[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.



