[House Report 111-75]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 111-75
======================================================================
ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
_______
April 21, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1580]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 1580) to authorize the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to award grants for
electronic waste reduction research, development, and
demonstration projects, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Amendment.......................................................2
II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................5
III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................5
IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................7
V. Committee Actions...............................................8
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................9
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section), as Reported10
VIII. Committee Views................................................11
IX. Cost Estimate..................................................12
X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................13
XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4...............................14
XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............14
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........14
XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................14
XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................14
XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................14
XVII. Earmark Identification.........................................14
XVIII.Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........14
XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........14
XX. Committee Recommendations......................................14
XXI. Additional Views...............................................15
XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................16
I. AMENDMENT
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Electronic Device Recycling Research
and Development Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The volume of electronic devices in the United States is
substantial and will continue to grow. The Environmental
Protection Agency estimates that over 2 billion computers,
televisions, wireless devices, printers, gaming systems, and
other devices have been sold since 1980, generating 2 million
tons of unwanted electronic devices in 2005 alone.
(2) Electronic devices can be refurbished or recycled to
recover and conserve valuable materials, such as gold, copper,
and platinum. However, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency, only 15 to 20 percent of household generated
electronic devices reach recyclers.
(3) The electronic device recycling industry in the United
States is growing; however, challenges remain for the recycling
of electronic devices generated by households and other small
generators. Collection of the electronic devices is expensive,
and separation and proper recycling of some of the materials
recovered, like lead from cathode-ray tube televisions, is
costly.
(4) The export of electronic devices to developing countries
also presents a serious challenge. The crude methods of many of
the recycling operations in these countries can expose workers
to harmful chemicals, jeopardizing their health and polluting
the environment.
(5) Some of the challenges to increasing the recyclability of
electronic devices can be addressed by improving the logistics
and technology of the collection and recycling process,
designing electronic devices to avoid the use of hazardous
materials and to be more easily recycled, and encouraging the
use of recycled materials in more applications.
(6) The public currently does not take full advantage of
existing electronic device recycling opportunities. Studying
factors that influence behavior and educating consumers about
responsible electronic recycling could help communities and
private industry develop recycling programs that draw more
participation.
(7) The development of tools and technologies to increase the
lifespan of electronic devices and to promote their safe re-use
would decrease the impact of the production of electronic
devices on the environment and likely increase the
recyclability of such devices.
(8) Accurately assessing the environmental impacts of the
production of electronic devices and the recycling of such
devices is a complex task. Data, tools, and methods to better
quantify these impacts would help policymakers and others
determine the best end-of-life management options for
electronic devices.
SEC. 3. ELECTRONIC DEVICE ENGINEERING RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall award multiyear grants to
consortia to conduct research to create innovative and practical
approaches to reduce the volume and manage the environmental impacts of
electronic devices and, through the conduct of this research, to
contribute to the professional development of scientists, engineers,
and technicians in the fields of electronic device manufacturing,
design, refurbishing, and recycling. The grants awarded under this
section shall support research to--
(1) increase the efficiency of and improve electronic device
collection and recycling;
(2) expand the uses and applications for materials recovered
from electronic devices;
(3) develop and demonstrate environmentally friendly
alternatives to the use of hazardous and potentially hazardous
materials in electronic devices and the production of such
devices;
(4) develop methods to identify, separate, and remove
hazardous and potentially hazardous materials from electronic
devices and to re-use, recycle, or dispose of such materials in
a safe manner;
(5) reconsider product design and assembly to facilitate and
improve refurbishment, re-use, and recycling of electronic
devices, including an emphasis on design for recycling;
(6) conduct lifecycle analyses of electronic devices,
including developing tools and methods to assess the
environmental impacts of the production, use, and end-of-life
management of electronic devices and electronic device
components;
(7) develop product design, tools, and techniques to extend
the lifecycle of electronic devices, including methods to
promote their upgrade and safe re-use; and
(8) identify the social, behavioral, and economic barriers to
recycling and re-use for electronic devices and develop
strategies to increase awareness, consumer acceptance, and the
practice of responsible recycling and re-use for such devices.
(b) Merit Review; Competition.--Grants shall be awarded under this
section on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis.
(c) Applications.--A consortium shall submit an application for a
grant under this section to the Administrator at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information and assurances as the
Administrator may require. The application shall include a description
of--
(1) the research project that will be undertaken by the
consortium and the contributions of each of the participating
entities, including the for-profit entity;
(2) the applicability of the project to reduce impediments to
electronic recycling in the electronic device design,
manufacturing, refurbishing, or recycling industries;
(3) the potential for and feasibility of incorporating the
research results into industry practice; and
(4) how the project will promote collaboration among
scientists and engineers from different disciplines, such as
electrical engineering, materials science, and social science.
(d) Dissemination of Research Results.--Research results shall be
made publicly available through--
(1) development of best practices or training materials for
use in the electronics manufacturing, design, refurbishing, or
recycling industries;
(2) dissemination at conferences affiliated with such
industries;
(3) publication on the Environmental Protection Agency's
website;
(4) demonstration projects; or
(5) educational materials for the public produced in
conjunction with State governments, local governments, or
nonprofit organizations on problems and solutions related to
electronic waste.
(e) Funding Contribution From For-Profit Member of Consortium.--The
for-profit entity participating in the consortium shall contribute at
least 10 percent of the total research project cost, either directly or
with in-kind contributions.
(f) Protection of Proprietary Information.--The Administrator--
(1) shall not disclose any proprietary information or trade
secrets provided by any person or entity pursuant to this
section;
(2) shall ensure that, as a condition of receipt of a grant
under this section, each member of the consortium has in place
proper protections to maintain proprietary information or trade
secrets contributed by other members of the consortium; and
(3) if any member of the consortium breaches the conditions
under paragraph (2) or discloses proprietary information or
trade secrets, may require the return of any funds received
under this section by such member.
(g) Biennial Report.--Within 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Administrator shall
transmit a report to Congress that provides--
(1) a list of the grants awarded under this section;
(2) the entities participating in each consortium receiving a
grant;
(3) a description of the research projects carried out in
whole or in part with funds made available under such a grant;
(4) the results of such research projects; and
(5) a description of the rate and success of the adoption or
integration of such research results into the manufacturing
processes, management practices, and products of the
electronics industry.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section:
(1) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(3) $22,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON ELECTRONIC DEVICE
RECYCLING.
(a) In General.--In order to better recognize gaps and opportunities
in the research and training programs established in this Act, the
Administrator shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences for a report, to be transmitted to Congress not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, on--
(1) opportunities for and barriers to--
(A) increasing the recyclability of electronic
devices, specifically addressing--
(i) recycling or safe disposal of electronic
devices and low value materials recovered from
such devices;
(ii) designing electronic devices to
facilitate re-use and recycling; and
(iii) the re-use of electronic devices; and
(B) making electronic devices safer and more
environmentally friendly, specifically addressing
reducing the use of hazardous materials and potentially
hazardous materials in electronic devices;
(2) the environmental and human health risks posed by the
storage, transport, recycling, and disposal of electronic
devices;
(3) the current status of research and training programs to
promote the environmental design of electronic devices to
increase the recyclability of such devices; and
(4) any regulatory or statutory barriers that may prevent the
adoption or implementation of best management practices or
technological innovations that may arise from the research and
training programs established in this Act.
(b) Recommendations.--The report under subsection (a) shall identify
gaps in the current research and training programs in addressing the
opportunities, barriers, and risks relating to electronic device
recycling, and the report shall recommend areas where additional
research and development resources are needed to reduce the impact of
electronic devices on the environment.
SEC. 5. ENGINEERING CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
(a) Grant Program.--The Administrator, in consultation with the
Director of the National Science Foundation, shall award grants to
institutions of higher education to develop curricula that incorporates
the principles of environmental design into the development of
electronic devices--
(1) for the training of electrical, mechanical, industrial,
manufacturing, materials, and software engineers and other
students at the undergraduate and graduate level; and
(2) to support the continuing education of professionals in
the electronic device manufacturing, design, refurbishing, or
recycling industries.
(b) Eligible Entities.--The term ``institution of higher education'',
as such term is used with respect to eligibility to receive a grant
under subsection (a)(2), includes any institution of higher education
under section 101(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(b)).
(c) Outreach to Minority Serving Institutions.--The Administrator
shall conduct outreach to minority serving institutions for the
purposes of providing information on the grants available under this
section and how to apply for such grants.
(d) Merit Review; Competition.--Grants shall be awarded under this
section on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis.
