers; Mr. Matt Bedingfield, president
    of--at Mint Innovation; Ms. Keefe Harrison, founder and CEO of
    the Recycling Partnership; and Mr. Dan Felton, president and
    CEO of Flexible Packaging Association.
        We appreciate you being here today.
        Do we swear them in?
        Voice. No.
        Mr. Palmer. We don't? OK.
        We appreciate you being here today. I now recognize Mr.
    Eisenberg for 5 minutes to give an opening statement.
        Mr. Eisenberg. OK.
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Eisenberg. I will take care of this one for you guys.
    Thank you, all right.

      STATEMENTS OF ROSS EISENBERG, PRESIDENT, AMERICA'S PLASTIC
     MAKERS, AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL; MATT BEDINGFIELD, GLOBAL
      PRESIDENT, MINT INNOVATION; KEEFE HARRISON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER, THE RECYCLING PARTNERSHIP; AND DAN FELTON, PRESIDENT
      AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FLEXIBLE PACKAGING ASSOCIATION

                      STATEMENT OF ROSS EISENBERG

        Mr. Eisenberg. Well, good morning, Chairman Palmer, Ranking
    Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Ross
    Eisenberg. I am the president of America's Plastic Makers at
    the American Chemistry Council. ACC represents the companies
    that produce the plastics that are essential in modern life.
        I want to start by pointing out something that, frankly,
    you have already noted. The stakeholders of this--at this table
    today who represent very different points on the value chain
    for plastics and other materials, we are saying a lot of the
    same things. I believe we really are at a point of policy
    convergence when it comes to recycling, one that probably
    didn't exist the last couple of times this committee examined
    the topic. I encourage the committee to seize this opportunity
    because maybe, just maybe, there is a pathway to making real,
    substantive, lasting change in the way that we deal with
    plastic waste, and to do it in a constructive, bipartisan way.
    We would certainly support that.
        The U.S. chemicals and plastics sectors are vital to our
    economy. Nearly 27 percent of U.S. manufacturing output is in
    industries that are highly reliant on plastics. The plastics
    industry supports almost 5 million jobs across the economy and
    generates over $391 billion in wages. We maintain a $21.9
    billion trade surplus in plastic resins, so we are one of the
    few industries that actually exports more than we import
    because we--it is so competitive here to make plastic.
        Now, with this large footprint come challenges. And at the
    top of that list, as you have all identified, it is waste.
    Plastic waste does not belong in the environment. It is very
    plainly unacceptable. And ACC and our members are committed to
    ending plastic waste and advancing a circular economy for
    plastics. We are committed to do that because, frankly, we need
    plastics. Modern life does rely on them.
        Plastics help reduce emissions, save energy, whether by
    extending the shelf life of food, reducing packaging weight,
    making homes, workplaces, and vehicles more energy efficient.
    Plastics are indispensable in healthcare and emergency
    response: IV bags, disaster relief, syringes, gloves, masks.
    Plastic packaging protects food, water, and medical supplies
    when cold storage or sanitation is unavailable. So all of these
    things that make modern life possible.
        But as we all know, plastic is just not recycled enough. To
    fix that, we have to modernize the way that we collect,
    recycle, and reuse plastic and other materials. We have to
    upgrade a recycling system that was set up in the 1970s for
    bottles, cans, and paper and bring it to 21st century
    standards, including new recycling technologies. So ACC
    encourages the Federal Government to take several strong steps.
        Number one, top of the list--because it is next month--
    actively engage the UN Global Plastics Agreement negotiations
    and help arrive at a final agreement this year that all
    countries will support and join.
        Number two, please remove regulatory roadblocks to the
    introduction of some of these innovative new technologies.
        And number three, please work together and advance
    commonsense legislation to help these shared goals.
        So starting with the global agreement, in a few weeks a
    number of us are going to be in Geneva with 170 countries to
    try to arrive at final text of an agreement to address plastic
    pollution. ACC supports a global agreement focused on stopping
    plastic pollution, and we have encouraged the U.S. to engage
    and provide the necessary leadership to help land that plane
    and land a final agreement. We believe America can lead the
    world through championing policies that incentivize improved
    waste management infrastructure and that send the right demand
    signals to spur private investment in collection, sortation,
    and recycling of plastic.
        Here at home we think there are some immediate steps that
    Congress and the executive branch can do to improve the
    infrastructure, as well. One of them is to regulate advanced
    recycling properly. Now, advanced recycling, which we have
    talked about a bit today--a good explanation of it, one of our
    members says it is like unbaking a cake. Imagine you could take
    a cake, and you could take that cake back down to its
    elements--the eggs, the flour, the milk, the sugar, the
    butter--and then you could make it into a cake again. That is
    advanced recycling. There is a suite of chemical technologies
    that can do it, but that is essentially the concept that we
    have got here.
        Advanced recycling technology is break down post-use
    plastics down to their chemical building blocks, and then use
    them to make new products, including new plastics. They not
    only help keep plastic out of landfills and incinerators and
    our environment, but they help create a more resilient U.S.
    supply chain and well-paying jobs. Advanced recycling can
    process contaminated plastics, difficult-to-recycle plastics
    that mechanical recyclers can't take, and the plastics and
    other sort of harder recycled plastics that you find in the
    economy.
        Now, despite this potential, a number of regulatory
    barriers stand in the way of new advanced recycling.
    Conflicting regulations across States and at the Federal level
    create uncertainty for investors. Every time EPA over the past
    few years proposed a rule, withdrew a rule, even talked about a
    rule, we saw the market chill for new investment in this
    technology because they didn't really know if they were going
    to be able to get their permits. So it was getting in the way
    of the technology and stopping its forward progress.
        Now, let me be clear: We believe that advanced recycling
    should be regulated, and we believe it should be regulated
    strongly. But it should be regulated as manufacturing, because
    that is specifically what it is. It is a manufacturing
    facility.
        Finally, we hope Congress will act soon on recycling
    legislation. The bills mentioned earlier, the RIA, the
    composting bill, those are all good bills. We hope to see them
    get over the finish line. We also hope to see re-introduction
    of the Accelerating a Circular Economy for Plastic and
    Recycling Innovation Act, H.R. 9676--in the last Congress. Dr.
    Bucshon, retired Dr. Bucshon, and Don Davis from North Carolina
    introduced----
        Mr. Crenshaw [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Eisenberg. If you
    could, wrap up.
        Mr. Eisenberg. Oh, absolutely, sorry.
        And so my written statement has more on that, including
    EPR.
        Sorry for taking so long. Thank you all for doing this. I
    really appreciate the opportunity to do this today. And let's
    get it on. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenberg follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Crenshaw. I appreciate you being here.
        Mr. Bedingfield, you are now recognized.

                     STATEMENT OF MATT BEDINGFIELD

        Mr. Bedingfield. Thank you. I would like to express my
    appreciation to Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, and the
    committee members for having me here today. My name is Matt
    Bedingfield. I am the president of Mint Innovations. I am
    honored to have the chance to be here to speak to you today
    about the state of e-waste recycling in the United States, how
    we can work together to increase recovery of this material, and
    the value of doing so.
        To provide a foundation for this conversation, I would like
    to outline the current e-waste landscape in the United States.
    We generate approximately 7 to 8 million metric tons of e-waste
    each year in this country. Of that volume, more than 6 million
    is disposed of in landfills. While this only compromises--or
    comprises 2 to 3 percent of landfill volume, it accounts for
    over 70 percent of the hazardous materials and heavy metals in
    our landfills. What makes matters worse is these are the
    materials that are needed to supply the companies that are
    currently reshoring and driving the current domestic
    manufacturing resurgence.
        Recycling rate aside, we do not have the capacity or
    capability in our country to recover the metals from the
    million metric tons that we do recycle. This is all collected
    domestically and then exported to Asia or Europe to be refined
    and, in many cases, then imported back into this country. This
    does absolutely nothing for the reshored companies I mentioned
    earlier.
        The conventional solution is pyrometallurgical refining.
    These plants have significant emissions, take over 5 years to
    construct and, in many cases, over $1 billion in capital or
    more to build out. Mint Innovations has taken a different
    approach by leveraging hydrometallurgy that combines chemistry
    and biology to efficiently recover the copper, gold, palladium,
    silver, and tin from e-waste. Our plants cost approximately $30
    million, generate no emissions, and take only 12 months to
    deploy.
        Our first full-scale plant, a first of its kind in the
    world, is located in Sydney, Australia, and the wastewater is
    literally poured down the drain. We are building our second
    plant in Longview, Texas. This plant will consume up to 8,000
    tons of printed circuit boards per year and will recover these
    metal units to be used domestically in the U.S. supply chain.
    This plant will be online 12 months after funding is secured.
        The U.S. is the undisputed global leader in countless
    categories. Recycling and recovering our critical resources,
    metals, and minerals, unfortunately, is not one of them. We are
    not seeking an uneven playing field or a handout. However, this
    committee is uniquely positioned to provide a hand up to our
    industry, which enables us to compete and to win on an even
    playing field long term.
        This committee and the U.S. Government overall can help in
    numerous ways, including allocating Federal funding to provide
    an enhanced education about how and why to recycle e-waste,
    directing funds to States to encourage and incentivize
    investment in recovery of metals and critical minerals, which
    are critical to our national security, and prioritizing
    companies that have a domestic footprint and the capability to
    recover these metals when issuing contracts for materials
    generated by the Government and its contractors.
        As we think about critical mineral security, the United
    States cannot and should not rely upon massive government
    grants for singular projects. Those can become single points of
    failure, depending on company performance, operations, and poor
    market conditions. Taxpayer dollars should be spread among
    lightweight, cost-effective, and proven systems of scale. That
    is what Mint brings to the table.
        I am happy to answer any questions, and I appreciate your
    attention. Thank you again for the honor of speaking to you
    today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bedingfield follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Crenshaw. I look forward to hearing more from you.
        Ms. Harrison, you are now recognized.

                      STATEMENT OF KEEFE HARRISON

        Ms. Harrison. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Tonko, Vice
    Chairman Crenshaw, and the members of the committee, thank you
    for inviting me in today to talk about recycling in America and
    the tremendous opportunity we have ahead.
        I am a 28-year veteran of the recycling system. In the
    early days, I ran a recycling truck. Now I work with Fortune
    500 companies on multimillion-dollar investments because I
    believe that this recycling system has so much potential for
    our country. I founded the Recycling Partnership to be a
    public-private partnership. And after one decade we have
    achieved half a billion dollars' worth of impact working
    directly with more than 400 communities and recycling
    facilities across the country. That is a billion pounds of new
    recyclables that we have added to the stream.
        In my experience there has never been a moment like now.
    Recycling is at an inflection point. We have huge opportunity
    in front of us, but only if we address the challenges that--in
    a very real and data-driven way. These challenges include that
    76 percent of paper and packaging materials that are currently
    in homes end up in the landfill, not in the recycling system.
    Cheap imports, often from Asia, are threatening to upend market
    dynamics for recycling content, putting American jobs at risk.
    Many companies are failing to meet their recycling goals that
    they have set and are responding not by leaning in, but by
    stepping back. And it is estimated that only half of the
    packaging--plastic packaging that is produced is actually even
    designed for recycling, something that is easily fixable.
    Finally, only 73 percent of our Nation's households have access
    to recycling.
        As we have already heard here, recycling matters for our
    economy. It is simple. Our Nation's recyclables become
    feedstock for American manufacturing. We can put that to work.
    Fully investing in recycling would deliver huge benefits:
    200,000 new jobs, more than $8 billion of materials returned to
    the economy, $11 billion of savings--and taxpayers and local
    governments who currently foot the bill for this. But to
    achieve these, we need system change.
        Like the title of this hearing, American recycling needs to
    go beyond the blue bin. When we say recycling, it is one word
    but it really means many different things. It is how is
    something designed, it is access. Can the public do it? It is
    participation. Does the public do it? It is infrastructure and
    it is end markets, which means does old stuff turn into new
    stuff? To level up, we must embrace innovation. But as we
    innovate, we cannot lose a hold of really what is our why.
        Recycling for the purpose of recycling is not the point. We
    must ground ourselves in science and data and purpose to ensure
    that we are achieving a goal of conserving natural resources,
    building regional economies, and creating sustainable,
    resilient communities.
        Today we are going to talk about chemical recycling, and
    that refers to a broad, wide variety of technologies. It is one
    term, but it means very many different things. Such
    technologies offer great--they vary greatly in terms of what
    materials they can accept as inputs, what they can create as
    outputs, what is the amount of energy used, the impacts on the
    environment and human health.
