[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]