(e) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall be used
for activities that enhance the ability of an institution of higher
education to broaden the undergraduate and graduate-level engineering
curriculum or professional continuing education curriculum to include
environmental engineering design principles and consideration of
product life cycles related to electronic devices and increasing the
recyclability of such devices. Activities may include--
(1) developing and revising curriculum to include
multidisciplinary elements;
(2) creating research and internship opportunities for
students through partnerships with industry, nonprofit
organizations, or government agencies;
(3) creating and establishing certificate programs; and
(4) developing curricula for short courses and continuing
education for professionals in the environmental design of
electronic devices to increase the recyclability of such
devices.
(f) Application.--An institution of higher education seeking a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the Administrator at
such time, in such manner, and with such information and assurances as
the Administrator may require.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section:
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(2) $5,150,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(3) $5,304,000 for fiscal year 2012.
SEC. 6. ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS PHYSICAL
PROPERTY DATABASE.
(a) In General.--The Director shall establish an initiative to
develop a comprehensive physical property database for environmentally
friendly alternative materials for use in electronic devices.
(b) Priorities.--The Director, working with the electronic device
design, manufacturing, or recycling industries, shall develop a
strategic plan to establish priorities and the physical property
characterization requirements for the database described in subsection
(a).
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section:
(1) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(2) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(3) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Consortium.--The term ``consortium'' means a grant
applicant or recipient under section 3(a) that includes--
(A) at least one institution of higher education,
nonprofit research institution, or government
laboratory; and
(B) at least one for-profit entity, including a
manufacturer, designer, refurbisher, or recycler of
electronic devices or the components of such devices.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(4) Electronic device.--The term ``electronic device'' may
include computers, computer monitors, televisions, laptops,
printers, wireless devices, copiers, fax machines, stereos,
video gaming systems, and the components of such devices.
(5) Institution of higher education.--The term ``institution
of higher education'' has the meaning given such term in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)).
(6) Minority serving institution.--The term ``minority
serving institution'' means an institution that is an eligible
institution under section 371(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)).
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to award grants for electronic device recycling research,
development, and demonstration projects, and for other purposes.
II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency to award grants to
reduce the volume of discarded electronic products in the
United States through research, development, and demonstration
projects for product design, recycling and re-use.
III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION
The growing volume of unwanted electronic devices
The growing number of unwanted televisions, computers, cell
phones, monitors, and other electronic devices ready for
discard is a growing problem in the United States and
worldwide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated
that between 1980 and 2004, 2 billion electronic products were
sold in the U.S. Of these, it estimated about half were still
in use, while 42 percent were discarded. Further estimates
revealed that only 11 percent of those discarded devices
reached recyclers. Most were disposed of in landfills.\1\
Electronics are bulky and contain hazardous materials that pose
concerns for disposal in landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\EPA Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste in the U.S.,
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-
08.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the engagement of state and local governments,
environmental groups, and electronics producers, more of these
products now reach recyclers. However, there are still many
hurdles to cost-effective, nationwide electronics recycling.
Additionally, the resources- and energy-intensive production
phase of electronic devices is as important as their end-of-
life management. Approximately 80 percent of the energy
consumed over the lifecycle of a computer is through the
production process. Enabling consumers to use (or re-use) these
products longer could reduce the environmental impact of
production.
Challenges for electronic device end of life management and
opportunities for research and development
Electronics recycling is increasing in the United States,
but the industry faces a number of challenges. These challenges
include convincing consumers to recycle, the logistics of
collecting unwanted electronic devices, efficiently
disassembling products, safely removing hazardous substances,
efficiently processing materials, and recovering value from all
of the materials found in the electronic devices. For example,
the more commingled a stream of plastics becomes as casings and
components from electronic products are mixed together in
processing, the less value the plastic has for re-use. Focused
research and development to develop solutions to improve the
technologies that sort these plastics, or develop new processes
and materials that can use non-homogenous plastics, will make
electronic devices recycling less costly and will reduce the
volume of discarded electronic devices.
The design of electronic products could also aid in making
recycling more cost efficient. Many products are difficult to
disassemble and the location of hazardous materials varies
(i.e., mercury lamps in some flat panel displays). Greater use
of materials recycled from old electronics in the manufacturing
of new products would help make recycling more profitable. A
research and development program could examine the feasibility
of different design schemes and recycled materials usage to
help electronic product development become more of a closed
loop process.
Scores of different chemicals and materials comprise
computers, televisions, cell phones and other electronics. Some
of the substances used in electronics, like lead and hexavalent
chromium, have raised enough health and environmental concerns
that the European Union adopted a measure to ban their use in
electronics products sold in Europe.\2\ Manufacturers have been
able to comply with these requirements for most consumer
electronics, but the process to ban substances sensitive to the
environment and human health is on-going. For example, the risk
to human health posed by certain types of brominated flame
retardants used in electronics and other products has created a
controversy over their continued use. Comprehensive data on the
physical properties of substitutes for harmful materials would
enable electronics designers to change their products more
quickly in response to concerns raised about different
materials. The availability of this type of comprehensive data,
provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
enabled manufacturers to quickly meet the challenge of
eliminating ozone-layer depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
from their products in the 1980s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The Restrictions on Hazardous Substances (ROHS) directive,
adopted by the European Union in 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the amount of electronics sent to responsible
recyclers is essential to reducing the impacts of electronic
device disposal. Of equal importance, though, is prolonging the
use, and re-use, of these devices. Estimates of the total
amount of energy required over a computer's lifecycle show that
roughly 80 percent goes into the computer's production phase,
and only 20 percent into the use phase.\3\ Extending the amount
of time a product is in use could not only reduce the volume of
discarded electronic devices, but also lessen the impact of the
production of these complex and sophisticated products on the
environment. Often consumers buy new cell phones, laptops, or
other devices because they want the functionality or ``look''
of a new model, not because their current device is broken.
Consumers are often wary of purchasing used electronics because
they are unsure of a used product's value or they are afraid it
will not meet their needs. Developing re-use markets that aid
consumers in evaluating used devices could help keep these
devices in the hands of consumers for a longer period of time.
Prolonging a device's use could also be accomplished by
developing ways for consumers to easily upgrade their current
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\E. Williams (2002), ``The 1.7 Kg Microchip''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Education
Consumers need to be better educated about electronics
recycling. In addition, the training of future and current
engineers, and others in the fields of electronics production
and recycling, could be improved to incorporate environmental
considerations in to the design of electronics and the practice
of recycling.
IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS
The Committee on Science and Technology held two hearings
on the issue of safe disposal of electronic devices.
The Committee held the first hearing in the 110th Congress
on Wednesday, April 30, 2008. The hearing, entitled Electronic
Waste: Can the Nation Manage Refuse in the Digital Age?,
discussed the growing volume of discarded electronic devices,
the challenges confronting recyclers, and the opportunities for
research and development to address these challenges. The
witnesses were: Dr. Eric Williams, Assistant Professor of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Arizona State University; Mr.
Gerardo Castro, Director of Contracts and Environmental
Services, Goodwill Industries of Southern California; Ms. Renee
St. Denis, Director of America's Product Take-Back and
Recycling, Hewlett Packard Co. (HP); Mr. Eric Harris, Associate
Counsel and Director of Government and International Affairs,
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI); Mr. Ted Smith,
Chair, Electronics Take-Back Coalition; and Mr. Michael
Williams, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Sony
Electronics Inc. The witnesses discussed strides made by state
and local governments, and industry, toward better end of life
management of electronic devices, but they cited the many
challenges that remain, including the growing volume of
products headed to landfills, consumer reluctance to recycle,
and the unregulated export of discarded electronics for unsafe
disassembly abroad. The hearing identified the need for
research and development to help address these challenges.
The Committee held a second hearing in the 111th Congress
on February 11, 2009. The purpose of the hearing, entitled
Electronic Waste: Investing in Research and Innovation to
Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle, was to hear testimony on draft
legislation entitled The Electronic Waste Research and
Development Act. The witnesses were: Dr. Valerie Thomas,
Anderson Interface Associate Professor, Georgia Institute of
Technology; Dr. Paul Anastas, Teresa and H. John Heinz III
Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment and
Director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green
Engineering, Yale University; Mr. Philip Bond, President,
TechAmerica; Mr. Jeff Omelchuck, Executive Director, Green
Electronic Council and Electronic Product Environmental
Assessment Tool (EPEAT); and Mr. Willie Cade, Chief Executive
Officer, PC Rebuilders and Recyclers. The witnesses discussed
areas of opportunity where research and development could help
manage, and reduce the number of, discarded electronic devices
and gave their comments and views on the draft legislation. The
witnesses unanimously supported the legislation.
V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS
On March 18, 2009, Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee,
for himself and Representatives Thompson of California, Baird,
Carnahan, Johnson of Texas, Wu and Lujan, introduced H.R. 1580,
the Electronic Waste Research and Development Act. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Science and Technology.