        So before we endorse one thing, we really need to get to
    the heart of taking a broad category and turning it into
    definitions of the specific things, asking ourselves questions
    such as, what is the technology? What is the supply chain? How
    do we make the economics work? How do we ensure that we
    understand the environmental and human health impacts? Is it
    scalable, and do we ensure transparency?
        So where do we go from here? Three things are on my mind.
    We need ground decisions and a clear-eyed, data-driven view of
    the recycling system. We must take a systems approach--no more
    silver bullets. And we must support robust policies that drive
    accountability and level the playing field for responsible
    engagement from our U.S. companies. The good news is that this
    committee can take immediate steps to solve the challenges of
    recycling.
        First, the committee should mark up and pass the STEWARD
    Act that puts together two bills that nearly passed last year
    and supports our rural communities in this country.
        And second, I urge you all to support the CIRCLE Act, which
    will launch--which will be introduced today and establish a
    recycling infrastructure investment tax credit. It would reward
    domestic investment that could create jobs in every State,
    every district in this nation.
        So thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
    forward to working with each and every one of you to build a
    better solution for America.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Harrison follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
        Mr. Felton, you are now recognized.
        Mr. Felton. I can't get the mic on. Is it?
        [Pause.]
        Mr. Felton. Yes, thank you.

                        STATEMENT OF DAN FELTON

        Mr. Felton. Good morning, Vice Chair Crenshaw, Ranking
    Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. I am Dan Felton,
    president and CEO of FPA, the Flexible Packaging Association.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on Federal
    support for recycling innovation and economic growth in the
    U.S. This is a core policy issue for FPA and our members and
    stakeholders, and we must all work together to craft effective
    industry public policy approaches.
        FPA represents flexible packaging manufacturers and
    suppliers with business in the U.S. Flexible packaging is the
    fastest-growing and second-largest segment of the U.S.
    packaging industry, and is produced from paper, film, plastic,
    aluminum foil, or combinations of those materials. It includes
    bags, pouches, labels, liners, wraps, roll stock, and other
    flexible products. Flexible packaging is used for a myriad of
    consumer goods, including fresh and frozen food products,
    personal care items, pet foods, and lawn and garden products.
    Flexible packaging is also used extensively in the medical
    device industry to ensure that products like dental
    instruments, intubation tubes, and personal protective
    equipment maintain sterility and efficacy before use.
        Flexible packaging is one of the most sustainable packaging
    types, as it reduces water and energy consumption, improves
    product-to-package ratio, enhances transportation efficiency,
    minimizes food waste, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
    However, full circularity options for flexible packaging are
    more limited than other packaging formats and materials that
    have been in the market longer and thus have more mature
    infrastructure solutions for recycling. But we believe that
    will not always be the case for flexible packaging, as
    recycling has always been iterative, regardless of product,
    format, or material.
        FPA is deeply committed to solving packaging waste issues
    and increasing the recyclability and recycling of flexible
    packaging. We are collaborating with manufacturers, brand
    owners, recyclers, retailers, waste management companies, and
    other organizations to continue to make strides towards total
    packaging recovery. As we collaborate, the following are some
    key public policy issues covered in greater detail in my
    written testimony on which FDA is focused and that we believe
    will help increase flexible packaging recycling through
    innovation and economic growth, and could also benefit from
    some Federal Government support.
        First, increase data funding and infrastructure. This
    includes two bills you have heard mentioned this morning
    currently before the House Energy and Commerce Committee: the
    Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act and the
    Recycling and Composting Accountability Act. FPA encourages the
    committee to pass these bills this year.
        Second, advanced recycling. FPA believes advanced recycling
    is critical for increasing the use of safe, recycled content in
    certain films and flexible packaging, particularly for food
    contact and sterile medical applications. Anything the Federal
    Government can do to help support advanced recycling, including
    classifying it as a manufacturing process rather than a solid
    waste management process, will be meaningful.
        Third, recycled content. FPA supports achievable and
    reasonable government requirements that recognize certain
    unique attributes or the need to limit the use of recycled
    content in some flexible packaging. It is also important to
    recognize the distinction between postconsumer recycled content
    and postindustrial recycled content for different flexible
    packaging applications. FPA believes there is an opportunity
    for the Government to support and incentivize the use of
    durable products for lower-grade recycled content while
    supporting research and development for higher grade uses.
        Finally, consumers will benefit with more consistent and
    harmonized national requirements on what is considered
    recyclable and how and where to recycle it. However, an
    emerging patchwork of State-level requirements is becoming
    unmanageable and may create interstate commerce issues. FPA
    supports AMERIPEN's proposed Packaging and Claims Knowledge
    Act, the PACK Act, that would establish Federal requirements
    for the labeling of packaging for recyclability,
    compostability, and reusability, with oversight by the FTA that
    already maintains jurisdiction over guidance on marketing
    claims through its Green Guides.
        Additional public policy issues highlighted in my written
    testimony include artificial intelligence and extended producer
    responsibility for packaging. I hope these thoughts from FPA
    offer some perspective on flexible packaging and what we
    believe will help support continued recycling, innovation, and
    economic growth for us and other industries in the U.S.
        I appreciate that opportunity to appear before you this
    morning, and I look forward to any questions you may have.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Felton follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Palmer [presiding]. I thank all of the witnesses for
    their testimony. We will now move to the question-and-answer
    portion. I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Crenshaw, for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
    witnesses for being here. I think we are all on the same page.
    We want to strive to build a more innovative economy that
    incorporates advanced recycling and revitalizes American
    manufacturing, and I think we need two key elements: clear
    rules at home and strong leadership abroad.
        First we have to provide regulatory clarity and certainty.
    This is essential for innovation, for investment, and for
    scaling domestic recycling infrastructure. You can't build the
    future on a regulatory framework that is often shaped by
    climate alarmism instead of common sense.
        Second, I do want to address the--our global role in this.
    The United States must lead at the negotiating table for the
    Global Plastics Treaty. This is coming up soon. That means
    rejecting production caps and overzealous environmental
    mandates that have clearly hampered European industry. We
    shouldn't be following along with their mistakes, and those
    mistakes have come at the expense of human prosperity without
    an obvious benefit to the environment. Our goal should be
    encouraging innovation and reasonable environmental stewardship
    without handing the entire global supply chain to China and our
    adversaries.
        With that said, Mr. Eisenberg, if I could start with you,
    can you give me just quickly your perspective on what our role
    on American leadership should be at the negotiating table for
    the Global Plastics Treaty coming up? Have you had any
    engagement with the administration on this?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
        Mr. Crenshaw. I think you need a mic.
        Mr. Eisenberg. It doesn't turn on when I--so thank you for
    the question.
        [Audio malfunction.]
        Mr. Eisenberg. We think they got pretty close at the end of
    last year. There are still a few provisions that are needed.
        [Audio malfunction.]
        It is very important that we lead. We, at the last--the
    U.S. came in at a time of political changes after the election.
    They were engaging with a position that we couldn't do in the
    U.S., we just didn't have the law to support it. And the rest
    of the world knew, right? They saw that we didn't have that--so
    other countries were stepping in and getting [inaudible].
        Voice. Sorry, this thing is not working.
        Mr. Eisenberg. OK. There is literally no light here.
        So other countries were leading, and they, frankly, weren't
    doing it in our best interest. So I would recommend the U.S. to
    engage. We hope they will. We think they will. Thank you.
        Mr. Crenshaw. I appreciate that. Maybe those mics are made
    of recycled materials.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Crenshaw. Mr. Eisenberg, sticking with you, you know,
    we need to address this fact that advanced recycling is not
    classified as a manufacturing process. If it were classified as
    a manufacturing process, what would that do specifically? How
    might it drive manufacturing growth here?
        I mean, it seems that--obviously, there seems to be vast
    agreement on advanced recycling here. It checks all the boxes,
    it is good for the environment, supports American jobs, reduces
    landfill waste, strengthens our supply chains, enhances our
    competitiveness.
        So that question is for Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Felton, if you
    could also weigh in, and Mr. Bedingfield, with what your
    company is doing.
        Mr. Eisenberg. I will be quick. So there are 25 States in
    the country that define advanced recycling as manufacturing.
    That is where it is happening. You can look at the map, and
    that is where the starts--they are. Ohio, Pennsylvania,
    Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, places like that. So a Federal
    definition, we think, would open the rest of the country up to
    that.
        Mr. Crenshaw. So that is interesting. Mr. Bedingfield, is
    that why you are opening your next spot in Texas?
        Mr. Bedingfield. There are many reasons.
        Mr. Crenshaw. Well, of course, there's a lot of good
    reasons. Is there a Buc-ee's nearby? I don't know.
        Mr. Bedingfield. Now, with Texas, about 15 percent of the
    ITAD--which is ITS at disposition where electronic waste is
    collected--are located in Texas. The data center footprint that
    is growing, the manufacturing footprint that is growing, it is
    a very business-friendly environment. But recycling is--
    regardless of how it is defined, it is manufacturing as much as
    many as anything else is----
        Mr. Crenshaw. But the definition matters legally. And was
    that a reason that your next plant will be in Texas?
        Mr. Bedingfield. It is not.
        Mr. Crenshaw. OK, OK. Would you comment on that in my last
    few seconds, Mr. Felton, on redefining it?
        Mr. Felton. There we go. I would say--and I thought Ms.
    Harrison highlighted really well--there's a lot of things to
    think about when we are talking about recycling.
        From the perspective of recycled content for flexible
    packaging, we can use all sorts of different recycled content
    and at different levels for different products. For food
    contact packaging, medical packaging, the best path forward we
    see is advanced recycling. And I would say that even the FDA
    has acknowledged that through letters of nonobjection for
    certain types of food contact packaging has recognized chemical
    recycling. So even at that level we do recognize the value of,
    really, a need for that in certain types of packaging
    applications.
        Mr. Crenshaw. OK, I think I got an answer out of that.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for
    5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that some
    Members may want to focus on those hard-to-recycle materials,
    but as I stated earlier I really want to try to understand some
    of the basic deficiencies of our recycling system. Many
    materials in many parts of the country that aren't considered
    hard to recycle continue to have what is a very low recycling
    rate.
        So Ms. Harrison, can you help us with the--diagnosing the
    root causes that make this the case?
        Ms. Harrison. So when we look at what are the barriers to
    recycling working presently, we--I think about recycling,
    again, as one word, but it is really a loosely connected,
    highly dependent network. So some of the challenges that we
    face we can put into five categories of what would make a
    healthy one. So if we know where we are and we want to get to a
    good system, what would make a better system?
        First we would focus on design. Are things properly
    designed and prioritized for recycling?
        Second, we would work on capture, which means can the
    public do it? And right now the majority of Americans still
    can't recycle at home.
        The third thing we would focus on is participation, which
    means does the public believe and do the activity of putting
    that material into the bin?
        The fourth thing we would focus on is the recovery
    infrastructure. Do we have the material recovery facilities to
    take those recyclables back and send them off to market?
        And the final thing we would focus on is end markets. Does
    old stuff turn to new stuff? And are we prioritizing a
    domestic--an American--North American supply chain for our
    American manufacturers?
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. So it seems like there is this low-
    hanging fruit that, with some investments in services and
    infrastructure, we can dramatically improve our national
    recycling rates.
        Again, Ms. Harrison, what are your recommendations for how
    we can best improve the recycling of each--of easily recycled
    materials?
        Ms. Harrison. So why hasn't it worked to date? It has been
    chronically underfunded. Recycling is on the backs of local
    governments, to--as materials are made and put into the world,
    then they come to the community to manage with what happens
    next, and that is a cost burden for Americans.
        What I believe would be a better path would be the future
    of extended producer responsibility. EPR laws that you are very
    familiar with, Mr. Tonko, are--completely change the dynamics
    of recycling in that they prioritize that design for a
    recycling piece, and then they engage the producers, the
    companies that are making the stuff, and funding the system to
    make sure that recycling actually functions at a high level,
    the way that it hasn't been.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And if recycling depends on robust
    end markets to incentivize demand for recycled materials, how
    can policymakers help support the development and strengthening
    of those given markets?
        Ms. Harrison. Good. The first one is to pass EPR and then
    to--second is to layer on the conversation about end market
    use.
        So we can--what does this really mean? Today we are talking
    about domestic innovation, American industry. We can use an
    example of PET, so soda bottles, a common food packaging. We
    see a high number of companies that are committed to using
    recycled content, but we have not invested in the U.S. system
    to really level up the recycling rate. It still hovers at 25,
    30 percent for those materials, highly recyclable materials.
        So where are companies supposed to get the material if we
    are not investing in the supply chain? Well, the answer is we
    have recently seen up to a 300 percent increase of import of
    cheap Asian recycled content, and it is flooding the market,
    putting pressure on our own companies. So that would be an
    example of how we could see this group lean in.