The Committee on Science and Technology met to consider
H.R. 1580, the Electronic Waste Research and Development Act,
on March 25, 2009. The Committee considered the following
amendments:
1. Mr. Gordon offered a manager's amendment. The manager's
amendment replaced the word ``waste'' with ``devices''; the
word ``disposal'' with ``recycling'' and the words ``cell
phones'' with ``wireless devices''. The manager's amendment
also clarified that the Director of the National Science
Foundation should be consulted by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency in awarding grants under
Section 5. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
2. Mr. Ehlers amended the bill to add ``design for
recycling'' as a factor in product design and assembly under
Section 3. He also amended Section 4 to replace ``the risks
posed by disposal of electronic waste'' with ``the
environmental and human health risks posed by the storage,
transport, recycling, and disposal of electronic devices'' and
to add ``any regulatory barriers or statutory barriers that may
prevent the adoption or implementation of best management
practices or technological innovations that may arise from the
research and training programs.'' The amendment was agreed to
by voice vote.
3. Mr. Baird amended Section 3 of the bill to include the
``social, behavioral, and economic barriers to recycling and
re-use for electronic devices'' to the areas of research
supported by the grants. The amendment was agreed to by voice
vote.
4. Ms. Giffords offered an amendment to the bill to add
``developing environmentally friendly alternatives to the use
of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials in solar
panels and methods to recycle, re-use, and dispose of the
panels and their components in a safe manner'' to the areas of
research supported by the grants. Ms. Giffords withdrew her
amendment.
5. Ms. Johnson amended Section 3 of the bill to include the
Environmental Protection Agency's website to the ways by which
the results of the research are made publicly available. The
amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
6. Ms. Johnson amended Section 5 of the bill to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct
outreach to minority serving institutions to provide
information on grants. The amendment was agreed to by voice
vote.
7. Mr. Bilbray amended Section 3 of the bill to add
provisions to protect the proprietary information or trade
secrets of for-profit members of the research consortia
receiving grants. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
8. Mr. Neugebauer amended Section 3 of the bill to add ``a
description of the rate and success of the adoption or
integration of such research results into the manufacturing
processes, management practices, and products of the
electronics industry'' to the areas to be covered in the
biennial report to Congress from the Administrator of the EPA.
The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
H.R. 1580, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee favorably report H.R.
1580, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the
bill do pass. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL
H.R. 1580, the Electronic Device Recycling Research and
Development Act, authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency
to award grants for electronic device recycling research,
development, and demonstration projects. The bill directs the
Administrator to provide grants through a competitive, merit-
based process to consortia, including institutions of higher
education, non-profit research institutions, government
laboratories, and at least one for-profit entity (i.e.,
manufacturers, designers, refurbishers, or recyclers), for the
purpose of addressing the end of life management of electronic
devices. The findings of the research must be made available to
the public. The Administrator must report to Congress within 2
years after enactment, and every two years thereafter, on the
grants awarded through the bill, and the results of the funded
research. The bill also requires a report by the National
Academy of Sciences on the opportunities and barriers to
reducing the volume of discarded electronic devices through
better recycling, re-use, and safe design for recycling. The
bill further requires the Administrator, in consultation with
the Director of the National Science Foundation, to award
grants to institutions of higher education for the development
of curricula that will incorporate environmental considerations
into the training of engineering students to enable the design
and development of electronic devices for recycling, longer
use, and refurbishing. Finally, the bill directs the Director
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
develop a comprehensive database for environmentally friendly
alternative materials to be used in electronic devices. H.R.
1580 authorizes $18 million, $20 million, and $22 million for
fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively, to EPA for the
electronic device recycling engineering research, development,
and demonstration projects; and $5 million, $5.15 million, and
$5.304 million for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012,
respectively, to EPA for the curriculum development grants; and
$3 million for each of fiscal year 2010, 2011, and 2012 to NIST
for the development of the materials database.
VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
The Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development
Act.
Section 2. Findings
Outlines the current background information on electronic
waste and summarizes the challenges and concerns addressed by
the legislation.
Section 3. Electronic waste engineering research, development, and
demonstration projects
Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a
competitive, merit-based process to be performed jointly with
institutes of higher education, non-profit research
institutions, or government laboratories, and at least one for-
profit entity (i.e. manufacturers, designers, refurbishers, or
recyclers) to find ways to manage discarded and unwanted
electronic devices through reduction, re-use, and recycling,
and make the findings of the research available to the public.
The section requires a report to Congress within two years
after enactment, and every two years thereafter, of the grants
awarded and a list of the projects and their findings.
For the activities in Section 3, the bill authorizes
$18,000,000 for FY2010; $20,000,000 for FY2011; and $22,000,000
for FY2012.
Section 4. National Academy of Sciences report on electronic waste
Directs the Administrator to arrange a study by the
National Academy of Sciences to look at the barriers and
opportunities available to reduce the volume of discarded and
unwanted electronic devices, reduce the use of hazardous
materials in electronic products, and enable product design for
efficient re-use and recycling.
Section 5. Engineering curriculum development grants
Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a
competitive, merit-based process to institutions of higher
education and community colleges to develop curriculum and
other training for relevant engineering undergraduate students
to introduce them to topics related to end of life management
for electronic devices, recycling, and environmentally friendly
product design. Also directs the Administrator to offer grants
to institutions of higher education and community colleges to
provide continuing education of professionals in the
electronics manufacturing, design, refurbishing, or recycling
industries to educate them about new technologies, techniques,
or best practices related to electronic device re-use,
recycling, and environmentally friendly design of electronic
products.
For these activities, the bill authorizes $5,000,000 for
FY2010; $5,150,000 for FY2011; and $5,304,000 for FY2012.
Section 6. Environmentally friendly alternative materials physical
property database
Directs the Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology to establish a physical property database for
green alternative materials for use in electronic products.
For this activity, the bill authorizes $3,000,000 for
FY2010; $3,000,000 for FY2011; and $3,000,000 for FY2012.
Section 7. Definitions
Defines the terms Administrator, a consortium, electronic
waste, an institution of higher education, and Director.
VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS
H.R. 1580, the Electronic Device Recycling Research and
Development Act, will help decrease the volume of discarded
electronic devices in the United States through research,
development, and innovation. The Committee regards this
legislation as a foundational step toward addressing the
factors that contribute to a high volume of unwanted electronic
devices and a low rate of electronics recycling. While there
are many components to this issue, such as consumer and
producer responsibility for used electronics and their
irresponsible export, research and development can make
recycling easier and more cost effective, and enable more
environmentally friendly products that can be used longer. It
is the Committee's intention that the results of this research
be adopted by the relevant industries in a timely fashion.
The amended version of H.R. 1580 replaces ``electronic
waste'' with ``electronic devices recycling''. This is to
reflect the view of the Committee, the witnesses who testified
before the Committee, and stakeholders that the word ``waste''
reflects something with no value to be discarded without
consequences. Electronic devices contain gold, silver, and
other valuable materials, as well as hazardous materials, that
should not go to a landfill. Moreover, witnesses testifying
before the Committee stated that environmental benefit could be
gained by enabling the prolonged use of these sophisticated
devices. The Committee believes that, for the purposes of this
bill, the term ``electronic device'' broadly covers obsolete,
broken, stored, or discarded computers, computer monitors,
televisions, laptops, printers, wireless devices (``cell
phones''), fax machines, stereos, video gaming systems, the
components of these devices, or any other similar electronic
device. The Committee notes that these are the same items that
are also commonly termed ``electronic waste.''
The Committee believes the research, development, and
demonstration project grants awarded to support the research
outlined in H.R. 1580 should examine recycling, product design,
product lifecycle, consumer behavior, and collection logistics
in a variety of settings. The Committee intends that the
research influence design and manufacturing practice to reduce
the environmental impact of electronic devices, particularly
through enabling cost-effective recycling, re-use, and
refurbishment. The Committee believes the purpose of requiring
a 10 percent contribution by a for-profit entity in the
electronic device manufacturing, design, recycling, or
refurbishing industries is to encourage research that applies
directly to the challenges these industries face. Further, the
required contribution promotes adoption of research results.
Should there be more than one for-profit participant in a
consortium, the Committee believes the Administrator should use
his or her discretion in requiring a contribution over 10
percent.
The Committee also believes that the research results
should be made publicly available to educate and develop best
practices and training materials through at least one of the
specified mediums, including training materials, dissemination
at conferences, educational materials for the public, and on
the EPA website. However, the Committee intends for EPA to
provide to the public a readily accessible summary of the
outcomes of EPA-sponsored research projects related to
electronic devices recycling. While citations to journal
publications and research project summaries are appropriate and
encouraged, the Committee does not intend for EPA to make
available on its website any copyrighted or otherwise
proprietary information unless an agreement to do so is reached
with the appropriate entities or individuals.
When the EPA Administrator distributes the grants in
Section 5 to institutions of higher education, he/she should
consult with the Director for the National Science Foundation.
The NSF has an extensive history of providing grants for
curriculum development at all levels of education. The
Committee also believes that institutions of higher education
should include community colleges and vocational programs to
train and certify students and/or continuing education courses
that companies may use to keep their current workforce educated
on current technology and practices. In addition, the Committee
intends for minority serving institutions to be well aware of
the opportunities to apply for these grants and the process to
successfully do so.
The Committee also believes the National Institute of
Standards and Technology plays an essential role in the
development of environmentally safe electronic devices in
characterizing the materials used, or potentially used, in
electronics. Therefore, the Administrator of EPA shall work
with the Director of NIST to utilize and disseminate the data
developed in Section 6 of this legislation.
IX. COST ESTIMATE
A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to
the Committee on Science and Technology prior to the filing of
this report and is included in Section X of this report
pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
H.R. 1580 does not contain new budget authority, credit
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
1580 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.
X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
H.R. 1580--Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act
Summary: H.R. 1580 would authorize specified appropriations
for the Environmental Protection Agency to provide grants to
consortia and institutions of higher education to support
research and projects related to the recycling of electronic
devices, such as computers, printers, and copiers. This
legislation also would authorize appropriations for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to
develop a database of alternative materials for use in
electronic devices.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1580 would cost $10
million in 2010 and $84 million over the 2010-2014 period,
assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the
bill would not affect direct spending or revenues.
H.R. 1580 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would result
from complying with conditions of assistance.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1580 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 300
(natural resources and environment) and 370 (commerce and
housing credit). Estimated outlays are based on historical
spending patterns for similar programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Grants to Consortia to Address Environmental Impact of
Electronic Devices:
Authorization Level................................. 18 20 22 0 0 60
Estimated Outlays................................... 7 16 21 13 3 60
Grants to Develop Engineering Curriculum:
Authorization Level................................. 5 5 5 0 0 15
Estimated Outlays................................... 2 4 5 3 1 15
NIST Database Development:
Authorization Level................................. 3 3 3 0 0 9
Estimated Outlays................................... 1 3 3 2 0 9
Total Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level............................. 26 28 30 0 0 84
Estimated Outlays............................... 10 23 29 18 4 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1580
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA. The bill would provide grants to institutions
of higher education, including public colleges and
universities, to conduct research and develop curricula related
to improving the recycling of electronic devices. Any costs to
state, local, or tribal governments would result from complying
with conditions of assistance.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller;
Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
H.R. 1580 contains no unfunded mandates.
XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee on Science and Technology's oversight
findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this
report.
XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of
H.R. 1580 is to authorize the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to award grants for electronic
waste reduction research, development, and demonstration
projects.
XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1580.
XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
H.R. 1580 does not establish nor authorize the
establishment of any advisory committee.
XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
The Committee finds that H.R.1580 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).
XVII. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION
H.R. 1580 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
House Rule XXI, clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f).
XVIII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or
tribal law.
XIX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 1580, as reported, makes no changes in existing law.
XX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 25, 2009, the Committee on Science and Technology
favorably reported the Electronic Device Recycling Research and
Development Act by voice vote, and recommended its enactment.
XXI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH HALL, JAMES SENSENBRENNER,
ROSCOE BARTLETT, BRIAN BILBRAY, VERNON EHLERS, MICHAEL McCAUL, BOB
INGLIS, MARIO DIAZ-BALART, AND ADRIAN SMITH
We are pleased that this bill has been introduced and we
are happy to see that this Committee continues to be on the
forefront of technology policy for this nation. Although we
endorse the concept behind H.R. 1580 and believe we should be
encouraging better designs for electronic devices to increase
their life-span and to make them easier to recycle, there are
aspects of this bill that may be improved upon. If this bill
becomes law, it will be the first of its kind to address the
issue of obsolete and discarded electronic devices, thus
setting a precedent on further legislation. While the
Chairman's amendment alleviated many concerns raised in
Committee, a few outstanding issues remain that should be
addressed prior to moving forward.
One concern raised comes from an amendment offered in
Committee requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to
publish the results of research and development projects
authorized by this bill on its website. Our concern here is
that the copyright protections of the research published on the
website may not be preserved. One area of the bill in need of
clarity is the language regarding for-profit participation in a
consortium. It is unclear the way the current language is
written if the total contribution from all for-profit entities
is to be at least ten (10) percent, or if each for-profit
member is to contribute at least ten (10) percent. This point
gets particularly muddled when the for-profit entity
contribution is made in kind rather than through monetary
funding. This language should be reviewed prior to further
consideration.
While we supported reporting this bill to the House, we
look to work together to address these concerns.
Ralph M. Hall.
Jim Sensenbrenner.
Roscoe Bartlett.
Brian P. Bilbray.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
Michael T. McCaul.
Bob Inglis.
Mario Diaz-Balart.
Adrian Smith.
XXII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 1580, THE
ELECTRONIC WASTE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
Chair Gordon. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and
Technology meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 1580,
the Electronic Waste Research Development Act, and H.R. 1145,
the National Water Research Development Initiative Act of 2009.
Before we get started with the markup, we have a little
Committee business to take care of, and I recognize Mr. Hall
for unanimous consent.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I ask
unanimous consent to officially remove Representative Adrian
Smith as a Member of the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee and to officially recognize Representative Bob
Inglis as a Member of the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee of the Committee on Science and Technology, and I
would ask that the official Committee roster be modified to
reflect this change. And I yield back.
Chair Gordon. Without objection, so ordered. We will now
proceed with the markup. We are going to try to move along
today. In the past, we have gotten caught with votes, so we
don't want that to happen.
This morning the Committee will consider H.R. 1580, the
Electronic Waste Research and Development Act, and H.R. 1145,
the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of
2009.
Billions of cell phones, computers, televisions, and other
electronic products, once the latest technology, are now being
thrown into landfills or in Mr. Hall's and our country,
sometimes on the side of the road. This is a waste of valuable
resources, and it is a growing environmental problem. We need
to do more to make recycling easy and affordable and to make
sure that the electronic products manufactured in the future
are as environmentally sound as they can be.
If we are going to address this issue, we need research and
development, and we need to train present and future designers
of this equipment to think about the entire life cycle of their
products. That is what H.R. 1580 is all about.
The second bill we will consider this morning is H.R. 1145,
which will ensure that the water research and development
programs that are spread across over 20 federal agencies are
coordinated to make maximum use of funding resources.
There is no resource more valuable than water. It is
essential to all of us, every day, for everything we do. For
too long we have ignored the warning signs that our water
supplies are in trouble.
We must do more to conserve water and to maintain its
quality. We must make a more strategic approach at the federal
level and we must ensure the Federal Government supports our
State, local and tribal governments, the entities that are the
stewards of these resources on a day-to-day basis.
I thank the Members for their participation this morning,
and I look forward to this productive markup.
[The prepared statement of Chair Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Bart Gordon
This morning the Committee will consider H.R. 1580, the Electronic
Waste Research and Development Act, and H.R. 1145, the National Water
Research and Development Initiative.
Billions of cell phones, computers, televisions, and other
electronic products, once the latest technology, are now being thrown
into landfills. This is a waste of valuable resources, and it is a
growing environmental problem. We need to do more to make recycling
easy and affordable and to make sure the electronic products
manufactured in the future are as environmentally sound as they can be.
If we are going to address this issue, we need research and
development, and we need to train present and future designers of this
equipment to think about the entire life cycle of their products. That
is what H.R. 1580 is all about.
The second bill we will consider this morning is H.R. 1145, which
will ensure that the research and development programs that are spread
across over 20 federal agencies are coordinated to make maximum use of
funding resources.
There is no resource more valuable than water. It is essential to
all of us, everyday, for everything we do. For too long we have ignored
the warning signs that our water supplies are in trouble. We must do
more to conserve water and maintain its quality. We must take a more
strategic approach at the federal level and we must ensure the Federal
Government supports our State, local and tribal governments--the
entities that are the stewards of these resources on a day-to-day
basis.
I thank the Members for their participation this morning and I look
forward to a productive markup.
Chair Gordon. I now recognize Mr. Hall to present his
opening remarks.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chair, thank you. Each of these bills address
issues that are of national importance, so I thank you for
holding this markup, and because you have so very ably covered
it, I will make my opening remarks brief.