        The other ones would be the CIRCLE Act that I mentioned,
    and that is dropping today.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And obviously, some of these
    solutions could be implemented at the State or local levels.
    What are the most impactful steps that the Feds can take to
    help stop sending easily recyclable material to landfills and
    incinerators?
        Ms. Harrison. Some steps would be engaging in the global
    treaty, as we have been discussing; passing EPR, the CIRCLE
    Act, the STEWARD Act. These are all things that are ripe and
    ready to go. They are tested, they are data-driven, and they
    are--they represent what the public is hungry for--is a
    cleaner, serious solution that doesn't put it on their burden
    to figure out how to make something recyclable. The system
    works for the public.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, according to data from the EPA, recycling
    rates have largely plateaued in the last 20 years. It is my
    understanding that part of this plateau is because gains in
    recycling collection and processing have been offset by
    increases in the amount of waste generated.
        Ms. Harrison. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Tonko. Do you think that recycling ever creates
    incentives that lead to more waste being produced, or takes the
    focus away from waste reduction?
        Ms. Harrison. I like that you opened with the three Rs. We
    need to talk about reducing, making sure we are serious about
    what is being produced, reusing wherever we can. Recycling is a
    critical component, but it won't--we can't recycle our way out
    of that. We have heard this at this--it is a critical
    component, but it shouldn't be the solution or the tradeoff for
    making whatever you want.
        Mr. Tonko. Well, I thank you so much.
        And with that I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
    Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And Mr. Bedingfield, I know you had to change your travel
    plans to be here with us today, and we really appreciate you
    doing that.
        So Mint, the company you are with, was founded in New
    Zealand but is in the process of building an electronic
    recycling company in Texas and extracting valuable commodities,
    and you are looking for other expansion locations. Can you
    discuss what led Mint to expand in the U.S. and what growth in
    data centers in the U.S. will mean for waste recyclers like
    Mint?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Sure. So Texas is the first of what we
    hope will be many recycling locations in the United States. The
    market in the United States is quite large, even the market
    that is recycled right now, but we are dedicated to trying to
    help increase that recycle rate, as well, which will only make
    the opportunity even larger.
        The data center presence in the U.S. presents multiple
    opportunities and reasons why this is of extreme importance. So
    there is the metal that is in the data centers that we need
    to--my favorite thing to say is we need to plug up the hole in
    the bucket. So this is not going to let us recycle our way out
    of it, but we can only import these metals once by recycling
    them and then using them in our industry here too. But with the
    data centers, we also need to protect the IP that is in this
    and the data. So by shredding it, melting it down, and
    recycling it, reusing it, we solve the cybersecurity risk, we
    solve the IP risk, and we also return these metals to the
    domestic supply chain.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. Thank you for that.
        And Mr. Eisenberg, negotiations for the Global Plastic
    Treaty started with the focus on reducing plastic pollution and
    supporting recycling. But during the Biden-Harris
    administration negotiations, which are trying to ban plastics
    and restrict chemicals--can you explain why a plastic treaty
    should not be used as a backdoor way to regulate chemicals, and
    how a secure domestic supply chain of chemicals is needed to
    support the semiconductor, transportation, and other
    industries?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Absolutely, thank you. So this process has
    been a lot like an NDAA, right? You know, it is going to pass,
    or you think it has got a pretty good chance to pass. It
    becomes a bit of a Christmas tree for everybody's ornaments
    they want to hang on it, and that is exactly what happened.
        The original assignment was to address plastic pollution,
    including in the marine environment. It started--the scope
    started to expand as we went over time to production,
    chemicals, things of that nature. Chemicals are addressed by a
    number of other treaties, right, including one that was passed
    during this process. And so we believe that it is more
    appropriately handled there and certainly not in the context of
    a plastic agreement, particularly because chemicals go in a lot
    more than just plastic. So if you want to address chemicals,
    address chemicals in a standalone thing.
        Certainly on the production side this is really a
    competitiveness issue for us. We are the second-largest
    producer. China is the largest, but it is by quite a bit. And
    so if you start putting constraints on production, it really
    does threaten our competitiveness. We think let's start with
    focusing on pollution, the actual goal here, and handle that
    right now. That will make tremendous strides, including waste
    management for folks around the world, and actually start to
    actually create an environment where--with real market signals
    to actually try to fix infrastructure around the world.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, I appreciate that.
        Mr. Felton, in your testimony you mentioned that artificial
    intelligence and robotics are important tools used by
    facilities to identify and process different kinds of materials
    for recycling. Can you discuss how these tools are being used
    to increase the amount and kinds of materials that are recycled
    and diverted from landfills?
        And are these tools available for only recycling in big
    cities, or can they be used in smaller communities?
        Mr. Felton. Yes, thank you--there we go. Thank you,
    Chairman, for the question.
        If you take a look specifically at flexible packaging and
    pouches and films and things when they run through what I call
    more traditional recycling at a material recovery facility,
    existing equipment may recognize it if it is flat as a
    flattened box, a flattened can, or something. With increased
    intelligence and increased use in artificial intelligence and
    robotics, we are seeing success in recognizing flexible
    packaging and other materials more precisely within those
    facilities. And with that, then, it can be sorted, moved off to
    the correct bale, as it were, within a recycling facility to
    then be used in a recycled content manner.
        In terms of the cost of that, a couple of things I would
    suggest is I think we will see, as with any emerging newer
    technologies, the cost will come down over time. I would also
    suggest that I think we will see the opportunity to leverage
    extended producer responsibility in those States that have
    programs in place for producers, brand owners, and others
    within the packaging value chain to be--I won't say forced, but
    to be recommended to provide funding to that type of
    technology.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thanks.
        And so, Ms. Harrison, in your--you focus a lot on
    households, but I know you have big companies in your group, as
    well. Can you discuss the work your organization does on the
    front end to help member companies make packaging and products
    easier to recycle?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes, sir. So my nonprofit is funded almost
    entirely from corporate entities. So when they make a pledge to
    recycle, we say, ``Great, we want to help you get there.'' So
    the work we do is--really comes down to those five principles
    of a healthy recycling system, helping them understand that if
    they want the public to do their part, then the companies have
    to do their part both on design, but then investing in that
    infrastructure to get it back.
        The problem has been that--I am so proud of the half a
    billion dollars' worth of impact we have made, but we are
    trying to solve a $17 billion annual problem. So there is a gap
    between what we have done, and the companies are asking for
    policymakers to step in and level the playing field with the
    EPR policies we are talking about because they want to do more.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK, thank you. My time is expired, and I will
    yield back. Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
    New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations
    on your new post.
        I listened to what Mr. Eisenberg said, and I think I
    disagree, although I don't want to put words in his mouth,
    because I do believe that when we talk about the Global Plastic
    Treaty negotiations we have to shift the economic burden of
    recycling from consumers and local governments to producers,
    and I believe it should include measures to address the supply
    side of a plastic production to help the world get a handle on
    rampant plastic pollution.
        I mean, as I mentioned in my opening statement, you know,
    part of the problem is if you put all the burden on, you know,
    consumers, local governments, and they just don't have the
    resources to do all this recycling--and I think that is one of
    the reasons why recycling rates are going down, because of the
    fact that towns just don't have the resources to do it--but I
    don't know that you said that you didn't want any action on
    producers----
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone [continuing]. So I didn't want to put words in
    your mouth.
        I wanted to ask, though, about these final negotiations for
    the UN Global Plastic Treaty. I know they are in Geneva in
    August. They are going to have--hopefully, come up with an
    agreement because the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
    didn't reach a final agreement last December. So they are
    trying to develop that now in August.
        But let me go to Ms. Harrison. Can you please explain why a
    global plastic treaty is necessary, if you will?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes, a global treaty is necessary because
    this problem is too big for any one company, one country, or
    one group to solve alone. And this treaty is also important
    is--because material flows around the globe, whether that is
    through a supply chain or through ocean currents.
        We need a global binding treaty to be able to level the
    playing field so that we have consistent solutions. What does
    that mean for the United States? It is a tremendous opportunity
    for us to take this global commitment and bring it home for--to
    advance a national EPR approach, to prioritize the material
    resource conservation, and to drive our economy.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. The problem I see, though, is
    that, unfortunately, President Trump has a track record of
    pulling the U.S. out of other international environmental and
    climate agreements, you know, obviously, the Paris Agreement
    being the most notable. And I think that cedes U.S. global
    leadership in the process.
        So I am encouraged that the U.S. delegation was present at
    the recent informal discussions, and it is--but it is still
    unclear to me how the U.S. delegation will approach the
    upcoming plastics treaty negotiations. So my second question,
    Ms. Harrison, is how would meaningful U.S. participation in the
    plastics treaty negotiations help the U.S. promote American
    manufacturing, innovation, and job creation?
        Because, you know, everything has to be taken back at home
    in terms of our manufacturing, our innovation, our job
    creation, if you would.
        Ms. Harrison. So I have been at every one of these meetings
    thus far, and it has been fascinating to watch the pieces come
    together.
        How this serves the United States is that we are home to
    some of the biggest companies in the world, and we lead in many
    areas of innovation. But as my colleague Mr. Bedingfield said,
    we are behind in recycling. So if we are not sitting at the
    table and setting the course for what good looks like in this
    global treaty, it will not serve our domestic manufacturing, it
    will not serve our industry, it will not serve our supply
    chain.
        So whether we go all in or not, my organization is not
    missing a beat in making sure that we take this opportunity
    with the global companies who are at the table there, as well,
    to ensure that we are driving American policy like the ones
    that we have been talking about today.
        Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. You know, I just think that
    engaging in these negotiations can really be a win for domestic
    manufacturing, boost the recycling sector, improve our
    resiliency.
        You know, I meet a lot of times with the recyclers and the
    waste management people, and there are so many different ways,
    you know, so many new ways and innovative ways of doing things
    that sometimes are very expensive. And so, you know, it is hard
    to get local organizations to back it because it costs a lot of
    money. But there is so much innovation in this field----
        Ms. Harrison. Yes.
        Mr. Pallone [continuing]. That could really make a
    difference in terms of our taking a leadership role. So thank
    you.
        Thank you all very much. I appreciate it.
        Ms. Harrison. Well, if I may----
        Mr. Pallone. Yes, sure.
        Ms. Harrison. Recycling is all about innovation. In fact,
    in the--Chairman Palmer's home State we see a company called KW
    Plastics that started because they were really making
    batteries, they had all this plastic left over, they saw an
    opportunity to make money from that, and now they are the
    biggest polypropylene recycler in the world. That is the
    innovation we want.
        But without policy it will stay a reaction, not a leading
    function. That is what we stand to gain.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes for his
    questions.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    also congratulations on your gavel here in committee--in the
    subcommittee. And so many questions, so little time.
        If I could start with you, Mr. Bedingfield. In your written
    testimony you talk about the extended development timelines
    that are out there, and you mentioned about how long it takes
    for smelters for--you know, to get into production. You know,
    it is almost a decade from the initial design through
    permitting, construction, and commissioning.
        And I guess my question will come down on permitting. How
    long does that permitting take to get a smelter into production
    and get it online?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Forced smelting, it can take a very long
    time. I recently participated in building a secondary copper
    smelter in Kentucky. And through partnership with both the
    State and locals, we were able to do that in a fairly expedited
    manner. But it is complicated. It can take years in many
    instances.
        Luckily, the technology has caught up to where it can pass
    for those permits, ultimately, but it does face a lot of
    scrutiny. That is why we are using the hydrometallurgy process,
    where we actually produce no air emissions. The wastewater that
    comes out has salt content in it, but it is less salinity than
    the ocean water. It actually goes down the drain. So for us,
    the permitting process is quite quick.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Eisenberg, real quick, you know, your--reading through
    your testimony, one of the questions I have is this --I have
    about 86,000 manufacturing jobs in my district, and we do a lot
    of recycling in northern Ohio. And one of the things that, you
    know, when we are looking at trying to get more people to, you
    know, put the things back into recycling is this question, is
    how far can you ship a product to have it recycled to make it
    profitable?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Well, that is a really good question, and I
    probably don't have the best answer for you. We could get you a
    more technical one in the QFRs.
        But, you know, certainly there is interstate commerce of
    recycled products of sort of--you know, of waste. And we have
    seen a number of times that new recyclers are online trying to
    get, you know, product from somewhere else. One of the
    challenges that they have on all of the plastic recycling
    side--which is a crazy thing to say--is not enough access to
    clean plastic to get into the system, which is bonkers, right?