H.R. 1580 authorizes EPA to establish consortiums with
private industries and academia to conduct research,
development and demonstration projects to increase electronics
recycling, reduce the environmental impacts of manufacturing
electronics and to develop ways to increase the usable lifespan
of new electronics. It also promotes crosscutting of education
for engineers by providing grants to higher-learning
institutions to encourage the development of curricula that
combines electrical, mechanical, industrial, material, and
software engineering disciplines. These two efforts will be the
first step that we can take to start addressing the problem
associated with discarded electronic equipment.
Secondly, H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and
Development Initiative Act of 2009, organizes the Federal
Government's approach to research of water resources. The bill
would require perhaps for the first time every government
agency involved in research of water resources to collaborate
and create a Research and Assessment plan that will chart the
course of U.S. research and development for years to come.
Furthermore, it directs the Office of Science and Technology
Policy and the Office of Management and Budget to work with
these agencies to coordinate their annual budgets to avoid
duplicative efforts. These suggestions come from
recommendations that National Science and Technology Council
and the National Academy of Sciences have offered for years. I
commend the Chair, I commend you, sir, on moving a bill that is
critical to our nation's health and well-being.
Mr. Chair, that is the first time I read this. I didn't
know it was so long or I wouldn't have said I was going to make
a brief statement. I would like to thank you, and I yield back
to you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Each of these bills address issues that
are of national importance so thank you for holding this markup today
to advance them. I will keep my opening remarks brief.
H.R. 1580 authorizes EPA to establish consortiums with private
industry and academia to conduct research, development and
demonstration projects to increase electronics recycling, reduce the
environmental impacts of manufacturing electronics and to develop ways
to increase the usable lifespan of new electronics.
It also promotes crosscutting education for engineers by providing
grants to higher-learning institutions to encourage the development of
curricula that combines electrical, mechanical, industrial, material,
and software engineering disciplines. These two efforts will be the
first step that we can take to start addressing the problems associated
with discarded electronic equipment.
Secondly, H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act of 2009, organizes the Federal Government's approach to
research of water resources.
The bill would require, perhaps for the first time, every
government agency involved in research of water resources to
collaborate and create a Research and Assessment plan that will chart
the course of U.S. research and development for years to come.
Furthermore, it directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy and
the Office of Management and Budget to work with these agencies to
coordinate their annual budgets to avoid duplicative efforts. These
suggestions come from recommendations that National Science and
Technology Council and the National Academy of Sciences have offered
for years.
I commend the Chairman on moving a bill that is critical to our
nation's health and well-being.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your staff for working
with us on these bills before us today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. As always, you are
eloquent, and the Minority staff and Members made this a better
bill, and we thank you for that.
Members may place statements in the record at this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lujan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ben R. Lujan
Thank you Mr. Chairman and fellow Members of the Committee, and
thank you for allowing me the opportunity to highlight this important
issue.
Whether it's the computers we use at work, the televisions we watch
at home, or the iPods we listen to on our daily commute, there is no
doubt about it: electronic products are increasingly becoming an
integral part of our everyday life. Because of this, electronic waste
continues to increase in volume and it is imperative that we invest in
developing technologies and methods to best handle these products when
the time comes to dispose of them.
The challenges we face on how to best handle electronic waste exist
in states across the Nation. In 2008, New Mexico passed the Senate
Joint Memorial 11, which requested that the Secretary of the New Mexico
Environment Department appoint a task force to assess the problem of
electronic waste in New Mexico and make recommendations for the
development of a statewide disposal and recycling program. Like my home
state, many other states are acting on this issue and it is important
that our Federal Government make electronic product disposal and
recycling a priority as well. We need to focus on reducing the volume
of electronic waste. We must invest in developing green materials for
use in electronic product manufacturing, and we must employ recycling
methods that are environmentally friendly and safe. We must also
educate our students about these topics and equip them with the
professional skills and knowledge they need to become leaders in
electronics design and recycling industries.
The Electronic Waste Research and Development Act takes an
important and fundamental step toward solving these challenges by
supporting research and development in electronic waste management.
Through electronic waste engineering, research, development and
education, we can discover new and innovative ways to design, reuse and
recycle electronic products.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will mark up the Electronic Waste Research and Development
Act, H.R. 1580, and the National Water Research and Development
Initiative Act, H.R. 1145.
As American consumers attempt to keep up with the latest technology
trends by purchasing the newest cell phones and laptops, the number of
discarded electronic products is rapidly increasing.
When electronic products are properly handled, these products can
transform into a valuable source for reusable equipment.
However, if these products are not disposed of properly, they are
potentially harmful to both human health and the environment.
H.R. 1580 would establish an electronic waste engineering research,
development, and demonstration program at the Environmental Protection
Agency to identify ways to manage electronic waste through reduction,
reuse, and recycling.
I support both H.R. 1580 and H.R. 1145, and I urge my colleagues to
support these pieces of legislation.
I would also like to commend Chairman Gordon for once again
following regular order leading up to this markup.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for the chance to speak briefly on H.R.
1580.
As you know, I support the idea of recycling abandoned electronic
equipment. Like many of my colleagues on this panel, I have old
computers stored in the back of a closet at home that I now know can be
refurbished for good use by someone who needs them.
The legislation before us takes a good first step to address the
prospects and concerns for abandoned electronics and their components
stream. As we heard at our February 11th hearing, coordinated research
and education efforts are needed to address disposal, product design,
and in general, raise awareness of what opportunities consumers have to
recycle unused or what they consider ``obsolete'' equipment.
On that note, I would like to thank you, Chairman Gordon, for
working with me to include changes to the term ``waste'' in your
managers amendment. While the term ``E-Waste'' resonates well, it sets
a tone of disposal, instead of reuse. The legislation before us will
attempt to change behavior as an obstacle to recycling and doing that
must involve terms we can all identify with, like ``scrap'' or
``devices.''
Another important reason the word `waste' should not be included is
its legal connotations. If we are looking for ways to recycle and reuse
old electronics, the last thing we want to do is impede consumer or re-
manufacturing efforts. The term ``waste'' could invoke legal or
regulatory hurdles to the very recycling and refurbishment process that
we are trying to advance. It bears repeating that every dollar spent on
refurbishment stays in the U.S.; every dollar spent on new products
does not.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your cooperation on this issue and look
forward to supporting the underlying bill.
Chair Gordon. We will now consider H.R. 1580, the
Electronic Waste Research and Development Act, and I will
recognize myself to describe the bill. H.R. 1580 comes out of
the recommendations of two Science and Technology Committee
hearings. We have asked for and received a lot of input from
electronics producers, recyclers, refurbishers, and
environmental advocates throughout the drafting of the bill.
This bill reflects the guidance of those experts. The Majority
staff has consulted with Minority staff every step of the way,
and I am pleased that a number of Members have joined me in co-
sponsorship of this bill. And I will note that all Members have
two weeks from today to co-sponsor either of these bills. I
think you will find that they are going to be beneficial to
both your community and the country, and you should take credit
for it.
The main purpose of H.R. 1580 is to reduce our e-way
stream. To do this, it directs the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) administrator to fund peer-reviewed, competitive
grants that will fund research in a variety of topics with the
goal of reducing the amount of e-waste, be it through more
efficient recycling, better materials selection, or designating
products to be easily disassembled.
Additionally, the research will examine the entire life
cycle to help researchers, manufacturers, policy-makers, and
consumers alike understand the entire environmental cost of
electronic products. And as a related research endeavor, the
bill directs the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology (NIST) to develop a database of the properties and
materials used, or potentially used, in electronic devices.
NIST compiled similar information in the 1990's to help
manufacturers find alternatives to ozone-depleting
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). For electronics, this data will
help designers and manufacturers more easily find alternatives
to environmental problematic substances.
H.R. 1580 also authorizes the EPA in consultation with the
National Science Foundation to fund grants that will give
engineering students the tools and knowledge to incorporate
environmental consideration into their future engineering
endeavors. We need our future engineers to understand that
whatever they put together will eventually have to be taken
apart. The bill also authorizes grants for continuing education
of workers in the electronics and recycling industries so that
they can use the latest environmental information relevant to
designing, recycling or refurbishing electronics. The bill
includes community colleges as eligible to receive grants.
Lastly, H.R. 1580 authorizes a study by the National
Academy of Sciences that will help to inform the path of
research. Broadly, the study will look at opportunities and
barriers to reducing the volume of electronic waste and making
electronic products that are more environmentally friendly.
This bill has been endorsed by a number of different groups, a
few of which are the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition,
Best Buy, Consumer Electronics Association, the Electronics
Take-back Coalition, the Institute of Scrap Metal Industries,
the National Center for Electronics Recycling, CTIA--The
Wireless Association, and AT&T, among others.
[The prepared statement of Chair Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Bart Gordon
We have asked for and received a lot of input from electronics
producers, recyclers, refurbishers, and environmental advocates
throughout the drafting of the bill. This bill reflects the guidance of
those experts. The Majority staff has consulted with Minority staff
every step of the way, and I am pleased that a number of Members have
joined me in co-sponsorship of this bill. And I will note that all
Members have two weeks from today to co-sponsor either of these bills.
I think you will find that they are going to be beneficial to both your
community and the country, and you should take credit for it.
The main purpose of H.R. 1580 is to reduce our e-way stream. To do
this, it directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
administrator to fund peer-reviewed, competitive grants that will fund
research in a variety of topics with the goal of reducing the amount of
e-waste, be it through more efficient recycling, better materials
selection, or designating products to be easily disassembled.
Additionally, the research will examine the entire life cycle to
help researchers, manufacturers, policy-makers, and consumers alike
understand the entire environmental cost of electronic products. And as
a related research endeavor, the bill directs the National Institutes
of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a database of the
properties and materials used, or potentially used, in electronic
devices. NIST compiled similar information in the 1990's to help
manufacturers find alternatives to ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs). For electronics, this data will help designers and
manufacturers more easily find alternatives to environmental
problematic substances.
H.R. 1580 also authorizes the EPA in consultation with the National
Science Foundation to fund grants that will give engineering students
the tools and knowledge to incorporate environmental consideration into
their future engineering endeavors. We need our future engineers to
understand that whatever they put together will eventually have to be
taken apart. The bill also authorizes grants for continuing education
of workers in the electronics and recycling industries so that they can
use the latest environmental information relevant to designing,
recycling or refurbishing electronics. The bill includes community
colleges as eligible to receive grants.
Lastly, H.R. 1580 authorizes a study by the National Academy of
Sciences that will help to inform the path of research. Broadly, the
study will look at opportunities and barriers to reducing the volume of
electronic waste and making electronic products that are more
environmentally friendly. This bill has been endorsed by a number of
different groups, a few of which are the Consumer Electronics Retailers
Coalition, Best Buy, Consumer Electronics Association, the Electronics
Take-back Coalition, the Institute of Scrap Metal Industries, the
National Center for Electronics Recycling, CTIA--The Wireless
Association, and AT&T, among others.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1580, and I now recognize Mr.
Hall to present any remarks on the bill.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chair, if passed into law, the Electronic
Waste Research and Development Act will be the very first piece
of legislation to address the increasing national problem of
electronic waste, and I am happy to see this committee
continues to be on the forefront of technology policy for this
nation, and there are many aspects of the e-waste dilemma. The
definition of e-waste, refuse and recycling and reuse of
electronics, landfill disposal and hazardous waste, regulatory
issues and export economies. With each new technological
advance and model replacement, we are faced with the question
of disposal of the older products. The complexity creates a
vast array of opinions on possible solutions to these problems.
However, dealing with this problem is not insurmountable. With
the right type of research and development, we can institute
new ways of tracking, sorting, recycling and reusing discarded
electronics and by making them less hazardous from the design
stage and allow them to do less harm in the disposal stage.
At our hearing, we learned of many companies that are
seeking to find new uses for these products that will reduce
the number that will end up in the landfills, and I am grateful
to the Chair for introducing this legislation and holding
special hearings on this important topic. I am a little
concerned that we still have not yet had the new Administration
officially weigh in on this bill, but I am pleased that your
staff and mine have been able to work together on the number of
amendments that will be offered here today.
I hope before the bill moves to the Floor, we will have an
opportunity to hear from the Administration and agree together
to incorporate any necessary changes into the bill, and I thank
you and yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About a month ago, this committee held a
hearing to address what to do with electronic products when they become
obsolete. Sixty-three years ago this week, when the United States Army
unveiled the world's first general-purpose electronic computer, we
never considered the question of how we would dispose of it or what
parts of it could be reused or what it would do to our landfills or our
environment. We have come a long way since the unveiling of ``The
Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer,'' or ENIAC (in-e-ack).
However, this is an issue we definitely need to address now as
electronic products have become much more prevalent throughout our
society, and much more disposable.
We are constantly seeking new devices and new faster products.
Blackberry devices, iPods, cell phones and other small electronics are
rapidly replaced by newer models with more gadgets. Consumers are even
buying cell phones that are designed to be thrown away after short-term
use. Computers and laptops with the latest capabilities are highly
sought after in the marketplace. The next generation of television,
with high definition capabilities, is replacing the older models as we
move closer to the deadline for transition to digital signals. With
each new technological advance and model replacement, we are faced with
the question of disposal of the older products.
I was very hopeful at our hearing last month that we would discover
the perfect solution to address this problem; however, I fear this
legislation may create the unintended consequence of creating a new
regulatory regime for the very folks who are engaged in the laudable
goal of recycling electronic products.
There are many aspects of the e-waste dilemma: the definition of e-
waste; reuse and recycling of electronics; landfill disposal and
hazardous waste; regulatory issues and export economies. At our
hearing, we learned of many companies that are seeking to find new uses
for these products that will reduce the number that will end up in the
landfills.
I am grateful to the Chairman for introducing this legislation to
bring this topic to the forefront. I am concerned that some provisions
in the bill may force those entities who seek to reuse, recycle and
refurbish these electronic products into existing regulatory regimes at
EPA. Clearly, none of us wants to hamper efforts already underway to
try to effectively and efficiently deal with this challenge.
I look forward to working with the Chairman to address these
concerns moving forward. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I am glad to hear you
are so considerate of the Administration. We do need to contact
them and see what they have to say. I am sure they have been
contacted. We need to contact them again to be sure----
Mr. Hall. Yes, I talk to them every day----
Chair Gordon. Does anyone else wish to be recognized?
Mr. Hall.--and pray for them every night.
Chair Gordon. Your hand signal is--you're okay.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent that the bill is
considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that
the Members proceed with the amendments in the order on the
roster. Without objection, so ordered.
First amendment on the roster is a manager's amendment. The
Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580 offered by Mr. Gordon of
Tennessee.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for
five minutes to explain the amendment.
This amendment makes several technical changes to the bill.
The changes have been suggested to us by stakeholders, and I
believe the changes create a stronger bill. The first change
strikes the word ``waste'' from the bill. The world knows this
issue is e-waste, electronics that original owners no longer
want. But as we heard in the hearing, an old computer isn't
waste. They can be reused, refurbished, or recycled to
recapture its components and materials.
The amendment also replaces the word ``cell phones'' with
``wireless devices.'' Cell phones are a particular technology,
but we want to make sure that we are capturing everything from
the first cell phones to the latest hand-held devices.
The last two changes make some minor clarification. The
first is to add the word ``Director'' before the National
Science Foundation, and in Section 5 replace the word ``and''
with ``or'' and in Section 3 to make it clear that the EPA has
the discretion to disseminate the research generated from this
bill in the manner it thinks is most appropriate.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers. Are you ready to
proceed with your amendment?
Mr. Ehlers. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chair Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580 offered by Mr. Ehlers of
Michigan.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, my
amendment, due to a clerical error, includes exactly the same
amendment you included in yours regarding naming the Director
of the NSF. That is something we can clear up later.
Aside from that, my amendment, and it is a friendly
amendment, amends the bill to add the words ``design for
recycling'' as a factor in product design and assembly. Most
modern engineering schools are emphasizing this in their
curricula, and it doesn't matter whether it is a computer or
washing machine or dryer or any other item of general use. If
you design it for recycling, when you first design it and then
manufacture it, it greatly aids recycling and reduces the cost
of recycling greatly. So I wanted to make sure that this, you
know, is mentioned in there as a factor.
It also amends Section 4 to replace the phrase ``the risks
posed by disposal of electronic waste'' with the following,
``the environmental and human health risks posed by the
storage, transport, recycling, and disposal of electronic
devices.'' It just makes it more all-inclusive and makes it
clear that we are worried about all the aspects of e-waste and
not just the disposal of the electronic waste.
It also adds, deals with ``any regulatory barriers or
statutory barriers that may prevent the adoption or
implementation of best management practices or technological
innovations that may arise from the research and training
programs.'' This again is an attempt at clarification and will
improve the operation of the bill.
It does alter one of the three existing topics to be
addressed by the National Academies study. We have checked with
the National Academies, and they would be happy to see this
change. It changes the second topic from ``looking at risks
posed by disposal of electronic waste'' to ``the environmental
and human health risks posed by the storage, transport,
recycling, and disposal of electronic scrap.'' Once again, it
just expands it and makes it clear what we are trying to
accomplish here.
And as the fourth topic for the National Academies Studies
requiring the NSC and NAS to look at the regulatory or
statutory barriers and again, they have said that they would
regard this within the purview of their study.