    I mean, we have so much of it, and yet getting it in a very
    concerted way in is quite difficult.
        And so that is where we come back to--and I think all the
    witnesses kind of agree on this--if we fix sortation, if we fix
    collection, if we fix some of those basic services, then we
    have the supply and we will probably have a lot more folks
    investing in recycling.
        Mr. Latta. Well, because, you know, that is the problem you
    have, is that, you know, smaller communities--and I know my
    home city in Ohio, Bowling Green, was one of the first cities
    back in the 1980s that went into recycling very heavily. But it
    was also making sure they had a market to be able to get that
    product to. And we have been fortunate in some areas that have
    been able to get that there. But then for some other areas it
    is like, OK, it costs more to ship it than it costs--than you
    are going to get out of it. So I think that is one of the
    things we have to think about, too, is where these centers are
    going to be located.
        And if I could just follow up, also in your testimony--
    because you also brought up about kind of the ABCs of the
    Federal Government when you are talking about the Federal Trade
    Commission, the EPA, and, you know, about the uncertainty that
    has chilled the market. And I think the word--you used the word
    ``certainty'' about twice in about 40 words, and that is one of
    the words we hear around this place constantly is
    ``uncertainty.''
        And could you just talk about the absolute need to have
    certainty in business to be able to make sure you can do what
    you got to do?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Sure. We saw it in real time. EPA proposed a
    rule that was somewhat confusing for the manufacturers on how
    to handle the product that was coming out of the recycling
    stream at an advanced recycler, and all of a sudden their
    customers said, ``Well, we don't know if we really can do this
    anymore because we don't know if this is going to continue.''
    Companies that are looking to build new facilities, same kind
    of situation.
        I think the challenge here is that we are dealing with an
    early-stage commercialization-type industry, and it is moving
    quickly. And the--you know, the technology is evolving. The
    regulations aren't necessarily keeping up with it, and
    regulators are having trouble understanding it. And so you get
    strange regulations coming out, people are kind of asking them
    to do things, asking them to act, and they are acting in ways
    that maybe are not necessarily all that helpful.
        And so we really would like either EPA--frankly, Congress--
    to try to settle this once and for all, and basically just
    level the playing field. We are not saying preferential
    treatment. Just let us compete, right? I mean, give this thing
    a shot. Let it develop just like any other technology, and hope
    that it succeeds.
        Mr. Latta. Well, in my last few seconds, I think you
    brought up a good point, is that the regulators have to
    understand what you are doing and have to know what that
    technology is.
        And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from California, Mr. Ruiz, for his questions.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In my district, Lithium Valley holds one of the largest
    lithium deposits in the world, a critical resource that can
    power battery manufacturing and more clean energy in our clean
    energy future. This region can supply lithium for electric
    vehicles and battery storage, strengthening the grid and
    boosting U.S. energy resilience. Lithium Valley is key to
    securing clean energy leadership, national security, and energy
    independence.
        But we must also prioritize critical mineral recovery and
    recycling to build a sustainable supply chain. As we heard in a
    subcommittee hearing last Congress, recycling is an essential
    tool in building secure and sustainable critical mineral supply
    chains. That is why I am proud that Democrats invested in this
    space through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provided
    $35 million for EPA to develop battery collection best
    practices and voluntary labeling guidelines, $3 billion for
    battery manufacturing and recycling, and $3 billion for battery
    materials processing.
        Mr. Bedingfield, can you speak to how critical material
    recycling can help both our environment and boost national
    security and resiliency?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Sure, thank you for the question.
        We are actually developing lithium ion battery recycling.
    Right now we are starting in the UK with a pilot plant to use
    hydrometallurgy to recover those metals. The vision will be
    that every site in the U.S., once developed, will also have
    that technology there.
        These metals, if they go into the landfill, leach into our
    water. But they are also extremely valuable. So it is the right
    thing, it is the profitable thing. And from a national security
    perspective, with all the companies that we are reshoring, if
    we don't have these materials here to supply them, we have
    really done nothing. That is where all of this begins.
        Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
        Mr. Bedingfield. So we have to have the metals here.
        You are right, we cannot recycle our way out of it. The
    mines are going to take time to build. We must build them, and
    we must also recycle them so that we don't continue----
        Mr. Ruiz. Well, we would love to follow up and talk to you
    about our efforts in the region to build a full supply chain
    and recycling of batteries in the--in my district.
        Unfortunately, while clean energy drives critical mineral
    recycling, President Trump and congressional Republicans are
    attacking the industry through their Big, Ugly Bill. It is a
    reckless, shortsighted move that undermines our climate goals,
    our economy, and our national security.
        I also want to raise serious concerns about chemical
    recycling, a practice often marketed as a silver bullet for the
    plastic crisis that we have. In my district, waste facilities
    using this technology have led to harmful health outcomes for
    residents and have failed to deliver the promised recycling
    revolution. Many of these facilities either close soon after
    opening or do not actually recycle plastics in a meaningful
    way.
        Ms. Harrison, I want to be clear on whether these
    facilities are truly part of the recycling system. If a
    facility burns plastic using chemical or heated methods and
    turns that plastic into fuel, do you consider that process to
    be recycling?
        Ms. Harrison. No, fuel alone is not recycling.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. I agree, and we must be honest and
    precise. To be considered true recycling, a facility must turn
    plastic back into plastic, just like we do with paper.
    Converting plastic into fuel through chemical or thermal
    processes is not recycling, it is incineration.
        We have seen the harm from these misleading practices
    before in east Los Angeles, Mecca, and the San Joaquin Valley,
    where hazardous waste sites are often placed in low-income
    communities of color. In 2010, Mecca, a small, farmworker
    community in the eastern Coachella Valley near where I grew up,
    was exposed to toxic fumes from an unregulated waste facility
    that was leased on Tribal land. For months, residents suffered
    headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, and respiratory issues,
    especially young children. A local school had to be evacuated.
    Community members spoke out.
        One mother, Lydia Varga, said, ``I am afraid to let my
    children play outside some days. My kids had to stay indoors
    all the time.''
        A teacher, Richard Reyes, shared he felt ``very
    lightheaded, having a hard time concentrating and thinking. I
    got real shaky. I was very nauseous.''
        Despite hundreds of complaints, action only came after
    public outrage. This was more than regulatory failure. It was a
    failure to protect a vulnerable community. And as we move
    forward with clean energy and battery manufacturing, we must
    center the needs of our communities, our vulnerable
    communities, frontline communities, science, and public health,
    not faulty solutions that put profit over people.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 5 minutes for his
    questions.
        Mr. Weber. I thank the Chairman. Thank you on your new
    role.
        Mr. Eisenberg, I am going to come to you real quick.
    Reading--I wasn't here when you gave your testimony, I
    apologize for that. You said as president of America's Plastic
    Makers you oversee a self-funded group of 19 ACC plastics
    division member companies--like we have Dow Chemical, for
    example, in my district who do a really good job--who are
    working together to maximize the value and minimize the waste
    of one of the most versatile materials on the planet. Are you
    able to recruit and get more companies to do--to get on board?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. And how do you--how does that work?
        Mr. Eisenberg. So companies have to apply for membership in
    the ACC in the plastics division. We are separately funded
    within ACC, but yes, we are able to. We take--we are largely
    the resin producers, so the folks take it from raw material to
    plastic pellets. But we also have a number of what we call the
    value chain members, so the companies that take it from the
    pellets and turn it into your cups and useful products like
    that. And then recyclers, so traditional mechanical recyclers
    and advanced recyclers.
        Mr. Weber. All right. Well, thank you. I was interested in
    that. Interesting.
        I am thankful that this subcommittee is discussing the
    state of recycling in the U.S. One of my top priorities in this
    space is working with the industry to introduce the Packaging
    and Claims Knowledge, PACK, Act of 2025. This legislation, as
    most of you all are going to know, would create the framework
    to establish a consistent national standard for recyclability
    labeling, avoiding a patchwork of State regulations.
        Let me be clear: This is not about creating burdensome red
    tape, so I don't want all the naysayers to start that--going
    down that path. It is actually about cutting through the red
    tape to create a uniform, progrowth regulatory framework that
    helps innovators innovate. It helps consumers make informed
    choices, helps industry lead the way.
        Also, did I mention that the accreditation is voluntary? I
    want to get that out there. So this legislation would not
    create any mandate.
        If we want to beat China, if we want to protect American
    jobs and reduce waste, then we need to empower American
    manufacturers to do what they do best: build, grow, and
    compete. It is not written to score political points, it is
    written to deliver real results and aligns the Federal
    Government's role with industry-driven resolutions.
        Mr. Bedingfield, I am coming to you. You are building a
    plant in Texas, in Longview, Texas, the northeast part of
    Texas, OK? You did mention that there's possibilities for more
    plants in Texas. OK, we want you to get those hurried up and
    done in Texas. What is the status on that plant?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Thank you for the question. And yes, if I
    am able to do my job even halfway, there will be many more of
    these plants constructed.
        The status of the plant right now is we have secured the
    site, we are taking possession of it, and we have ordered long
    lead time equipment. We are currently out in the market raising
    capital to ensure that we can build that one and the next one
    to two after that. So we are right in the middle of that
    process right now.
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        Mr. Bedingfield. We should have the first operation
    hopefully up and going by Q1 of 2026, with the plant
    operational by the end of 2026, early 2027.
        Mr. Weber. OK. Well, for number two we are taking
    applications in Galveston County, just so you know, OK?
        Mr. Bedingfield. We are engaging with a lot of different
    States, and we would love----
        Mr. Weber. All right, I love hearing that.
        Mr. Felton, can you speak to the importance of having a
    unified national framework for recyclability claims as proposed
    in the PACK Act, rather than relying on a State-by-State
    approach? Tell us why that is important.
        Mr. Felton. Thank you, Representative Weber, for that
    question, and I very much appreciate your leadership on this
    issue.
        We are absolutely supportive of a Federal standard, and I
    think you have heard discussion of recycling is very different
    around the country. You have heard discussion about consumer
    confusion of what they can recycle, where they can recycle. We
    believe a voluntary standard at the Federal level, through law,
    with jurisdiction by the appropriate agency, will help
    significantly with helping consumers understand how to recycle
    and where to recycle things. And that will give us an
    opportunity as an industry to be able to feel support, as it
    were, for these products that are being recycled, our packaging
    that is being recycled, and as well the recycled content,
    right, that we can get from that.
        So we believe the Federal standard on labeling will drive
    that desire to push for more recycled materials.
        Mr. Weber. I appreciate that, thank you.
        Mr. Eisenberg, as you know, my district along the Texas
    Gulf Coast is the home of many plastic manufacturers. I
    mentioned our great Dow Chemical that is one of our biggest.
    These manufacturers are also at the forefront of developing new
    recycling techniques and infrastructure. Can you speak to how
    we strike the right balance between emerging recycling methods
    such as chemical recycling while still encouraging development
    and investment in this space?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, absolutely, so--and that is an
    important point.
        To actually get to the goals that we have set for the
    country, and to keep, essentially, waste out of landfills and
    the environment and all these things, you need all of these
    technologies, right? We need to dramatically scale up
    mechanical recycling. We need to dramatically invest in and
    scale up advanced recycling. So it is all necessary.
        And we need, frankly, a good policy and a sound policy and
    rules of the road so that companies can feel comfortable
    investing in this.
        Mr. Weber. Yes.
        Mr. Eisenberg. If they can, I think they will.
        Mr. Weber. Yes. Thank you for that, Mr.--I appreciate you
    all being here and your input.
        Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Schakowsky, for 5 minutes for her
    questions.
        Illinois, sorry.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, thank you. Get my State right.
        Mr. Palmer. Jan, I know better.
        Ms. Schakowsky. That is right. Let's see. Hold on.
        Ms. Harrison?
        Voice. Yes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Ms. Harrison, I want to thank you for the
    important work that you do, and I hope the work that also
    really affects me. I have the pleasure of living right on the--
    really, right on Lake Michigan. My home is just about a couple
    blocks down the street. A lot of my district really loves the
    wonderful lake. I have a home in Michigan City, Indiana, which
    is right on the lake.
        But I am very concerned that about 22 million--what is it?
    Million----
        Voice. Pounds.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Pounds of plastic are in the lake every
    year. That is a lot of plastic, and we really need to do
    something about that as soon as we can. And so I wanted to ask
    you, what are the things that we can do quickly to make sure
    that the lake is safer for all people?
        I mean, we are swimming, we are doing everything within the
    lake, and yet we have this problem that is there so much. So if
    you could, just tell me what we need to do.
        Ms. Harrison. Yes. Thank you for your question and for your
    commitment to the water. And I live in Providence, Rhode
    Island, right on the water, too, and I see it every day.