With that, Mr. Chair, I ask for adoption of the amendment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
My amendment does four main things:
Includes language inserting an emphasis on ``design
for recycling'' in the research grants supported by the bill. I
believe that as we research ways to reduce e-waste, recycling
should be at the forefront of initial design consideration for
electronic equipment.
Alters one of the three existing topics to be
addressed by the National Academies study. It changes the
second topic from looking at risks posed by disposal of
electronic waste to ``the environmental and human health risks
posed by the storage, transport, recycling and disposal of
electronic scrap.'' The amendment clarifies what type of risks
we want the Academies to examine, and to look at the entire e-
waste supply chain.
Adds a fourth topic for the National Academies study
to address, requiring NAS to look at any ``regulatory or
statutory barriers that would prevent any of the results
generated from the research projects from being adopted or
implemented.'' This would allow Congress to make any necessary
changes to clear up such discrepancies in current law with
desired policy. (We have confirmed with Academies staff that it
could complete this type of assessment as a part of the
required study.)
Lastly, the amendment would make a technical
correction that would insert ``the Director of'' before naming
the National Science Foundation to clarify that the
Administrator should deal with the director, and not with the
entire agency.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. As usual, you bring
value added with your amendment and more clarity. Is there
further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Chair?
Chair Gordon. Yes, Mr. Bilbray from California.
Mr. Bilbray. Let me just speak in the highest regard for
this amendment. We keep talking about private sector needs to
think out of the box if we are going to have a clean,
prosperous future. This is a classic example of thinking out of
the box. One of the greatest breakthroughs we are going to have
is the unforeseen concept of pre-engineering specifically so
that the material that is used for the e-product will be
designed from the beginning to be ready to be reused as the
doctor has pointed out, and that not only eliminates and avoids
the environmental and cost of disposal but also engineers into
the original manufacturing ability to take old products and use
them instead of virgin material having to be constantly
reintroduced into the e-industry. So this is one of those
things that we ought to be really looking at and something that
sort of hasn't been tapped anywhere close to its potential.
So I strongly support this because I think that is where we
are going to really find a breakthrough here. It is not looking
at how to take a product that has been thrown away and find a
practical use to it but finding a product that was designed
from the beginning to be reused again and again and again. And
I appreciate the amendment.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. That was the
intention of the original bill, and Dr. Ehlers makes it even
better.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The third amendment on the roster is the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Baird. Are you
ready to proceed?
Mr. Baird. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.
Chair Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580 offered by Mr. Baird of
Washington.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair. I will be very brief. I
commend the Chair for bringing this bill to the Committee. All
of the engineering things that Mr. Ehlers just alluded to are
absolutely necessary, but at the same time, if people don't
engage in the behaviors necessary to recycle e-scrap, our best
intentions will go for naught. And so what my bill does is
include research to address the social, behavioral and economic
barriers to recycling and reuse for electronic devices. The
sense is let us look at the social and behavioral aspects of
reducing e-scrap, and I would urge passage of the amendment.
Chair Gordon. Is there anyone else that would like to
comment on the amendment? If there is no further discussion,
the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed
no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Giffords. Are you ready to
proceed?
Ms. Giffords. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have got an amendment at
the desk.
Chair Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580 offered by Ms. Giffords
of Arizona.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment would
expand eligibility under the grant program in Section 3 to
research and development of environmentally friendly
alternatives to hazardous materials and solar panels as well as
methods to recycle, reuse, and dispose of solar panels in a
safe manner.
In addition to the environmental benefits of pursuing such
R&D, it would contribute to the professional development and
training of scientists, engineers, and technicians in the solar
industry.
The solar industry, as we all know on this committee, is
growing rapidly today, in part because it offers a clean,
emissions-free source of power. However, one of the less-
publicized aspects of photovoltaic (PV) technology is that it
often utilizes toxic substances during its manufacturing
process. In addition, like other forms of electronic waste, PV
technologies must be properly disposed of at the end of their
lives to avoid contaminating people or the environment.
To truly enjoy the significant benefits of solar energy, we
have to minimize the drawbacks, and in order to do that we need
to address total life-cycle impacts. If we invest in research
to develop new materials for solar panels now, we can avoid the
use of hazardous materials in future solar products. We can
also develop safe disposal strategies for the current
generation of solar technologies.
I know that for various reasons, some Members of this
committee do not feel that solar panels should be included in
this bill, and I disagree. Solar panels are not just another
electrical appliance. Many of the same manufacturing and
disposal concerns that apply to consumer electronics today also
apply to solar panels. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is
an advocacy organization that specializes in e-waste issues.
The Coalition recently just issued a report that examines the
PV industry, and in that report the Coalition talks about the
fact that because solar PV semiconductor manufacturing
processes have roots in the microelectronics industry, many of
the chemicals found in e-waste are also found in solar PV,
including lead, brominated flame retardants, cadmium and
chromium. Most of the end-of-life hazards for emerging solar PV
technologies have not yet been analyzed. In some cases,
emerging products simply combine existing semiconductors or
advanced forms of existing semiconductors, and they will
therefore carry the hazardous waste issues of all the
technologies employed. For example, the multi-junction cell of
amorphous silicon and gallium arsenide will entail hazards
posed by all of the materials and processes used.
So in my view, solar panels definitely belong in this e-
waste bill. If we act to address this waste issue now while the
industry is still yet young, we can avoid getting to the same
situation that we currently face with consumer electronics,
when we have an enormous waste stream that we see before us and
we are forced to play catch-up to develop adequate strategies
to deal with it. Nevertheless, in interest of fully taking the
time to address my colleagues' concern, I will withdraw this
amendment but I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chair,
and Members of this committee, so many Members that have spent
a lot of time trying to promote the solar energy industry, to
make sure that we address this critical concern as the industry
continues to grow.
So with that, Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment and I
yield back.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Giffords, and thank you more
importantly for raising these important and very legitimate
issues. As you know, this committee takes solar energy very
seriously. We will be working on this in a comprehensive way as
we go through. So obviously you will be a very important part
of that. So without objection, the amendment is----
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chair?
Chair Gordon. Yes, Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. Yes, I would like to be heard on that. The
gentlelady, I am sorry she withdrew it because I always like to
support her amendments. As a matter of fact, I flew all the way
to Phoenix for a hearing she held on----
Ms. Giffords. Tucson.
Mr. Hall.--the very subject. Very good. And I would ask an
hour, really, to explain my support for this amendment and for
this Member.
Chair Gordon. You can put that in the record, and thank
you, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I yield back my time.
Chair Gordon. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn. The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment
offered by the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you
ready with your amendment?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chair Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580, amendment number 033,
offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentlelady for five minutes to explain her amendment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon, and Ranking
Member Hall and Members of the Committee for considering my
amendment to 1580. This is a very simple amendment that is
designed to make research results on electronic waste more
publicly accessible.
On page 6 of the bill is the section called Dissemination
of Research Results. The section outlines ways in which
research results on electronic waste will be shared with the
public. It includes items such as developing training materials
for use in electronic manufacturing industry. It states that
the research findings will be disseminated at industry
conferences and through demonstration projects and education
materials for the public.
My amendment would simply add that these results will be
shared as well on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
website.
Often the public looks to federal agency websites for
trends and information on issues of national importance. A
section on the EPA website regarding methods for better
management of electronic waste could be helpful to a variety of
stakeholders. In this area of greater government transparency,
we should consider federal science agency websites as the
medium for communicating with the public. The better we do at
disseminating these research results, the faster and more
significant will be the positive impacts of our environment.
I want to thank the Committee for considering it, and I
urge its adoption. I yield back my time.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for this good
amendment. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chair?
Chair Gordon. Dr. Ehlers is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not at all opposed
to what Ms. Bernice Johnson is trying to do, but there are a
lot of complications here which we are encountering at National
Institutes of Health (NIH) in regard to publication rights,
copyrights, and so forth. This has turned into a very major,
complicated, contentious issue in scientific publication as to
what is the role of the Federal Government on putting things on
our websites, and I would just ask that the Committee staff
examine this and see how the current discussions on that relate
to this amendment and whether or not the amendment would have
to be modified once we go to the Floor.
Chair Gordon. Dr. Ehlers, you are correct. We are going to
be trying to have a roundtable discussion with the parties
involved on this issue.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay.
Chair Gordon. I have talked with some of them individually,
and I am hopeful that we are going to, you know, reach some
common denominators, and we will certainly, under that spectrum
in working with Ms. Johnson, review this again and we will see.
I think that we are in good shape here, but we will review it
and we will, you know, all work together for the best bill. Is
there further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the
amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it.
The amendment is agreed to.
The sixth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentlelady from Texas. Ms. Johnson, are you ready to
proceed?
Ms. Johnson. Yes. Thank you.
Chair Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580, amendment number 034,
offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Ranking Member Hall.
This amendment pertains to the Engineering Curriculum
Development Grants that are described again on page 9 of the
bill. The bill states that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency will consult with the National
Science Foundation to award grants to colleges and universities
to improve curriculum and to design electronics that are less
detrimental to the environment.
My amendment would simply include a directive to the
Administrators that he or she should conduct outreach to
minority serving institutions for the purpose of providing
information about the grants. The outreach may also include
providing information on how to apply these grants.
My amendment also adds a definition for minority serving
institutions in the appropriate section of the bill. As a
founder of the House Diversity and Innovation Caucus, I believe
that the Federal Government must play a role in increasing the
diversity of our science and technology workforce. I invite my
colleagues on this committee to join me as a member of the
Diversity and Innovation Caucus. We are an active group of
about 60 members, and we are continually engaged in the process
of advocating that federal science and education programs help
foster a more diverse workforce. It is important for grant
program officials to conduct outreach to minority serving
institutions. Many of these institutions are disadvantaged in
terms of winning research and education grants, but when we
encourage minority serving institutions to apply for these
grants, we empower them to provide better educational
opportunities to the students.
These institutions train a significant portion of the
minorities in our science and engineering workforce. They
really are powerhouses in this respect and are deserving of our
support. Again, my amendment simply directs the Administrator
to reach out to them to provide information about Engineering
Curriculum Development Grants, and I thank you for this
consideration, urge this adoption, and yield back.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Please sign me up for
that caucus. When we think about bringing more people into
science, mathematics, and engineering, women and minorities
really are our best place to get a bump. So sign me up.
Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the
vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed no.
The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The seventh amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray. Are you ready
with your amendment?
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580, amendment number 130
offered by Mr. Bilbray of California.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment.
Mr. Bilbray. Yes, Mr. Chair. First, let me clarify. San
Diego has a real vested interest here. Some of you may know, we
got a lot of old Chargers we need to get rid of, and so we
would appreciate the fact that you pushed on recycling.
The language that I have is quite clear. It just points out
that for-profit companies will continue to choose to
participate in non-monetary contributions to the fund but will
receive protection from piracy from competitors. I think we
have seen the problems before. My amendment just basically
creates an environment that will assure those who want to
participate that their participation will not come back and get
them by their competitors' pirating the information and then
using it against them. It is very clear. I appreciate your
support on this, Mr. Chair, and ask for its passage.
Chair Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. Is there further
discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chair?
Chair Gordon. Yes, Mr. Hall is recognized.
Mr. Hall. I support the amendment because I think it is
necessary to any successful research project to ensure the
protection of the proprietary information of the participants.
As a committee of good ideas, we must also recognize the
importance that the protection of good ideas has in the
development of innovative new products for the marketplace, and
I believe this amendment helps to ensure the participants in
these research projects that they will have a chance to benefit
from their own good ideas. I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment and yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
I support this amendment because I believe it is necessary to any
successful research project to ensure the protection of proprietary
information of its participants. As the Committee of good ideas, we
must also recognize the importance that the protection of good ideas
has in the development of innovative new products for the marketplace.
I believe this amendment helps to ensure the participants in these
research projects will have a chance to benefit from their good ideas.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Chair Gordon. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye,
opposed nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
The eighth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer. Are you ready with
your amendment?
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have an
amendment at the desk.
Chair Gordon. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1580, amendment number 126,
offered by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas.
Chair Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment would
require EPA to include a description of the rate and success of
results of research projects adopted or integrated into the
electronics industry in their biannual report. The legislation
we are marking requires EPA to transmit through this biannual
report a list of grants awarded, the entities participating in
each, consortiums receiving a grant, and a description of the
projects and the results of these projects.
I believe including additional requirements that would
improve EPA's ability to ensure that the projects they are
awarding taxpayers' dollars to actual provide tangible results
in the industry which is the further purpose of this bill.
Through this legislation, we are working to help the industry
develop tools and technologies to make the electronics industry
greener from cradle to grave, and I believe this amendment will
go toward that effort. And I urge passage and adoption of this
amendment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Randy Neugebauer
Thank you Mr. Chairman, my amendment would require the EPA to
include a description of the rate and success of the results of the
research projects adopted or integrated into the electronics industry
in their biennial report.
The legislation we're marking today up requires the EPA to transmit
through a biennial report a list of the grants awarded, the entities
participating in each consortium receiving a grant, a description of
the projects, and the results of these projects.
I believe including some additional information would improve the
EPA's ability to ensure that the projects they are awarding tax dollars
to actually provide tangible results in the industry that furthers the
purpose of the bill.
My amendment would further inspect these projects to learn not just
what the projects were and their costs, but in addition a description
of the rate and success of the adoption or integration of the research
results into the manufacturing processes, management practices, and
products of the electronics industry.
Through this legislation, we are working to help industry develop
tools and technologies to make the electronics industry greener from
cradle-to-grave; I believe this amendment would go towards that effort.
Chair Gordon. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chair?
Chair Gordon. Yes, sir, Mr. Hall?
Mr. Hall. This amendment would help Congress determine the
success of these grants by asking EPA to provide information
about the success of the research projects established under
the bill. This additional information will be required in the
report by EPA that will help EPA and Congress to track whether
the projects receiving grants are actually developing tools and
technologies that will result in less waste in the electronics
industry. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
The amendment would help Congress determine the success of these
grants by asking EPA to provide information about the success of the
research projects established under this bill. This additional
information that will be required in the report by EPA will help EPA
and Congress to track whether the projects receiving grants are
actually developing tools and technologies that will result in less
waste in the electronics industry.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Chair Gordon. Is there further discussion? If no, the vote
occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye, opposed no. The
ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Are there other amendments? If no, then the vote is on the
bill, H.R. 1580, as amended. All in favor say aye, those
opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
I now recognize myself for a motion. I move that the
Committee favorably report H.R. 1580 as amended to the House
with the recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I
move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative
report and make necessary technical and conforming changes and
that the Chair take all necessary steps to bring the bill
before the House for consideration.
The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably.
Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye,
opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably
reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
upon the table. Members will have two subsequent calendar days
in which to submit supplemental, Minority, or additional views
on the measure.
Let me just quickly say thank you to all those that have
participated today, and let me also say particularly for our
newer Members, although today went relatively smoothly, it
wasn't because these were inconsequential bills. Just to the
contrary. They are very important bills, there was a lot of
work put into it, a lot of consultation with the Minority, a
variety of hearings beforehand, and I think because of that it
does go smoothly.
I want to also remind you that if you have not co-sponsored
the bills, you will have two weeks to do so. I would suggest if
you want to, do it and go home and tell them it is your bill
because they are two good one.
Once again, I thank our Members for being here, and this
markup is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
H.R. 1580, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster
Section-by-Section Analysis of
H.R. 1580, Electronic Waste Research
and Development Act
Section 1. Short Title
Provides the short title of the legislation, the Electronic Waste
Research and Development Act.
Section 2. Findings
Outlines the current background information on electronic waste and
summarizes the challenges and concerns addressed by the legislation.
Section 3. Electronic Waste Engineering Research, Development, and
Demonstration Projects
Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a competitive,
merit-based process to be performed jointly with institutes of higher
education, non-profit research institutions, or government
laboratories, and at least one for-profit entity (i.e., manufacturers,
designers, refurbishers, or recyclers) to find ways to manage
electronic waste through reduction, reuse, and recycling, and make the
findings of the research available to the public. The section requires
a report to Congress within two years after enactment and every two
years thereafter of the grants awarded and a list of the projects and
their findings.
Section 4. National Academy of Sciences Report on Electronic Waste
Directs the Administrator to arrange a study by the National
Academy of Sciences to look at the barriers and opportunities available
to reduce electronic waste, reduce the use of hazardous materials in
electronic products, and enable product design for efficient reuse and
recycling.
Section 5. Engineering Curriculum Development Grants
Directs the Administrator to provide grants through a competitive,
merit-based process to institutions of higher education and community
colleges to develop curriculum and other training for relevant
engineering undergraduate students to introduce them to topics related
to electronic waste, recycling, and environmentally friendly design of
electronic products. Also directs the Administrator to offer grants to
institutions of higher education and community colleges to provide
continuing education of professionals in the electronics manufacturing,
design, refurbishing, or recycling industries to educate them about new
technologies, techniques, or best practices related to electronic
waste, recycling, and environmentally friendly design of electronic
products.
Section 6. Environmentally Friendly Alternative Materials Physical
Property Database
Directs the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology to establish a physical property database for green
alternative materials for use in electronic products.
Section 7. Definitions
Defines the terms Administrator as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency; a consortium; the term electronic
waste; an institution of higher learning; and the Director as the
Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.