        So there are three things that come to mind for immediate
    impact. One is to encourage the U.S. to stay very engaged in
    the Global Plastics Treaty. The second is to engage with us on
    the CIRCLE Act, which will be introduced today, which provides
    tax credits for businesses and creates more opportunity for
    plastics recycling. And the third one is the STEWARD Act. The
    STEWARD Act brings forward opportunities for rural communities
    on recycling. Those are three immediate things that this
    committee can do.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So what are the things that would actually
    change in communities and make them safer?
        Ms. Harrison. Sure. So when we talk about a healthy
    recycling system, we break it into five parts.
        We talk about how companies are engaged in what they
    produce and streamlining what they produce from--into things
    that can actually be recycled by your public.
        The second one is bringing better funding for your
    communities so they are not paying for their recycling system,
    that we are using EPR to drive a new funding system for it.
        The third thing is making sure that the public trusts and
    understands and puts that material in the right bin, never
    litters, never throws away or incinerates something that has so
    much value, the recycling of it.
        And then the final piece is really making sure that old
    stuff turns to new stuff, investing in our infrastructure here
    in the--in this country.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So the Environmental Protection Agency,
    does it play a role here in what we are seeing in the lakes?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes. The EPA has set targets for recycling,
    which has really developed momentum. It has an opportunity to
    really bring people together from the public and the private
    sector. This is not an us-versus-them situation. This is a
    bipartisan opportunity to really drive forward solutions.
        So the EPA's goals help align for a common approach, and
    then the other critical thing that EPA has provided are SWIFR
    grants, which are dollars that go directly to communities to
    help improve their infrastructure, to connect with their
    businesses, and to prevent the pollution that you are talking
    about.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Well, thank you so much. I hope you are
    having an opportunity to enjoy the lake during the summer. I
    think everyone ought to do that. And--but we want to make it as
    safe as possible and as clean as possible. So thank you for
    your work.
        Ms. Harrison. Thank you.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentlelady from Illinois yields back. The
    Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter,
    for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    all of you for being here today. This is certainly an important
    subject.
        We know that recycling is a essential tool to keeping our
    environment clean and to mitigating streams of pollution and to
    creating jobs in America. Let's don't forget about that, as
    well. However, the proposed caps that--on plastic production by
    groups such as the United Nations I don't think are the answer.
    Plastic is essential, and it is essential--I am a pharmacist, a
    healthcare professional--it is essential because of the many
    lifesaving products that are in the medical field such as
    personal protective equipment and medical-grade plastic needed
    for surgery. We all understand that.
        So capping production of plastic is not going to fix our
    issue. In fact, demand for recycled plastic is outpacing the
    supply, so we need to focus on fixing confusion, regulation--
    confusing regulations surrounding recycling. We also need to
    support businesses that are putting--are pursuing cutting-edge
    recycling technology such as advanced recycling.
        Mr. Eisenberg, let me ask you: Can you tell me about the
    impact that fostering advanced recycling in the U.S. would have
    on the economy and on our supply lines?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Absolutely. So first things first. On the
    recycling side, it would make a dramatic impact, right? I mean,
    the types of plastics that advanced recycling can cover just
    aren't going to be covered by other types of recycling. So
    those then get out of landfills, they get out of the
    environment, and you have made a substantial impact there on
    the environment.
        On the economic side, our--my written testimony walks
    through some of the numbers. But essentially, if you scale this
    up you are creating municipal jobs, you are creating
    manufacturing jobs, you are creating sort of all of those
    follow-on jobs across the supply chain. And just like any other
    manufacturing industry with a sort of a high multiplier effect
    on jobs, you are spurring the economy, right? So you can
    actually do good while you are doing well, and that really is
    the goal of this, to create essentially an industry around this
    that is thriving.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Great. What are some of the--or let
    me ask you this. Timeliness. You mentioned in your writing that
    the timelines for obtaining permits are already lengthy, and
    due to outdated environmental review protocols and inconsistent
    regulatory framework. What can Congress do? Tell us what we can
    do to help. Tell us what we can do to fix this issue.
        Mr. Eisenberg. I appreciate that. So certainly, there is
    permitting legislation that is, you know, being discussed
    almost all--almost every Congress. But again, right now that
    would be a good place for this. It would be great if Congress
    would essentially define advanced recycling as manufacturing,
    just like there's 25 States in the country that have done that.
    That would essentially take this issue away from the permitting
    process. Otherwise, you are essentially injecting uncertainty
    in the permitting process and making it--and making those times
    speed up.
        Regulating as manufacturing is a pretty significant
    standard, right? Under the Clean Air Act, under some of these
    other laws, these are significant controls that are put in
    place, some of the strictest in environmental law. So we are
    not saying don't regulate it, just regulate it consistent.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK, got you.
        Mr. Bedingfield, let me ask you, what is e-waste?
        Mr. Bedingfield. That is a good question, and it is defined
    differently in different places. But basically, anything that
    has got a--that is electronic, that has a cord on it. So from
    your vacuum----
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. So you are talking about the
    physical parts of computers and all.
        Mr. Bedingfield. Yes, sir. The entire thing is classified
    as e-waste. The motherboard is a specific part of it, but
    there's commodities that we can use in this country from the
    plastic, the aluminum, the steel, all throughout that
    appliance.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. How are we going--you know, Georgia
    is a big home to data centers. And how are we going to be able
    to handle this? How are we going to be able to handle all this
    e-waste that is going to be coming from all the AI-driven data
    centers?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Well, that is exactly what we are trying
    to do. The question is how quickly can we scale it up.
        So there is a smelter being built in Georgia right now.
    They are stopping short and I believe exporting the product to
    be finished in Europe. So it is not adding back to the economy
    from a metals perspective. Our facilities, we are trying to
    ramp up as quickly as we can to deal with them. But there are
    more and more electronics in our lives each and every day,
    which means this problem is only going to get larger if we
    don't come up with a way to address it.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. So you say that the smelter is being
    built in Georgia, but they--the finished product is being built
    overseas?
        Mr. Bedingfield. They have an existing network of
    facilities in Europe that actually recovers the metals back to
    exchange-grade metal to be used in industry. There is an
    intermediate product that will be produced in Georgia.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK. Is that not something we can do
    over here if we encourage that?
        Mr. Bedingfield. It could. And I am not speaking for that
    company at all, but I would imagine that that is something that
    they probably consider.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. OK. OK, good. Well, thank you all
    again for being here. This is extremely important.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for
    her questions.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Harrison, traditional recyclers that sort and process
    materials or turn old aluminum cans into new ones are regulated
    as waste management operations with environmental standards to
    protect nearby communities from pollution. But some chemical
    recycling companies backed by the plastics industry want to
    call themselves manufacturers instead. That shift would let
    them dodge stronger environmental protections under laws like
    the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act, even though many of their facilities are in low-income
    communities and communities of color that already face high
    pollution levels.
        Should chemical recycling facilities have to follow the
    same environmental standards as other recycling and waste
    operations?
        Ms. Harrison. Thank you.
        When we talk about chemical recycling, the challenge that
    plagues me is that it is not one thing. We have given a blanket
    term to many different technologies. And so I think, if we are
    going to really address the challenges that you have just
    outlined, we first need to start with what is the technology,
    and it's different types of unbaking the cake, as has been
    described earlier.
        So what is the technology? What is the supply chain--which
    means how will we--how--what would be possible for feeding that
    plant? What are the health and human impacts or the human
    health impacts and environmental impacts of that technology?
    And importantly, what are the economics?
        In each of those, environmental standards are critical. So
    I can't answer a yes or no because there is no one thing. This
    is multiple things that we are talking about.
        Should we protect our land, our soil, our air? Yes,
    absolutely. We have to protect our planet. And recycling has to
    be advantageous to the protection of our planet.
        Ms. Barragan. Great. And in your testimony you list
    important questions that must be answered for chemical
    recycling. If a chemical recycling facility doesn't meet
    environmental quality standards, causes unacceptable harm, or
    is not financially viable, should it be part of our recycling
    system?
        Ms. Harrison. That is the question that we have put in our
    longstanding position. We want more innovation. We need more
    types of creating end markets and materials going to end
    markets. But in order to ensure that they are viable, we have
    to make sure that they are economically sound, environmentally
    sound, that there is transparency, and that you can track the
    material through them.
        Ms. Barragan. Great. And recycling only works if people
    know what goes in the bin. What does the Recycling
    Partnership's research show that helps reduce confusion and
    contamination, especially in multilingual communities?
        Ms. Harrison. It is very important to address multilingual
    and diverse communities where they are. It is not a matter just
    of translating into a different language. It is really coming
    from a common understanding. So we do a lot of work with the
    diverse communities all across this country, because who is our
    recycling demographic? It is every single person of every age
    and every background. And so ensuring that the recycling system
    works for all is critical.
        Ms. Barragan. Great. And the infrastructure law included
    major investments in recycling education, outreach, and
    infrastructure. But the EPA is facing major staff cuts that
    threaten the effectiveness of the program. Can you--how could
    that weaken education campaigns like you described?
        Ms. Harrison. Many--some of the tools that the EPA uses to
    help support community recycling programs are grants. And if
    you administer grant funding for a community, you need the
    staff behind it to make sure that the money is managed well.
        And you can't just throw money at a problem. You have to
    apply best management practices. If there's not the humans to
    do the work, the money won't matter, the effort--the goal won't
    matter.
        Ms. Barragan. Right. And finally, research by the Recycling
    Partnership found that nearly 40 percent of Americans in
    apartment buildings don't have access to basic recycling. What
    is blocking better access? And what programs can Congress
    support to help fix--to help communities fix it?
        Ms. Harrison. Residential recycling in this country has
    traditionally focused on single-family households, leaving
    multifamily households behind. Why? Some of it comes down to
    the way that solid waste is managed in communities. Typically,
    apartment buildings of four units and above--below--are part of
    the residential, or the municipal collection. So it is the city
    that is operating that. Anything that is above four units
    becomes into a commercial program. So it is out of the
    jurisdiction of the community, and it has just become this
    stranded opportunity.
        So we have leaned in to how we do that, because it is--
    there is--this affects every single community and a significant
    part of the population. But it will take a different solution.
        Ms. Barragan. So how do we get to them?
        Ms. Harrison. We need more--we need better policy that--
    such as EPR. We need things like the STEWARD Act that pull
    together resources for rural communities. And we need to make
    the value of the supply chain work better so it is advantageous
    to the communities. We will not get there without policy.
        There is also opportunity for local mandates to ensure that
    recycling is required in multifamily.
        Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Harrison. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Barragan. I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentlelady yields. The Chair now recognizes
    the gentlelady from Iowa, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, for 5 minutes for
    her questions.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Chairman Palmer and Ranking
    Member Tonko, for holding this important hearing on recycling.
        As a representative from Iowa, I know firsthand the
    challenges that rural communities face in accessing recycling
    services. Over 36 percent of Iowa households lack access to
    recycling, and that is over 450,000 families. It is an economic
    and a national security imperative as well as an environmental
    issue. Iowa's manufacturing sector depends on recycled
    materials as feedstocks, yet we are watching China and other
    competitors purchase our scrap at above-market prices while our
    own factories struggle to source domestic materials.
        The data shows we are landfilling millions of tons of
    valuable manufacturing materials every year, materials that
    should be creating jobs and strengthening supply chains right
    here in America. In Iowa alone we are capturing less than half
    of our aluminum cans and only 15 percent of our steel cans,
    despite having a deposit on aluminum cans. That is not just
    waste, it is a lost economic opportunity for our manufacturers
    and increased dependance on foreign suppliers.
        And this challenge extends beyond traditional materials.
    Last year my amendment to the NDAA directed the Department of
    Defense to report on recovering rare-earth elements from
    electronic waste using acid-free dissolution technology
    developed by the Ames National Laboratory.
        We must keep these critical minerals in American hands, not
    ship them overseas. It is also why I introduced the Recycling
    Infrastructure and Accessibility Act. RIAA would establish a
    pilot grant program specifically targeting communities, like
    many in my district, without a recycling facility within 75
    miles. It is bipartisan legislation that has earned
    endorsements from industry leaders--many of you here today--and
    manufacturers who understand that recycling infrastructure is
    manufacturing infrastructure, and that domestic material supply
    is economic security. And I urge this committee to pass RIAA.
        Mr. Felton, are there ways to better utilize our
    preestablished recycling systems? For example, would a hub-and-
    spoke pilot program connecting small towns to establish
    recycling infrastructure as seen as my--in my bill, the RIAA,
    improve recycling without requiring a resource-heavy system
    overall?
        Mr. Felton. Thank you, Representative Miller-Meeks, for
    your question. And absolutely, the RIAA is another critical
    tool in the toolbox, if you will.
        We have--I never like to hear the phrase ``recycling is
    broken'' in the United States. My belief is recycling is
    continuing to mature and always will continue to mature. And
    the RIAA is a very perfect example, really, of how to increase
    recycling, give more people access--a little bit of funding,
    right, from the Federal Government, but it is, again, another
    tool in the toolbox, along with a thoughtfully crafted,
    implemented extended producer responsibility, recycled content
    requirements which actually drive, don't restrict, packaging.
    So again, absolutely, that is a tool we need.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
        Mr. Bedingfield, we are losing 10.6 billion in critical
    minerals through e-waste exports. My NDAA amendment last year
    addressed recovering rare-earth elements from defense
    electronics. Beyond supporting individual technologies like
    yours, what broader Federal framework do we need to capture the
    full value of our e-waste, from precious metals to rare-earth
    elements, and keep those strategic resources in the American
    supply chain?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Sure, and thank you for your leadership in
    this space. As much as I would like to say we can solve the
    whole problem, we can't. So the funding that is available right
    now, directing that to States to be able to incentivize
    businesses like ours, I think, would drive it. Working with
    States and local communities to find the need to create the
    jobs there, to recover the metal that ultimately supplies the
    businesses that we are bringing back is the key.
        But the scale is massive. It is going to take a long time
    to do it, but we must get started.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
        And Mr. Eisenberg, we have a Novelis and our iconic
    facility in our district that rely on secondary aluminum. I
    also have Gerdau and SSAB, and most people don't realize that
    98 percent of the steel in the United States is recycled, but
    they are struggling to source domestic materials. We are seeing
    China purchase our aluminum scrap at above-market prices,
    process it, and sell it back to us at a premium. So just asking
    for you, how does a bill such as the RIAA help to address this
    issue?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Well, so those--you know, this is the beauty
    of actually putting Federal dollars and creating pilot programs
    to improve sort of the accessibility here. There's been so
    many--and plastics, frankly, has the exact same problem, right?
        I mean, I have visited recyclers and in the town that they
    are in they don't have blue bins because the municipality can't
    afford it. And it is--you sort of see this really strange
    dynamic. So you absolutely--I mean, it is something that could
    use Federal attention. I really appreciate you doing this. We
    strongly support the RIAA and think it is a bill that really
    could make a big difference here.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much. My time has
    expired.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Weber [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. The
    gentleman from Florida is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
        Every week millions of central Floridians recycle, the blue
    bin that we have been talking about already. But we face some
    challenges in central Florida, particularly with glass. We see
    Orange County, the biggest county, is able to recycle glass.
    They have 20 recycling centers, a 72 percent recycling rate.
    But mid-size counties like my home county of Osceola County and
    also Polk County don't have glass recycling. We have applied
    for some grants. It hasn't worked out.
        Obviously, glass has been recycled for thousands of years--
    I mean, I was looking into this--back to, like, the Roman
    Empire, right? So Ms. Harrison, how do we improve the ability
    for mid-sized and small counties to do glass recycling,
    something that has been done for so long in human history?
        Ms. Harrison. Rural communities need extra support because
    recycling is a critical mass exercise. When you have enough of
    a like thing that you can turn into something new, you can make
    a profit. It is--that is an extra burden for smaller
    communities because, one, they have less to collect and, two,
    further to ship. So the STEWARD Act is exactly this type of
    legislation that would help solve this sort of problem.
        One of the questions that we heard earlier is, does
    transportation impact the value of a material? When it comes to
    things like glass, glass has a smaller radius with which it can
    move before the cost of transportation exceeds the value of
    return. When we establish that only economic drivers fuel
    recycling, it is--we are only going to recycle it if it is
    making money, we are limiting ourselves for the important
    environmental and community impacts that would impact that. So
    glass is a great example for your community.
        Mr. Soto. Would that legislation address things like
    breakage or contamination that I know seem to be some of the
    obstacles to glass recycling?
        Ms. Harrison. Glass is infinitely recyclable. It is--for
    thousands of years, absolutely right. And so it is best when it
    is kept whole, but it can still be recycled as broken pieces.
        But yes, can it affect that? By engaging the public you can
    reduce the contamination. So we want to keep nonglass materials
    out of glass, for example, and then keep it as whole as
    possible. And reducing transportation would help with that too.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you. Recently the Corsair Group has reached
    out to local governments like St. Cloud and Poinciana and
    Osceola County. They are out of Europe and have strict
    regulations they follow, especially in places like Finland that
    apparently have some of the highest in the world to do
    pyrolysis, which is a heated, oxygen-free environment where
    they put plastics in it and run gases through wet scrubbers to
    prevent air pollution and change the smoke into oil to make
    gas, diesel, kerosene, and new plastics.
        Mr. Eisenberg, are you familiar with the pyrolysis
    technique? And do you have any opinions or recommendations for
    our local communities, as well?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, I--yes, thank you. Yes, I do. Ms.
    Harrison said there is sort of a variety of different
    technologies. Pyrolysis is probably the dominant technology for
    advanced recycling right now. There's solvent-based ones and
    depolymerization, things like that. But pyrolysis is the one
    that I think most of the advanced recyclers now are using.
        And every company does it differently. You know, this is an
    area where, you know, certainly they are responding--from what
    you just said, they are obviously aware of the footprint that
    they have, and they are aware of--that they do produce
    emissions and things like this. And so, you know, hold them to
    it, right? They--you know, make sure that they are, you know,
    keeping track of what their emissions are.
        The vast majority of our members that are doing this are
    very happy to sort of open up and show you their books and say
    this is what we are putting out into the environment. They want
    to be good neighbors, right? I mean, they are there to make a
    difference.
        That being said, the emissions from these facilities is
    largely pretty darn low. They are often permitted as synthetic
    minor sources because they really are putting out things that
    are on the scale of like a hospital or something like that. But
    like any other manufacturer that moves to your district, you
    should, you know, make sure that they are permitted correctly
    and are complying with all their air, water, waste permits. And
    hopefully it works out well. It is a great technology, and
    something that we really think has a lot of promise.
        Mr. Soto. We all recognize there is a ton of plastic out
    there, but it is recyclable and we can recycle a lot of it. How
    to do it most cleanly and efficiently is something I think we
    are all trying to grapple with here. And then, of course, the
    potential jobs resulting from it.
        We benefit in central Florida from a lot of wind. There's
    no mountains. There is--we are surrounded by water on all
    sides, so air quality is something that we haven't had to
    stress about as much. But I know different communities are
    going to look at different technologies to see what is the best
    fit.
        I appreciate the advice, and I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back, and the gentleman
    from Pennsylvania is now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Tonko, for holding this important hearing, and to our panel for
    being with us here this morning.
        If you look around the room where we are holding this
    hearing, you will see laptops, you will see cell phones, you
    will see cameras, you will see TV monitors and many other
    pieces of technology. When all of these products are eventually
    replaced--and often it is sooner than later--they will become
    electric waste, the e-waste that we are discussing.
        With the continued increase in the amount of this
    technology we use each and every day, the creation of e-waste
    has rapidly accelerated. Efficient recycling of e-waste is not
    only made difficult because of the amount of waste produced and
    how it is outpacing existing recycling infrastructure, but also
    the fact that we have new technology requiring innovation in
    the actual methods of that recycling.
        The e-waste problem is only projected to get worse. As I
    have discussed extensively on this committee, the data centers
    needed to support AI are very resource intensive, and that
    intensiveness is requiring technology. The technology for the
    data center operations will need to be regularly advanced and
    updated, and the potential to add millions of additional tons
    to e-waste each and every year. It is estimated that in the
    United States alone nearly 10 billion in e-waste is discarded
    each year. Much of the value of this comes from critical
    minerals, minerals that we already lack a sufficient domestic
    supply of. If we want U.S. leadership in this technology and
    AI, we need to do a better job at recycling some of these
    materials.
        Mr. Bedingfield, in your written testimony you stated that
    only 15 to 20 percent of e-waste generated in the U.S. is
    processed through certified recycling channels. What is
    happening to the rest of it?
        Mr. Bedingfield. That is a great question, and I agree with
    all your comments. Thank you for them.
        It is going to the landfill. And many of the heavy metals
    that actually have a lot of value--the gold, the palladium, the
    silver, the tin, the copper--are leaching into the ground.
        One thing we are extremely excited about is this seems to
    be one of the few bipartisan issues that people can wrap their
    mind around. Whether it is sustainability, national security,
    supply to all of our domestic manufacturing, there is something
    everyone here can get their--get behind.
        Mr. Joyce. What countries are currently the leading
    recipients of the e-waste that is not recycled here?
        And should the lack of domestic processing of this waste
    concern us?
        Mr. Bedingfield. The lack of domestic processing should
    absolutely concern us.
        As I said before, all the companies that are coming here
    for manufacturing, they need raw materials. If we don't have
    them here, then we have really not done much by reshoring them.
    So having that full supply chain here is critical. The
    countries we are exporting to right now have this
    infrastructure, and they are in Europe and they are in Asia.
        Mr. Joyce. Mr. Bedingfield, as we continue to develop the
    technologies for recycling e-waste and work to deploy them,
    what role can the Federal Government play in helping to manage
    the waste until we have those capabilities?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Until we have those capabilities, it is
    very difficult because you can't stockpile as much material as
    you are talking about. There is--there are significant
    stockpiles already within the government. There is up to a 7-
    year backlog of classified assets within our military
    departments that we are trying to find a solution for. So
    directing those materials to domestic companies with domestic
    capabilities helps to build the business cases to get the
    investments that we need to drive the capabilities here.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
        Mr. Felton, in your written testimony you discussed medical
    device packaging, the packaging that we see around IV solutions
    or syringes, or around isolation gowns. How can industry work
    with hospitals to solve the packaging and plastic waste which
    we know has only increased since the COVID-19?
        Mr. Felton. Thank you for your question, Representative
    Joyce, and I would say there's a couple of ways to sort of
    tackle that problem.
        It could be considered business-to-business recycling,
    right? So in instances in hospitals and other commercial
    settings, there may be systems already established to recover
    those materials and put them back into other products, have
    them be recycled. It is significant impact from the flexible
    packaging industry. Pharmaceutical medical is about 16, 17
    percent of the flexible packaging industry in the U.S.
        So I think B2B is important, and then look for
    opportunities to do public-private partnerships and also
    potentially even extended producer responsibility done
    responsibly. Oregon's program, for example, doesn't only cover
    residential recycling, it covers commercial recycling.
        So, you know, if the programs move forward in the States
    and we can have the ability to do some more partnerships so
    that industry can be getting those materials back, we would
    find that a benefit.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Felton, and thanks to all of our
    witnesses for appearing today.
        We do have an opportunity to create a more efficient
    technology supply chain by leading the way in e-waste
    recycling. These are valuable resources if we support the
    innovative recycling infrastructure necessary to process them
    and to retain them.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Weber. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
    Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
    for being here today. I wanted to do a couple of things. One is
    just underscore--which has been done, but--the economic impact,
    the--just the overall impact of recycling in the United States.
    The EPA's Recycling Economic Information report found that
    recycling contributes to 681,000 jobs, $3,738 million in wages,
    and about $5.5 billion--$5.5 billion--in tax revenue.
        Ms. Harrison, can you talk a little bit about the recycling
    industry's impact on manufacturing and economic security?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes, I expect that there will be a number of
    staffers from the Recycling Partnership watching this today,
    and a lot of them are from Ohio, so you have got big fans.
        Mr. Landsman. Right.
        Ms. Harrison. And they want to hear the questions that you
    are asking right now, because recycling has long been felt--you
    know, we teach it in schools, but it is like a feel-good
    thing----
        Mr. Landsman. Yes.
        Ms. Harrison [continuing]. Of, like, do your part in
    recycling. It is really about domestic supply chain. It has
    always been about creating fuel for U.S. manufacturing.
        Mr. Landsman. Yes. And so can--talk a little bit about the
    importance of the data and all of this, the--and improving data
    availability for strengthening this system.
        Ms. Harrison. Yes, recycling has long been woefully
    underdataed. I think that is a real word.
        Mr. Landsman. It is.
        Ms. Harrison. And that ambiguity has led to wishful
    thinking, has led to greenwashing, but it has also led to a
    missed opportunity to do the work that matters most.
        The Recycling Partnership for 11 years has worked to
    document what is produced in the household. We actually do
    studies where we participate with communities to study what is
    in community trash cans and recycling so we can really measure
    what is there. Then we can map how it is getting to market. By
    having that data, we see where the gaps are so we can have a
    detailed application of what works in Ohio versus, say,
    Tennessee. And we are able to create a prescription for how we
    meet the community with what they need most and serve the
    businesses in those locales.
        Mr. Landsman. And they--this is a bipartisan, you know,
    issue, both recycling but also the data as we try to
    collectively get better.
        The two bills, the Recycling and Composting Accountability
    Act and Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2025,
    would help to bolster recycling data and measurement as well as
    accessibility. These two bills were in the final spending
    package, and so this is--it is important, I think, as we
    approach the next spending bill to appreciate all of the things
    that got pulled out. These two bills were pulled out. Can you
    talk a little bit about the impact these two bills would have?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes. This committee has the opportunity to
    mark them up and put them together in the STEWARD Act, and that
    would serve primarily rural, but all communities, with
    solutions. It would drive forward opportunities for small
    manufacturing and large, and there is an opportunity to do that
    right now. So the STEWARD Act is an immediate step this group
    can take, and then the CIRCLE Act that is being introduced
    today is the next one.
        Mr. Landsman. Yes, STEWARD, CIRCLE, and potentially, as
    part of a final, you know, end-of-year spending package. But I
    hope this committee pursues that bipartisan work, getting it on
    the floor, getting in something that is moving, STEWARD or
    otherwise, and making sure this gets done finally, since we
    didn't get it done last year. Thank you all----
        Ms. Harrison. Thank you.
        Mr. Landsman [continuing]. Very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer [presiding]. The gentleman yields. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Harshbarger, for
    her questions.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, if I--microphone on--can you hear
    me?
        Voice. Yes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    allowing me to waive on, and thank you to the witnesses for
    being here today.
        You know, we use plastic in everything. I mean, we store
    our food that way, we use it in medicine. You don't--you can't
    walk into my pharmacy and not see syringes or anything like
    that. I mean, we use a lot of plastic. But when we are talking
    about the future of plastics, we need to work towards making a
    more circular economy.
        And my district is home to Eastman Chemical Company, and it
    is the largest dedicated advanced recycling facility in the
    world. And in Kingsport, Eastman has been taking plastics that
    normally would go into the landfill and then instead use the
    materials--the material recycling process. And they can convert
    and create new plastic materials that have the same quality
    integrity as plastics that were made directly from
    petrochemicals. And to Mr. Bedingfield's point, it keeps those
    plastics out of the landfill from leaching out microplastics.
    There is a lot of health concerns when it comes to that.
        So when I think about this, I think it is important to
    weigh the economic opportunities for our country, and it is
    possible to direct U.S. policy to provide incentives that will
    build these advanced recycling facilities in the U.S. instead
    of overseas in China. And we can bolster confidence in the
    domestic recycling system. And I think you will see a lot more
    onshore manufacturing that brings domestic jobs and investment
    to our country.
        Mr. Felton, I guess I will ask you this: What plastics are
    generally recycled, I guess, the most today?
        And what are the barriers to recycling a broader range of
    those plastics currently in use?
        Mr. Felton. Thank you, Representative Harshbarger, for your
    question.
        Generally speaking, if you look at--if you think of the
    resin identification codes on products, including packaging,
    they are generally 1 through 7--generally speaking, 1 and 2. So
    even a bottle like this may be more recyclable. Many of those
    others are--those others, 3 through 7, are recyclable. It needs
    the infrastructure behind it and the opportunity to recapture
    that.
        And advanced recycling, as you have mentioned, is one of
    those examples for particular types of recycled plastics to be
    able to move them back to full circularity. And that is why FPA
    is supportive of that.
        And I think also looking at the opportunities for specific
    packaging applications as you recycle those plastics--you
    mentioned pharmaceutical, medical devices----
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Mr. Felton [continuing]. Food contact.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Mr. Felton. It is critical. Companies are trying to use as
    much--less virgin plastic, more recycled content, but they need
    pathways forward to do that--
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Mr. Felton [continuing]. Different collection methods, as
    Ms. Harrison has suggested, also different recycling methods.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, that is why I think circular
    recycling is the bomb.
        Mr. Felton. Yes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, how does advanced recycling improve
    the recycling system in the U.S., I guess, and what are the
    steps that need to be taken to make those technologies
    complementary to the existing technologies that are deployed?
        Mr. Felton. Yes, thank you for that question.
        I would say one of the things to be thinking about is
    collection. We have, you know, what we typically call
    traditional recycling at curbside.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes.
        Mr. Felton. Absolutely, we need that. The flexible
    packaging industry needs and wants it, but we need other
    methods, as well, right? We want store dropoff, we want depots,
    we want subscription services. And all those different types of
    abilities, ways to collect packaging and other products, are
    meaningful to contribute to that full circularity.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes, exactly. You know, we have seen
    periodic efforts, I guess, to increase recycling infrastructure
    domestically. You see them here, you see them there. There is
    not really a defined path. But policies are needed to see a
    nationwide improvement in these recycling rates and the
    development of infrastructure that can address the plastic
    being used by Americans today.
        Do you agree, everybody?
        I mean----
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. I just--look, if anybody wants to throw
    anything in that I haven't covered, but I am all about
    recycling. But we can go to infinity and beyond with some of
    these plastics that you recycle over and over and over, and we
    can get away from some of the petrochemicals.
        Anybody got anything to add?
        Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Harrison. So the example of the Kingsport Eastman
    facility is a good one to bring innovation, American industry
    at its best. What it needs most, though, is protection to make
    sure that companies are using that high-quality recycled
    content that you talked about and ensuring that it is not
    getting displaced by cheap imports that could disrupt the
    momentum that you are talking about. So that is an area that we
    would love to see your help leaning in.
        Mrs. Harshbarger. Well, that is what I am working on. So
    thank you all.
        And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for 5
    minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
        I am always proud to represent New Jersey, especially since
    it has been a national leader on extended producer
    responsibility, or EPR, laws which shift accountability for
    product recycling from households and municipalities to our
    industry partners. In 2024 New Jersey passed the first-of-its-
    kind EPR law for electric vehicle batteries to incentivize
    recycling and sustainable management of EV batteries, and
    ultimately advance vehicle electrification.
        EV batteries contain valuable materials, and collecting and
    recycling batteries helps us conserve resources while reducing
    harm to human health and the environment. New Jersey's EPR law
    for EV batteries is just one example of how EPR can be applied
    in innovative ways to solve many types of waste issues.
        Mr. Bedingfield, you mentioned in your testimony that
    Mint's platform is expanding to lithium ion battery recycling.
    How can recovering and recycling critical materials from EV
    batteries help promote a circular supply chain for American
    manufacturers?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Thank you very much for that question.
        So first of all, there is a difference. We do recycle a lot
    of materials, and it is processing and getting things down to
    commodity level. But then many of those processes and the
    process--or the material that comes out of lithium ion
    batteries is called black mass. We don't have the processes
    here in many instances to recover it back to the cobalt,
    lithium, nickel that comes out of that to be able to be reused.
    That is what is being exported.
        So the process that we are developing actually recovers it
    so that we can feed those right back into the businesses that
    are based here in the country to make new batteries. So that is
    the key, is finishing that loop. You know, the collecting is
    only step one. Then we have to be able to recover the metals to
    be reused here.
        Mr. Menendez. For sure, I appreciate that. And obviously,
    that will have immense benefits for our supply chain as we
    continue to have more domestic manufacturing of EV vehicles. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes.
        Mr. Bedingfield. It is only growing.
        Mr. Menendez. And it is important that we foster
    circularity to reduce our environmental impact and reliance on
    foreign supply chains, as we just discussed. EPR programs can
    also help bolster supply chains by keeping recycled materials
    in use and promote more sustainable product design.
        Ms. Harrison, in general why should businesses take
    financial responsibility for the full life cycle of their
    products?
        Ms. Harrison. So I think a good example of what change
    looks like--in 2023 we partnered with the Coca-Cola Foundation,
    and we piloted a new education campaign in Newark, New Jersey.
    So we helped put 4,000 new carts, recycling carts, on the
    ground and redid the whole education program. And we project
    that Newark now collects more than 700 new tons of material per
    year. That is an opportunity that companies have not just to
    work on what they are producing, designing for recycling, but
    by investing in communities they see that they can make
    meaningful change.
        The challenge is, one by one, it takes a very long time to
    do that. That is where the opportunity of policy, EPR, comes in
    to be able to give the same opportunity that Newark got in--
    for--in your fine State to every community.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes. No, I appreciate that. And, you know,
    obviously in the current construct, right, it is the
    individuals, the families, it is the municipalities who are
    paying for the waste and the recycling. And EPR programs can
    help ensure that manufacturers take responsibility.
        I think you brought up a good point. It is--thinking about
    when they are responsible for the full life cycle, it may
    enhance their design phase, right----
        Ms. Harrison. Yes.
        Mr. Menendez [continuing]. To think about what they are
    delivering to the customer if they are also responsible for
    recycling, right? I think that is----
        Mr. Eisenberg. Correct.
        Mr. Menendez. It is good business, and it is good for our
    environment. It is good for our--all of our constituents.
        Ms. Harrison, can you expand on how EPR can spur needed
    investment in our Nation's recycling system?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes, the U.S. recycling system, if we were
    going to fix it--which we can----
        Mr. Menendez. Yes.
        Ms. Harrison [continuing]. Which means that everyone can
    recycle, everyone does, and old stuff turns to new stuff, we
    are looking at a $17 billion CapEx. So that means everyone has
    carts, we have got trucks, we have got good infrastructure.
    Then annually that is a $17 billion investment to run it.
        We know the return is more than fourfold on that. It comes
    back into the U.S. opportunity to make new things, to domestic
    supply chain. So we see a really strong opportunity to invest
    in our system. It serves our communities, it prevents
    pollution, and it serves manufacturing. So it is a no-brainer
    in my book.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes. And do you think--is there a way we
    should be sort of reframing the conversation? Right? Because as
    we have alluded to here, you grew up with the three R's about
    recycling, right? And it seems like sort of like more of a
    task, right, for both for companies and for individuals, for
    communities.
        Is there an opportunity in this moment, because of all the
    benefits that we have discussed in this 4\1/2\ minutes and in
    the broader committee hearing, is there a way that we should be
    reframing it to get people to engage in it in a way that they
    are going to actively want to participate?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes. The first step is to make sure that they
    can and that it is easy and it is not confusing, and then
    trust. They want to see the process of their yogurt cups
    becoming car parts and their cans becoming airplane parts. They
    would love to know about that.
        But I would challenge us not to rely on it always being the
    consumers'--the public's burden. We need to build the system.
    Once the system is there, then they will participate.
        Mr. Menendez. Yes, I appreciate that.
        Ms. Harrison. Thank you.
        Mr. Menendez. I would love to hear from Mr. Bedingfield,
    but I don't want to be too--anyway, I will yield back. Thank
    you all so much.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I now
    recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
        And I am sorry. This is my first hearing, and it is like I
    have never done one.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Palmer. I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
    Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Griffith. I really appreciate you, Chairman, allowing
    me that opportunity, and let me apologize to the witnesses. I
    have been chairing a meeting downstairs and trying to juggle
    when I could get up here. And so I ran up the stairs to get
    here.
        Microplastics is something I am really interested in. I
    apologize if it is repetitive, but there is concern. It is
    becoming a more visible issue, with news media beginning to
    publicize what is going on, and microplastics in the brain. And
    where is that plastic coming from? And I am hearing all kinds
    of different reports from my plastic water bottle to the tires
    on the highways. Does anybody have a definitive answer yet?
        Mr. Eisenberg. So I am happy to take that one, and it is--
    --
        Mr. Griffith. I assume the answer is no, nothing definitive
    yet. But where are we going?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes. So--and that is really symbolic of the
    challenge.
        So there are a number of sources, right? We know that it is
    coming from tires and tire runoff. We know it is coming from
    textiles, from the clothes we are wearing and things like that.
    We know it is coming from big plastics that become little
    plastic because of their environment and they start to degrade
    and things like that. We are still trying to figure out how
    much of it is coming off of existing plastics that--you know,
    in sunlight and things of that nature.
        And really, that is the--that is what, I think, the message
    that I think is most important here is that I think if you ask
    anybody--scientists, environmental activists, industry person--
    we all need more science, right? We need dramatically more
    science to help inform the policy here.
        We, the chemical industry, the global chemical industry,
    are putting--we funded over 100 researchers in 37 institutions
    around the globe. We need so much more than that. We are trying
    to get these answers. We hope that Congress will act and help
    do this as well. Let's get those answers so that we can
    reassure the public of what is going on here.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, and I appreciate that. And of course,
    the problem right now is you don't know what to do. I mean, I--
        Mr. Eisenberg. Agreed.
        Mr. Griffith. It is little stuff, but I changed out my tea
    bags this week because apparently some of them use a plastic
    fiber, and a lot of them are switching back to plant-based. And
    so I switched my bags out and went with a more expensive tea
    bag. I am cheap and was trying to stay cheap, but it is that
    kind of stuff that we worry about.
        Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, and totally understandable, right?
        Now, I will channel the chemical side of the house at ACC.
    The presence of a chemical is not a risk, right? I mean, we
    have to do our risk evaluation and understand that--if the
    presence of the chemical actually does demonstrate a risk to
    human health, and that is something that we should absolutely
    be doing here as the science develops.
        But in the meantime we can also be focusing--I mean, that
    is the great thing about this recycling message that we are all
    putting here. We can take care of the big plastics not becoming
    little plastics, right? Let's get them back into the system.
    Let's make this circular, and make sure that that piece of the
    challenge is taken care of right now.
        Mr. Griffith. And I would say I am really excited about
    some of the recycling stuff that is happening out there. I have
    visited--I know you heard from Diana Harshbarger a few minutes
    ago, and I don't know what her questions were, but I have
    visited the Eastman facility that is in her district because it
    is within 8 miles of my district. And so I have--about 10
    percent of their workforce is in my district. And the research
    that they have been doing for decades on cracking open
    different carbon molecules and rearranging them and creating
    new plastics, it is absolutely fabulous.
        And instead of putting this plastic into the ground, if we
    can find good, efficient, practical ways to recycle it, that is
    absolutely the goal, I think, of all Americans.
        Does anybody disagree with that?
        None of our panelists--let the record reflect none of the
    panelists disagreed with that comment. And so I really
    appreciate what you all are doing. We just have to try to
    figure out the science, and that is the hard part.
        I have about a minute left. Does anybody have something to
    add to the questions I have asked or the concerns?
        Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Harrison. Well, I think the very nature of--you, as
    just an individual trying to figure out what is the best way to
    handle this--which tea bag is right? What about your carpet?
    What about the clothes? That is exactly why we need this
    committee and why we need leadership from Congress. Because the
    public can't answer all that. Busy moms can't answer all that.
    They just need things to be healthy.
        And so this is where we need policy to set up a good system
    to--that drives innovation and U.S. opportunities but that also
    keeps the public safe. And so I think the research that we need
    has to be funded in part from you all and in the leadership so
    that we can all make those good choices.
        Mr. Griffith. And I won't disagree with that, because what
    I want to see is that we make decisions based on science, and
    too often what we do is we decide something is bad, we get
    scared, and it is understandable that the public gets scared. I
    mean, as cheap as I am, I wouldn't have bought new tea bags if
    I didn't have some concern about, you know, plastics in the
    brain.
        But that said, we have got to have the science before we go
    throwing the product out, which has been an amazing product for
    consumers and, in fairness, for the health of the environment
    over time. It doesn't mean everything is perfect, but I believe
    it has been a real asset to our environment. Notwithstanding
    those who just look at the negatives, the positives far
    outweigh those in my mind.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you giving me the
    time, and I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I now
    recognize myself for 5 minutes for my questions.
        And as I was about to point out earlier, yesterday I
    introduced the Securing America's Mineral Supply Act of 2025 to
    codify President Trump's Executive orders that will ensure we
    secure our critical mineral, rare-earth element supply chain.
        So Mr. Bedingfield, you spoke of the importance of securing
    processing of e-waste, and I would think you would include
    refining, as well. But what they--a lot of people don't realize
    is what a national security risk we have created for ourselves
    by basically exporting the processing and refining to an
    adversarial nation. In your process you destroy any data--any
    potential for data recovery. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Yes, sir, we do. We shred to below 2
    millimeters, which is NSA standard for data destruction.
        Mr. Palmer. Do you think China does that?
        Mr. Bedingfield. I am honestly not sure what China does. I
    don't think any of us are, and that is absolutely the problem.
    But if they can get data, I would think they would sure take
    it.
        Mr. Palmer. You also talked about how you have the
    capabilities--each facility has the capability to recover, for
    instance, 1,000 tons of copper, a ton of gold, 250 tons of
    lithium, 500 tons of cobalt. These are the things that we are
    having to import from China. You said 1,000 tons of nickel.
    Those elements and those minerals were very likely not sourced
    from here.
        Would you say that, that they are likely sourced from mines
    in Africa and South America and processed and refined in China,
    placed in the electronics that we buy, so we are recovering
    basically what China has mined, processed, and refined? Would
    you agree with that?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Yes, sir. We have to import them because
    we don't have the capacity here. And then, when we export them,
    we do it all over again. So we need to keep those minerals
    here. If we have to import them the first time, fine. But once
    we get the mines up, hopefully that ends. But at the very least
    right now, we should only import them once.
        Mr. Palmer. You also in your written testimony said that we
    export 340,000 tons of e-waste each year. Where does that go?
        Mr. Bedingfield. Most of it goes to either Europe or Asia.
    That is where the big refineries are. They have built these
    things over decades and decades----
        Mr. Palmer. Europe has the refining capability to refine e-
    waste. Do they also have the refinery capability to refine
    processed aggregate, or is that--that is obviously a different
    process, isn't it?
        Mr. Bedingfield. It is, but I believe they do, as well.
        Mr. Palmer. OK. Mr. Eisenberg, we talked about recycling,
    and part of the problem with that is--I think--is that the
    market doesn't support it. And do you see a future where the
    market would pay for recycling so the recycling would pay for
    itself?
        Mr. Eisenberg. Pay for itself? I mean, hopefully, yes. I
    mean, any technology, if you--is my mic on?
        Mr. Palmer. Yes.
        Mr. Eisenberg. Any technology, if you do sort of mature it,
    will become cost competitive, right? I mean, that is the beauty
    of it, and putting all the additional time----
        Mr. Palmer. OK.
        Mr. Eisenberg [continuing]. And effort into it.
        Mr. Palmer. Ms. Harrison, I asked my colleague, Mr. Tonko,
    to let me see his cranberry juice bottle. And on it there--it
    states that, ``We will pay 5 cents for redemption.'' One State
    on the bottle pays 10 cents. Do you think that that would play
    a role?
        And I say that because when I was just a kid we had a
    chance to go to the University of Alabama to see the State
    basketball playoffs, but we had to have $5, and I was--I grew
    up dirt poor, so I walked up and down the road and pulled soft
    drink bottles out of the ditch, went to the neighbor's house
    and asked for them to try to come up with 100 to get the $5 I
    needed.
        Ms. Harrison. Did you do it?
        Mr. Palmer. I did. I bought a hamburger.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Harrison. Deposits can definitely help, but I think it
    is important we break this into two parts. There is the cost of
    collecting it and getting it to the end market. And that
    deposit helps offset the cost for communities to get it into
    the recycling system.
        Mr. Palmer. But you are talking about communities, and I
    think that is where we kind of lose the market part of it. We
    have got to figure out a way where there is a market solution
    to incentivize people to do this because if it is just a matter
    of trying to remember to separate what you put in your trash--
    put out, you know, one time a week or whatever--but if there is
    some way that we can incentivize this----
        Ms. Harrison. Yes.
        Mr. Palmer [continuing]. I think it would really help.
        And you talked about, Mr. Eisenberg, about a national
    standard. I think what we ought to be talking about here is
    not, you know, some of the politics that we get into here, but
    really coming up with a solution that makes sense, that it is
    not always run by the government because there is--I think
    there is an automatic dismissal of government programs unless
    it is enforced on people.
        So if we could come up with a way to incentivize this, I
    think we would make some pretty significant advances in our
    ability to recycle and solve some of these problems that we
    have.
        I can't believe I am already out of time. But I will yield
    back and recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter,
    for 5 minutes for his questions.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you to our witnesses for joining us today.
        I am a proud supporter of recycling, not just because it is
    good for the environment and sustainability, but it also--but
    because it is--the circular economy where materials are reused,
    recycled, and kept in circulation is good for business. The
    business community gets this. That is why my hometown of New
    Orleans began partnering with New Orleans and Company, our
    local tourism bureau, to create recycled dat. Dat, like who
    dat.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. The first official recycling
    effort for Mardi Gras--the largest street party on Earth,
    generated more than 2 million pounds of trash annually, which
    the city had to collect after the parties and parades were
    over. Now they have shifted their efforts to working with local
    recycling businesses to keep those plastic beads, beer cans,
    and water bottles from clogging our storm drains or ending up
    in landfills. This past year the program collected over 23,000
    plastic bottles, 46,000 pounds of glass, 22,800 pounds of beads
    and parade throws.
        Our tourism leaders understand that visitors to our city
    not only want to enjoy our culture, but they also want to do it
    in an environmentally responsible way.
        On a national scale, an expanded circular economy can
    create jobs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make our
    supply chain more resilient. According to the EPA, recycling
    and reused--recycling and reuse already supports 680,000 jobs,
    generating more than $37 billion in wages and $5.5 billion in
    tax revenues annually.
        Programs like the Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling,
    or SWIFR grants, and the recycling education, or REO, programs
    are critical lifelines for communities seeking to modernize
    outdated recycling infrastructure and educate the public on
    effective recycling practices. These aren't just environmental
    programs. They are economic development tools, as well.
        A quick question for Keefe Harrison.
        Mr. Harrison--Ms. Harrison, I am sorry, Ms. Harrison --the
    City of New Orleans is proud--is a proud recipient of a SWIFR
    grant. Your team at Recycling Partnership helped put the
    application together, and now we are assisting the city in
    implementing the project. Nearly 4 million in bipartisan
    funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will transform
    the way my neighbors and I can recycle.
        Can you tell us more about how the grant will improve
    recycling in New Orleans and how this project can serve as an
    example for other communities across the country, recognizing
    the great work that we have in New Orleans?
        Ms. Harrison. Yes, Representative Carter. We were so proud
    to join you in that announcement, and our team worked hard to
    make sure that New Orleans is a shining star.
        This grant will make sure that 83,000 community--or
    households in New Orleans will now be able to recycle. It will
    give them the infrastructure that you are talking about. It
    will also layer in the education to make sure they know what to
    do.
        Our research shows that 58 percent of Louisianans don't
    understand what to recycle.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. As you mentioned, a portion of the
    award will go toward solid waste master plan, including an
    evaluation of regional recycling processing infrastructure
    opportunities for the city to obtain Materials for Recovery
    Facilities, or MRF, which receive--sorts and prepares
    recyclable materials for sale to manufacturers.
        Why should Federal funding be used for municipalities to
    undertake these studies?
        And why would a new MRF be beneficial to the New Orleans
    region?
        Ms. Harrison. A new MRF would be beneficial because the--so
    when we put our stuff into the recycling cart, it is all mixed
    together. Then you have got to separate it out. That is what
    happens in a MRF. It is a critical step for making sure that
    those materials make it to end market. Many of those MRFs, you
    know, they have evolved over time, and they are not at pace
    with the diversity of packaging that we are talking----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. How much time does that save you
    when you don't have to go and resort all this stuff?
        Ms. Harrison. It saves time, it saves money, but it also
    increases the amount of recyclables that get to U.S.
    manufacturing.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And we know we generate a lot of
    beads, a lot of plastics.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Harrison. I have been.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. You know, when we say, ``Hey
    Mister, throw me something,'' we throw it. We want people to
    enjoy Mardi Gras. We want them to enjoy it respectfully,
    peacefully. And we want to recycle, not just during Mardi Gras.
    That is, obviously, an important time. But as you know, New
    Orleans has no shortage of festivals: French Quarter Festival,
    Jazz Festival, Essence Festival, Tomato Festival, fried chicken
    festival. And all of those things generate a lot of debris that
    can be recycled and put back into the secondhand market for
    manufacturing.
        Ms. Harrison. Yes. The mayor of New Orleans recently joined
    me for a webinar, and she is so fiercely proud of the
    leadership that she is bringing to the community to make sure
    that everyone has the opportunity. The equal opportunity is
    key.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And I am proud to say the people
    of New Orleans are eager. They love what you do. They love the
    idea of recycling. They love the idea of having venues so they
    can recycle.
        So, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, and I yield.
        Mr. Palmer. Hey, Mister, can you throw me some fried
    chicken?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Absolutely.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields. I would like to thank our
    witnesses for being here today.
        Members may have additional written questions for you, and
    I will remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record, and I ask that the
    witnesses do their best to submit responses within 10 business
    days upon receipt of the questions.
        I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record documents
    included on the staff hearing documents list.
        Without objection, that will be the order.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Palmer. Without objection, the subcommittee is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]